But since H. 8. time it had béen for the most part administred by the Dean and Chapter and the Verdict was here for the Dean and Chapter King versus Melling IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the case was this R. Melling seized in Fee having Issue four Sons William Robert Bernard and John devised the Land in question in this manner I give my Land to my Son Bernard for his natural Life and after his decease I give the same to the Issue of his Body lawfully begotten on a second Wife and for want of such Issue to John Melling and his Heirs for ever Provided that Bernard may make a Joynture of all the Premisses to such second Wife which she may enjoy during her Life R.M. dies Bernard in the life of his first Wife suffered a Recovery to the use of himself in Fee and after her decease Marries a second Wife and then by Indenture covenants to stand seized to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his Wife for her Life for her Joynture and dies J.M. Enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff And this Term after Arguments at the Bar the Court gave their Opinions Rainsford for the Plaintiff First I hold in this Case that B. M. takes but an Estate for Life with a Contingent Remainder to the Issue by his second Wife for the Devise is by express words for Life as in Archers Case 1 Co. a Devise to R. A. for Life and after to the next Heir Male of R. and the Heirs Males of that Heir Male Resolved to create but an Estate for Life to R. A. I rely mainly upon Wilds Case 6 Co. which was brought before all the Judges of England where the Devise was to a Man and his Wife and after their decease to the Children and resolved to be but an Estate for Life 't is true there were Children at the time of the Devise but in the end of the Case 't is said that in such Case if there were no Children the Children born after might take by remainder and the first Estate to be but for Life Clerk v. Day 1 Cro. 313. the Devise was to Rose his Daughter for Life and that if she married after his Death and had Heir of her Body then that the Heir after his Daughter's Death should have the Land and to the Heirs of their Body begotten and if his Daughter died without Issue then to a Stranger It was held by Gawdy and Fenner that Rose had but an Estate for Life in this Case 1 Rolls 837. Devise to his eldest Son for Life and after his decease to the Sons of his Body lawfully begotten the Son resolved to have but an Estate for Life The Second point Whether the power to make a Joynture be destroyed by the Common Recovery these powers to make Estates are of two sorts either Collateral as when Executors have power by a Will to sell Land and such a power cannot be destroyed as appears in Diggs's Case 1 Co. or powers appendant to Estates as to make Leases which shall continue after the Estates to which the power is annexed determins and the power in the Case at Bar to make a Joynture are of this second sort and are destroyed by the alteration of the Estate to which it is annexed in privity as 1 Co. Albany's Case is so that the Common Recovery being a Forfeiture of the Estate for Life by consequence 't is an extinguishment of the power Thirdly But admitting the power continues whether it be well executed and I hold that it is not for being seized in Fee at the time of the Covenant to stand seized to the use of his Wife for her Joynture and this without any reference to his power the use shall arise out of his Interest and not be executed by vertue of his power according to the resolution in Sir Ed. Cleeres Case 6 Co. Twisden of the same Opinion As to the first Point it must be agreed that these words Issue of the Body ex vi termini make not an Entail if they were in a Conveyance by Act executed no more than Children as the words were in Wilds Case 'T is true in a VVill a Devise of Land to a Man and his Issue creates an Entail if the Devisee had no Issue at that time for otherwise those words would be void for in regard they are limited to take presently the Issue born after cannot take as by Remainder there being none to take in praesenti they must be intended to be words of Limitation as a Devise to a Man and his Heirs Males makes an Entail or otherwise the word Males must be rejected then seeing the words in themselves are not proper to make an Entail the next thing to be considered is the intention which is to be known by the expressions in the VVill and not any averment dehors the words are J will give my Land to my Son for Life and after his decease I will give the same to the Issue c. so that the Land is given to him expresly for Life Devise of Land in perpetuum makes Fee but if Land be given by Deèd in perpetuum there an Estate only for Life will pass 15 H. 7. A Devise to one paying 10 l this is a Fee 6 Co. Coliers Case But a Devise to one for Life paying 10 l makes but an Estate for Life the Case of Furse and VVinter was Mich. or Trin. 13 Regis Caroli Rot. 1339. A Devise to his two Daughters equally to be divided between them and to the Survivor of them and to the Heirs of the Body of the Survivor This was so expresly to the Surviror that it was resolved to be a Joynt Estate and not in Common The words here are after the decease of Bernard I give the same to the Issue of the Body c. implying that the Issue should take by Purchase as a Gift and not by Descent Again The power given to Bernard to make a Joynture shews that he could not do it by Virtue of his Estate and therefore needed a power to be annexed And tho' such powers are usually affixed to Estates Tail yet when the construction is doubtful what Estate shall pass the giving such a power is an argument that 't is such an Estate that cannot make a Joynture or the like by any other means The words go further and for want of such Issue then to J.M. 'T is true if Land be devised to a Man and if he dies without Issue then to remain over the Devisee shall have an Entail Owen 29. But it shall not be so in this Case because that Clause is crowded in with other Clauses directly to the contrary I rely mainly upon VVilds Case 6 Co. and the Case quoted out of Bendlowes in the end of that Case A Devise to Baron and Feme and to the Men Children of their Bodies begotten because it did not appear that there were any more Children at
Indicted of Perjury in a voluntary and Extra judicial Oath and cited a late Case where one had stole away a mans Daughter and went before a Justice of the Peace and Swore that he had the Fathers Consent and this in order to get a Licence to marry her and he was Indicted and Convicted thereupon And all the Court said that it was not the course to quash Indictments of Perjury Nusance or the like but to put the party to plead to them Termino Paschae Anno 36 Car. II. In Banco Regis Duncomb versus Walter IN an Indebitat ' Assumpsit by an Assignee of Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupts upon Non assumpsit a Special Verdict was found upon which the Case appeared to be thus One Staly was Arrested by an Executor of his Creditor 6 Sept which was before Probat of the Will and within two or three days after he paid 1000 l to the Defendant to whom he stood Indebted in such Sum and after the 18th of September he yielded himself to Prison upon the said Arrest The Question was Whether the Defendant should be obliged to Refund this Money which was paid unto him as aforesaid First Whether the Arrest before the Probat was a good Arrest It was said If an Executor hath a Reversion in a Term upon which a Rent is reserved and Distrains c. he may avow for the Rent before the Probat Vid. 1 Roll. 917. tit Executors where an Executor brings an Action before Probat yet if he shews the Probat upon the Declaration 't is well enough Secondly Whether when he yields himself to Prison it shall not relate to the first Arrest to make him a Bankrupt from that time This depends upon the Statute of 21 Jac. cap. 19. where it is said that in the Cases of Arrest and lying in Prison he shall be adjudged a Bankrupt from the time of his first Arrest Object This Relation doth not prejudice Strangers Answ Dame Hales's Case Pl. Com. 293. If one giveth another a mortal Wound and then sells his Land and the person dies there shall be such Relation as to make the Land forfeit from the first Stroke Note This Case came by Writ of Error out of the Common Pleas where Judgment was given for Walter and the said Judgment was affirmed in this Court principally upon the point of Relation For the Court said that it would be a great mischief if it should relate to the first Arrest as to the payment of Money to Strangers Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 1 2 Jac. II. In Banco Regis Herring versus Brown Quod vid. ante Michaelmas 35 Car. 2. THe Case upon a Special Verdict was to this effect That J. S. being Seised in Fee had made a Conveyance of his Estate to the use of himself for Life with divers Remainders over to other persons with a power of Revocation by Writing under his Hand and Seal c. Afterwards the said J. S. having a purpose to Revoke the said Uses and make a new Settlement of his Estate he levied a Fine and after the Fine he made a Deed wherein he expressed that he Revoked the former Uses and so proceeded to a new Limitation by that Deed and declared that the Fine by him limited should be to the Vses of the said Deed. The sole Question was Whether the Fine had extinguished his Power and by consequence forfeited his Estate or Whether the Fine and Deed should be taken as one Conveyance and so be a good execution of his Power and new limitation of the Uses And after many solemn Arguments it was Resolved by the Chief Justice Herbert Holloway and Wright that the Fine was an extinguishment of his Power and that the Deed came too late contrary to the Opinion of Justice Withens Vido ante ADDENDA Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 26 Car. II. In Banco Regis Pibus versus Mitford Intratur Trin. 20 Car. 2. Rot. 703. IN an Ejectment the Jury find a Special Verdict to this effect viz. That Michael Mitford was seiz'd of the Lands in question and of divers other Lands in Fee and having Issue Robert by one Venter and Ralph by Jane his second Wife did 23 Jan. 21 Jac. by Indenture Covenant to stand seized of some of the Lands to the use of himself for Life Remainder to Trustees for years for several purposes Remainder to Jane his second Wife for Life Remainder to Ralph and the Heirs Male of his Body And as to the Lands in question he Covenants to stand seiz'd To the use of his Heirs Male begotten or to be begotten on the Body of his second Wife and died And then the Jury made this Special Conclusion If any Use did arise by the Deed to Ralph then they find for the Defendant and if not they find for the Plaintiff This Case was Argued several times at the Bar and now the Judges delivered their Opinions seriatim Wild Justice for the Defendant We are to give our Opinions upon a Deed of Uses made for the Provision of younger Children not otherwise provided for But if the Case were not so It is a safe way when the Words are ambiguous to follow the Intention of the party appearing in the Deed. I shall not maintain that Ralph is a Purchaser and so make this an Executory Use I agree a man cannot either by Conveyance at Common Law by Limitation of Uses or Devise make his right Heir a Purchaser I agree also Griswold's Case in Dyer 156. and if this Case had operated by Transmutation of Possession this Limitation to the Heirs of the Body of the Covenantor had been void and no Use should have risen But here in the Case of a Covenant to stand seiz'd nothing moves out of the Covenantor he retains the Land and directs the Use and keeps sufficient in him to maintain this Use There 's a great difference between a Conveyance at the Common Law and a Conveyance to Uses At the Common Law the Heir cannot take where the Ancestor could not but otherwise it is in case of Uses 2 Rolls 794. and so is Wood's Case 1 Co. 99. a. cited in Shelly's Case This I say to shew that the Intent of the Parties shall be the Guide and that there is a difference between Conveyances at the Common Law and Conveyances to Uses Horwood's Opinion in Hussey's Case 37 H. 8. comes to our Case There 's no great difference between a Covenant to stand seiz'd and a Feoffment to Uses I will not Argue to prove that this Deed shall enure as an Executory Use because 't is against a Rule in Law taken by my Lord Hobart and so Agreed before his time But here Ralph is Tenant in Tail Michael his Father being Tenant for Life Remainder to his Heirs Male begotten on the Body of Jane his second Wife For the Law to preserve this Limitation to the use of his Heirs Male c. will by Implication create an Estate for Life in Michael
of Jane the second Wife is void and it cannot be returning where the Use is not setled in any Person I agree my Lord Pagets Case because there the Estate was vested in William Paget and the other Use returned by operation of Law and the Estate setled could not be divested but here the Limitation to the Heirs Males being void the ancient Use remained yet in Michael for nothing was out of him he having limited a thing which cannot be And as to a returning Use tho' all be done in an instant yet there is a priority of time in the Eye of the Law for it ought to vest first in him in Remainder and then Return but here nothing vests in the Remainder Secondly It hath béen urged That it shall be made good by Implication of Law and so shall amount to a Covenant to stand seized to the Used of the Covenantor for Life c. and the rather as it has béen said by Wild because Uses are guided by Equity But I answer we are here in case of a Deed where an Estate shall not be raised by Implication as it shall by a Will Cro. Car. Seagood ad Hone 366. A Deed differs greatly from a Will for if a Man Surrenders Copyhold Land to two equally to be divided they are Joynt-tenants but such a Devise would have made them Tenants in Common Admit in some Case an Estate shall be raised by Implication in a Deed yet it shall not be so here for it would be to the disinheriting the Heir As to the case of 13 H. 7. I agree that a Devise to the Eldest Son after the Death of the Wife gives an Estate for Life to the Wife but otherwise it would be upon such a Devise to the Younger Son for there the Eldest Son and not the Wife should have the Estate in the mean time Cro. Jac. Horton and Horton 57. We are not herein Favorabili materiâ and therefore no construction shall be made which does not appear by the words It hath béen strongly urged that this being by way of Use which is a matter of Equity shall be favoured Admit it yet it shall be guided by the Common Law for aequitas sequitur legem There never shall be a Settlement by way of Use to make one capable who is not capable by the Common Law I do not see any difference between a Feoffment to Uses and a Covenant to stand seized for if a Feoffment be made to the use of one for Life the Use shall return which is not disposed of as well as upon a Covenant to stand seized Thirdly It has been urged if these severally cannot support this Limitation yet the intention operating with the Deed will both together make an Estate for Life in Michael But I do not see his intent here to have it for Life the intention even in a Will which is much stronger ought to be collected out of the words of the Will. Cro. Car. Spirt and Bence 368. agreed by the whole Court that words in a Will ought to have an apparent intent to disinherit an Heir and here there is not any apparent intent but rather to the contrary for of some Lands Michael Covenants to stand seised to the Use of himself for Life Remainder c. but of the Lands in question he makes a difference in the Limitation And the words of the Deed are to be considered He Covenants to stand seized to the Uses mentioned declared and limited in the Deed and if Michael shall have an Estate for Life he must have it by operation of Law There was a like case between Flavil and Ventroise in the Common Pleas in which the Court was divided but the same Point came afterwards in question in the Case of Mr. Tape of Norfolk and it was adjudged to be the ancient Use And no Case can be shewn that the Law will create an Estate in the Covenantor where the Use is not vested in any Person but the ancient Use remains in him As to the Cases cited on the other side I have answered my Lord Pagets's Case already And as to my Lord Cokes Case 1 Inst 22. b. I agree the Use returns and the Son is in by discent and so it was adjudged in Fenwick and Mitfords Case there cited But the Paraphrase he makes there I do not understand It is said there when the Limitation is made to his right Heirs and right Heirs he cannot have during his Life the Law doth create an Use in him during his Life Wherefore is this said to make the Heir in by discent No doubt without this he is in by discent and so was the Iudgment in that Case for what Reason then should there be an Estate for Life raised by the Law to be merg'd by the Fee as soon as raised And there 't is said Till the future use come in Esse I do not conceive then where it is so long as the Father lives and what he means by the Future Use I do not know for it always was in Esse and never was out of the Feoffor and this was so adjudg'd in that Case of Fenwick and Mitford and not the construction of my Lord Coke And t is strange that no other Reports should mention his construction Hale Chief Justice for the Defendant If Ralph takes either by Discent from Michael or by Purchase the one way or the other answers the Verdict and the Issue is for the Defendant I shall divide the Case into two Points 1. If he takes by Discent 2. Admitting he does not If he may take by Purchase as this Case is I shall Premise two or three things First It has been agreed if an Estate for Life be raised to Michael the Remainder being to his Heirs Male of the Body of Jane his second Wife the Estate Tail is executed in him be the Estate for Life raised by Implication or express Limitation Secondly It is plain quacunque via It be rais'd that the Estate was long'd in Michael till Ralph the Son be in a capacity to take it either by Discent or Purchase for be it part of the ancient Use or a new Use it ought to be in Michael during his Life for there is nothing to bring it out of him Thirdly In all Cases touching Uses there is a great difference between a Feoffment to Uses a Covenant to stand seized and a conveyance at the Common Law If a Man by Feoffment to uses conveys Land to the use of J.S. for Life he may remit the Use to himself and the Heirs Male of his Body by the same Deed and so alter that wich was before a Fee simple and turn it into another Estate but if A. gives Land to B. for Life Remainder to A. and the Heirs Male of his Body because a Man cannot give to himself the Remainder is void for a Man cannot convey to himself by a Conveyance at the Common Law These things being premised I conceive here is an
the Estate had fully declared his Intention There is a difference where a man has power to make Leases c. which shall charge and incumber a third persons Estate such Powers are to have a rigid Construction but where the Power is to dispose of a mans own Estate it is to have all the favour imaginable It was offered by the Counsel That where Tenant in Tail did bargain and sell his Estate that seeing he had power over it notwithstanding there were no Fine and Recovery a Court of Equity should Decree against the Heir But my Lord Chancellor said that he would not supersede Fines and Recoveries but where a man was only Tenant in Tail in Equity there this Court should Decree such disposition good for a Trust and Equitable Interest is a Creature of their own and therefore disposable by their Rule Otherwise where the Entail was of an Estate in the Land Nota In the Case supra that the Court would not Decree the Infants to be foreclosed till they come of Age tho' sometimes 't is so done because this Mortgage depended upon a disputable Title and so no Money could be expected upon Assignment of it over Termino Paschae Anno 33 Car. II. In Cancellaria Sir Thomas Littleton's Case IN this Case my Lord Chancellor Declared 1. That it was a constant Rule That the Money to be paid upon Mortgages in Fee whether forfeit or not before the death of the Mortgagee that it should go to the Executor 2. If a man had Lands in Fee and other Lands mortgaged to him in Fee by a Devise of all his Lands the Mortgage would pass 3. If a man had but the Trust of a Mortgage of Lands in D. and had other Lands in D. by a Devise of all his Lands in D. the Trust would pass But here a Will devised Lands to J. S. in D. S. and T. and all his Lands elsewhere when he had a Mortgage of Lands that did not lye in D. S. or T. which were of more value than the Lands in D. S. and T. The Decree was that the Mortgage should not pass for he could not be thought to mean to comprehend Lands of so much value under the word elsewhere which is like an c. that comes in currente calamo and besides that there were some other Circumstances in the Will that did seem as if he intended not to pass the Mortgage Lands Anonymus A Bill was Exhibited setting forth That the Defendant in a Replevin had avowed for a Rent-charge and Issue was taken thereupon upon the Seisin of the Grantor and it was found for the Defendant Which Verdict the Plaintiff complained of alledging that the Rent pretended to be granted had not been paid in 50 years and other Circumstances to render the Grant suspicious c. The Lord Chancellor Decreed That there should be a New Trial the Complainant paying the Costs of the former Note This could not have been tryed again at Law because the Verdict in Replevin is conclusive Cage versus Russel A Feme Covert having Power by her Will to Devise certain Lands devised them to her Executors to pay 500 l out of them to her Son when he should attain the Age of One and twenty years provided that if the Father of the Son did not give a sufficient Release to the Executors of the Goods and Chattels remaining in such an House then the Devise of the 500 l should be void and to go to the Executors After her Decease a Release was tendred to the Father who refused it and then the Son exhibits a Bill against the Father and the Executors for the 500 l and to compell the Father to Release The Executors in their Answer insisted upon the Refusal as a Forfeiture of the 500 l And the Father said That tho' he had for some Reasons before refused he was now ready to Release The Lord Chancellor Decreed the Payment of the 500 l and said that it was the standing Rule of the Court That a Forfeiture should not bind where a thing may be done afterwards or any Compensation made for it As where the Condition was to pay Money or the like But in the Case of Fry and Porter in the 22th of Car. 2 which see at large in the Modern Reports where a Devise was of an House upon Condition that the Devisee should Marry with the Consent of three persons and she married without Consent it was an immediate Forfeiture for Marriage without Consent was a thing of that nature that no after Satisfaction could be made for it But if where there is a Devise over to a third Person after a Forfeiture by the first a Forfeiture in such a Case would be generally binding but here 't is said that it shall go the Executors c. which was not to be considered because it is no more than what the Law implied Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 33 Car. II. In Cancellaria Anonymus ONe Deviseth 250 l to his Son and makes his Wife Executrix who marries another Husband In a Bill brought against them for the Legacy by the Son the Defendants would have discounted Maintenance and Education Which was not permitted by the Court so as to a diminish the principal Sum for it was said that the Mother ought to maintain the Child But a Sum of Money paid for the binding of him out an Apprentice was allowed to be discounted Note It is the Course here that where a man dies in Debt and under several Incumbrances viz. Judgments Statutes Mortgages c. and the Heir at Law buys in any of them that are of the first Date if those which have the latter Securities prefer their Bill the Incumbrances brought in shall not stand in their way for more than the Heir really paid for them Goylmer versus Paddiston THe Case was thus Thomas Goylmer in 1653. being seised of certain Lands in Fee of the value of 14 l per annum and there being a Marriage in Treaty between the Plaintiff the Brother of Thomas and Anne Wells the said Thomas did make a Writing sealed and delivered by him which was to this purpose Viz. That if the Marriage takes effect between my Brother and Ann Wells she being worth Eightscore Pounds I do promise that if I dye without Issue to give my Lands in c. to my Brother and his Heirs or to leave him 80 l in Money And for the true performance of this I bind my self my Heirs Executors and Administrators After which the Brother the now Plaintiff and the said Anne Wells did intermarry and she was worth Eightsocore pounds But Thomas Goylmer did afterwards marry and having no Issue he did settle the Lands upon his Wife for Life the Remainder to his own right Heirs this way a Joynture setled before Marriage and did afterwards devise the Land to her in Fee and died without Issue His Wife afterwards devised it to the Defendant's Wife in Fee and now the Plaintiff exhibited
his Bill to have the Land Conveyed according to the Agreement above But for the Defendants it was much insisted upon that this being to settle the Lands in case Thomas should dye without Issue it should not be regarded in this Court for the Execution of a Trust of a Remainder or Reversion in Fee upon an Estate Tail shall not be compelled because it is subject to be destroyed by the Tenant in Tail as here Thomas might have done in case he had made a Settlement according to the import of that Writing who therefore could not have been compelled himself to have executed this Agreement But the Lord Chancellor Fynch Decreed the Land for the Plaintiff because it was proved that the Marriage with the Plaintiffs Wife was in expectation of the performance of this Agreement and he was obliged to have left the Land to the Plaintiff if he had had no Issue Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 34 Car. II. In Cancellaria Collet versus Collet WIlliam Fox having three Daughters Mary Elizabeth and Martha the two latter being Married and the first a Widow by his Will devised in these Words Viz. I give unto Martha my Daughter the Sum of 400 l to be paid unto her by my Executors within one year next after my decease But I will and my desire is that Cornelius Collet the Husband of Martha upon the payment of the said 400 l shall give such Security as my Executors shall approve of that the said 400 l shall be laid out within 18 Months next after my decease and purchase an Estate of that value to be setled and assured upon her the said Martha and the Heirs of her Body lawfully begotten And in the Close of his Will were these words following Viz. I Will That after my Debts which I shall owe at the time of my Decease and my Funeral Expences and the Probat of this my Will be discharged then I do give all the rest of my Personal Estate Unbequeathed to purchase an Estate near of as good value as the same Personal Estate shall amount unto within one year next after my my decease Which said Estate so to be purchased I Will shall be setled and assured unto and upon my said three Daughters Mary Elizabeth and Martha and the Heirs of their respective Bodies lawfully begotten for ever or otherwise my said Daughter Mary and the Husbands of my said two other Daughters Elizabeth and Martha shall for such Moneys as they shall receive of my said Executors for the Overplus of my Personal Estate enter into one or more Bonds in the double Sum of Money as each part shall amount unto the same being to be divided into three parts unto my said Executors within 18 Months next after my decease to settle and assure such part or Sum of Money as each of them shall receive and have by this my Will for the Overplus of my Personal Estate unto and upon the Child and Children of my said Daughters Mary Elizabeth and Martha part and part alike Martha the Wife of Cornelius Collet died within six Months after the Testator leaving Issue only a Daughter who died within four Months after the Mother the other two Sisters surviving Cornelius Collet took out Letters of Administration both to Martha his Wife and likewise to his Daughter the Four hundred Pounds and likewise the Overplus of the Personal Estate being unpaid or disposed of Cornelius Collet preferred his Bill against the Executors and the surviving Sisters and thereby demanded the 400 l and likewise a third part of the Overplus which amounted unto 700 l And the Cause came to be heard before the Lord Chancellor upon Bill and Answer who Decreed the 400 l to the Plaintiff but as to the Surplus of the Estate the Bill was dismissed altho ' it was much insisted upon for the Plaintiff that he might have given Bond to secure the Surplus for his Child and so from the Child it would have come to him as Administrator But seeing that no Interest could vest in the Child till the Election were determined it not being material as to this Point whether the Executors or the Husband aâ— the Election the Father could not claim it as Administrator to the Child And then if the Money had been laid out in Land and the Settlement according to the direction of the Will the Husband would have had no benefit for there would have been a Ioynt Estate for Life in the Daughters with several Inheritances and no severance of the Ioynture by the Marriage and having Issue Co. Inst and so no Tenant by the Courtesie Therefore as to the Surplusage the Bill was Decreed to be dismissed Note As to the 400 l the Order of my Lord Chancellor was That Interest should be paid for it from the time of bringing the Bill Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 34 Car. II. In Cancellaria West versus The Lord Delaware WEST Heir apparent of the Lord Delaware Exhibited his Bill against the said Lord setting forth That upon a Marriage agreed to be had between him and the Daughter of one Mr. Huddleston with whom he was to have 10000 l Portion The Lord his Father Articled to settle Lands of such yearly value for the Wives Ioynture for their maintenance and the Heirs of their Bodies c. That the Wife being now dead and without Issue and no Settlement made the Bill prayed an Execution of the Articles and a discovery of what Incumbrances there were upon the Lands to be setled To this the Lord Delaware Answered That he never intended to settle Lands but for the Wives Ioynture only and that the Plaintiff her Husband was not named in the Articles and so was Advised He need make no Settlement and upon that Reason the Plaintiff could not require him to discover Incumbrances An Exception being taken to the Answer for that it did not discover any thing touching Incumbrances it was Argued before my Lord and for the Defendant it was alledged That by the Course of the Court the time of the Discovery should be when the other Point was determined for if that be for the Defendant then no Discovery can be required but if otherwise that then the Defendant shall be put to answer Interrogatories as is usual in Cases of like nature And it cannot be Objected That the Estate may be charged with Incumbrances since the Bill because they will be of no avail On the other side it was said That this would create great delay for upon the discovery of Incumbrances other parties must be made to the Bill and therefore this Case differed from the Case of Account which concerns the Defendant himself only but the Question now is only for the making proper Parties The Court Ordered That a further Answer should be made Nota If a man deviseth that such a Sum of Money shall be paid out of the Profits of his Lands and the Profits will not amount to the Sum in such case the Land
be good Now this being the way of Operation there is no reason why he may not Devise it to one after the death of two as well as after the death of one This would be so in Grants were it not that a certainty is required in them 1 Cro. 155. which is not required in Devises Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 22 Car. II. In Banco Regis Freeman versus Barnes EError to Reverse a Judgment in an Ejectione firmae in the Common Pleas the Case upon a Special Verdict was thus The Marquess of Winchester being seised in Fee of the Lands in Question the 8 of July 9 Jac. Lets them to Sir An. Maynee for 100 years in Trust for the Marquess and his Heirs and to wait upon the Inheritance The Lessee enters afterwards the Marquess enters and Lets it to the Lord Darcy for 7 years and then Le ts to the Spanish Embassador for 7 years which Leases being expired Sir A.M. Demises to Freeman for a Term yet unexpired this Demise is not found to be upon the Land Afterwards the Lord Marquess Demises to Germin for 54 years upon Consideration of Money and Reserves a Rent and Covenants to Levy a Fine for the assurance of the Term which was afterwards done with Proclamation Germin enters and five years passed without any Claim made which Lease by mean Assignment came to Wicherly the Lessor of the Defendant who was Plaintiff in the Common Pleas and there had Iudgment The only Question upon this Special Verdict was Whether the Fine and Non Claim should barr the interest of Sir A. M. the Lessee in Trust This Case having béen argued thrée several times at the Bar The Court did this Term deliver their Opinons and did all agrée that the Iudgment ought to be affirmed It was considered quid operatur by the entry of the Marquess and they all except Moreton held that Prima facie he was Tenant at Will as Littleton Sect. 463. is where the Feoffor enters upon the Feoffée to his use but that the Entry of Germin his Lessée did ouft Freeman the Assignee of Sir A.M. which Assignment though not found to be upon the Land 2 Cro. 660. was good as the Chief Justice held because the two former Leases made by the Marquess were expired so he became Tenant at Will again but them he making of another Lease and the Lessee entring this must work an ouster and so the Fine would bar the Right For they agreed that a Fine regularly shall not work upon an Interest which is not divested though in some Cases it doth as upon the Interest of a Term according to Safins Case 5 Co. which yet cannot be divested but though the first Entry make but a Tenancy at Will yet taking upon him to make Leases that is enough to declare his intent to dispossess his Lessee in Trust Besides he reserves a Rent and Covenants for quiet Enjoyment and to make further assurance which could not stand with the Interest of the Lessee in Trust And for the Cases that were objected as Blunden and Baughs 1 Cro. 220. Where it is adjudged That the Entry of the Lessée for years of Tenant at Will should be no disseisin nolens volens to him that had the Freehold for there was no intention of the Parties to make it so and here the Law shall rather give the Election to him which had the Inheritance to make it a devësting than the Lessee or rather as the Chief Justice said the Law construes such Acts to amount to a divesting or not divesting as is most agreeable to the intention of the Parties and the right of the thing which distinguishes it also from the Case of Powsley and Blackman cited in Blunden and Baughs Case where the Mortgageor held at the Will of the Motrgageē and let for years the Lessee entred and held notwithstanding that the Mortgagee might Devest So Sir Tho. Fishes Case in Latches Rep. Where Tenant for years Le ts at Will and the Lessée makes a Lease for years and then the remainder is granted over This Grant is held to be good which whether by the remainder there be understood the interest of the Lessee or the Fee-simple yet it is no more than my Lord Nottinghams Case and not like the Case in Question For there the Lessee held the interest in his own Right and here but in Trust and for the Case in Noyes Reports 23. Twisden said he wholly rejected that Authority for it was but an Abridgment of Cases by Serjeant Size who when he was a Student borrowed Noyes Reports and abridged them for his own use The Case was this Tenant in Fée makes a Lease for years then Levies a Fine before Entry of the Lessee It is held there though five years pass the Lessée is not barred which is directly against the Resolution of Saffins Case and for Authority in this Case they relied upon the Case of Isham and Morris in 1 Cro. 781. Where upon Evidence it was resolved by the Justices That if the cesty quo Trust of a Lease for years Purchaseth the Inheritance and Occupies the Land and Levies a Fine that this after five years shall bar the Term which is not so strong as this Case because there were no Leases made and Entry thereupon and the Trust must pass inclusively by the Fine as is resolved in divers Books especially in this Case where it is to wait upon the Inheritance which though it arises but out of a Term yet it shall follow the Land and go to the Heir And for the inconveniences which were objected That if any Man purchased Land by Fine that he could not keep on Foot Mortgages and Leases which it is often convenient to do The Chief Justice declared his Opinion That in that Case the Fine should not bar there not being any intention of the Parties to that purpose And as to the other that where the Mortgageor continuing in Possession Levies a Fine this should bar the Mortgagee he denied that also and grounded himself upon Fermours Case in 3 Cro. And Twisden agreed Dighton's Case HE brought a Mandamus to be restored to his place of Town Clerk of Stratford super Avon The Corporation returned Letters Patents whereby they were empowered to chuse one into the Office of Town Clerk Durante bene placito and that they removed him from his Office Jones prayed that he might be restored notwithstanding because no Cause of his removal was returned nor that they had ever Summoned him whereas if they had he might peradventure have shewed such Reasons as would have moved them to have continued him and he cited Warrens Case 2 Cro. 540. who was restored to his Aldermanship where the Return was as here But the Court held that they could not in this Case although they confessed they knew the Merits of the Person help him And the Chief Justice said The Case of the Alderman differed for he is a part of the Corporation which
Car. nunc cap. 3. in pursuance of which he distrained the said Nails for the Duty due by those Acts out of a Smiths Forge c. The Plaintiff demurred So the sole question was whether a Smiths Forge were within the Acts it being once argued the last Term the Court now gave their Opinion Moreton I think a Smiths Forge ought to pay 't is a great part of the Kings Revenue almost in every Village there is one we should explain the Act liberally for the King Rainsford of the same Opinion 't is within the words scilicet an Hearth whereon Fire is used and within the meaning for there is an exception of things not so properly Fire hearths as this viz. Private Ovens Where the Act excepts Blowing Houses I take it is meant Glass houses and the Houses at Ironworks by Stamps I think is meant Presses Calenders for Cloaths by the very words Houses that are not Dwelling Houses are charged The objection that it is his Trade is answered by the instance of Cooks Chandlers Common Ovens Hearths of Tripewomen who boil Neats Feet Twisden of the same Opinion the words are general yet I would not extend it to every Hearth that has a Fire upon it as Stils and Alembicks for so we might extend it to a Chaffing dish of Coals but we must take it for a Rule to extend it to those things which are most general A Smiths Forge is of such use that 't is found almost in every Village therefore 't was reckoned a great piece of hardship and slavery upon the Children of Israel that they were not permitted a thing so useful amongst them The exceptions enumerate particulars therefore it excludes whatever is not expressed Hale I would fain know how the fact is Do Silver Smiths c. pay It were too narrow to extend it only to Common Chimneys and too great a latitude to extend it to every place where Fire is where a Man can but warm his Hands I suppose Boylers in Cooks Chimneys and the Fireplaces of Worstead Combers do not pay Common Ovens should have paid tho' there were no exception of Private Ovens for they never are or can be without a Chimney This is matter of fact I have not enquired into and I would be loath to deliver an Opinion without much inquiry but 't is very probable that they are Firehearths and not excepted but it appears plainly upon the Record that 't is a Firehearth and by the general Demurrer 't is admitted Note There was a Special Rule that no advantage should be taken of the Pleading by either side But Hale said he did not know how they were bound by that Rule Termino Paschae Anno 24 Car. II. In Banco Regis Monk versus Morris and Clayton THe Plaintiff after he had obtained Iudgment in Debt became Bankrupt and the Defendants brought a Writ of Error The Judgment was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber and the Record sent back Then a Commission of Bankrupts is sued out and the Commissioners Assign this Judgment The Plaintiff Sues out Execution and the Money is levied by the Sheriff and brought into Court The Assignee moves that it may not be delivered to the Plaintiff surmising that the Judgment was assigned to him ut Ante. The Court said they might have brought a Special Sicre facias which they having delayed and that it would be hard to stay the Money in Court upon a bare surmise and for ought appeared it was the Plaintiff's due But however because it might be hazardous to deliver it to him they consented to detain it so that the Assignee forthwith took out a Scire facias against the Defendant in order to try the Bankrupcy or otherwise that it should be delivered to the Plaintiff Sir Ralph Bovyes Case IN an Ejectment upon a Tryal at Bar the Case appeared to be this Sir William Drake was seized in Fee of the Lands in question and 19 Car. 1. infeoffed Sir William Spring and five others to such uses as he should declare by his Will in Writing or by his Deed subscribed by three Witnesses In August 20 Car. 1. by his Deed ut supra he limits the use of the said Lands to his Brother Francis Drake for 90 years and declares That the Feoffees should be seized to their own use in Trust for the said Francis Drake and his Heirs with a power to Francis Drake to alter and limit the Trust as he should think fit In the same Month there is a Treaty of Marriage between F.D. and the Daughter of Sir William Spring and it was agreed by certain Articles between F.D. and Sir W. S. c. reciting that he should receive 2500 l with his intended Wife which Money was proved to be paid that F. D. should convey the Lands in question to himself and his Wife and the Heirs Males of their two Bodies c. for the Joynture of the Wife The Marriage afterwards in 20 Car. takes effect and soon after the same year F.D. by Indenture between him Sir W.S. and another reciting the Articles of Marriage Assigns his Term of 90 years to Sir W. S. and the other in Trust to himself for Life the remainder to his Wife for Life and after to the Heirs Males of their two Bodies and by the same Deed limits the Trust of the Inheritance of the Lands in the same manner Afterwards in 23 Car. 1. he in consideration of 6000 l proved to be paid Grants out of the said Lands a Rent of 400 l per annum to Sir Ralph Bovy and his Heirs with power to enter into the Land in case the Rent was not paid and to retain it until satisfaction Afterwards F. D. and his Wife dye the Rent was Arrear Sir R. Bovy enters Sir Will. Spring and the other Trustees Assign the term of 90 years to Sir Will. Drake Heir Male of F.D. and his Wife the Lessor of the Plaintiff In this case these Points were agreed by the Court. First That when Sir W. D. enfeoffed divers to such Uses as he should declare by his Will or Writing that if he had in pursuance of that Feoffment limited the Uses by his Will that the Will had been but Declaratory tho' if he had made a Feoffment to the Use of his Will it had been otherwise according to Sir Ed. Cleeres Case 6 Co. And Hale said my Lord Co. made a Feoffment provided that he might dispose by his Will to the use of the Feoffee and his Heirs and resolved in that case he might declare the Use by his Will which should arise out of the Feoffment Secondly That this Settlement being in pursuance of Articles made precedent to the Marriage had not the least colour of fraud whereby a Purchaser might avoid it and if there had been but a Verbal Agreement for such a Settlement it would have served the turn And the Court said if there had been no precedent Agreement so that it had been a voluntary Conveyance tho' every such
word Children My second Reason is from the manner of the Limitation which is to his Issue and of his Body lawfully begotten upon the second Wife Phrases agreeable to an Estate Tail and the meaning of a Testator is to be spelled out by little Hints It is admitted in Wild's Case in the 6 Co. 17. that if the Devise had been to the Children of their Bodies it would have been an Entail Thirdly It appears by the Devise that the Testator knew there could be no Children at that time and shall not be supposed to intend a contingent Remainder Fourthly It appears that the Testator did not intend to prefer the Children of the first Wife of Bernard but did the Children of the second and therefore cannot be thought to mean that John the younger Brother of Bernard should take before failure of the Issue which Bernard should have by his second Wife And to this purpose is Spalding's Case 3 Cro. 185. A Devise to his eldest Son and the Heirs of his Body after the death of his Wife and if he died living the Wife then to his Son N. And devised other Lands to another Son and the Heirs of his Body and if he died without Issue then to remain c. The first Son died living the Wife It was strongly urged that his Estate should cease for being said If he died living the Wife this was a Corrective of what went before But 't was Ruled by all the Court that it was an absolute Estate Tail in the first Son as if the words had been If he died without Issue living the Wife for he could not be thought to intend to prefer a younger Son before the Issue of his eldest Fifthly The words are further and for want of such Issue then to John which words in a Will do often make an Estate Tail by Implication As 4 Jac. Robinson's Case A Devise to A. for Life and if he died without Issue then to remain A. took an Entail So Burley's Case 43 Eliz. A Devise to A. for Life Remainder to the next Heir Male and for default of such Heir Male then to remain Adjudged an Estate Tail 'T is true Dyer 171. is where Lands were Devised to a man and the Heirs Males of his Body and if he died without Issue c. these last words did not make a Tail General to the Devisee For an Implication of an Estate of Inheritance shall never ride over an express limitation of an Inheritance before being 't is said here for want of such Issue the Land should remain 't is plainly meant that it should not before the Issue failed and then the Issue must have it so long for none else can and so 't is an Estate Tail I come now to Authorities 6 Eliz. Anderson num 86. Moor pl. 397. A Devise to his Son for Life and after his decease to the Men Children of his Body said to be an Estate Tail and so cited by Coke in that Book and so contrary to his Report of it in Wild's Case Bendloes num 124. But that Case is not so strong as this for Children is not so operative a word as Issue Rolls 839. A Devise to his eldest Son for Life non aliter for so were the words tho' not printed in the Book and after his decease to the Sons of his Body it was but an Estate for Life by reason of the words Non aliter Hill 13 Car. 2. Rot. 121. Wedgward's Case A Devise to his Son Thomas for Life and after his decease if he died without Issue living at his death then to the Daughter c. it was held to be an Estate for Life But were it an Estate Tail or no it was not necessary to be Resolved the Case depending upon the destruction or continuance of a Contingent Remainder which would have been gone had the Devise made an Estate Tail again there being an express Devise for Life they would not raise a larger Estate by Implication Again Wild's Case where Lands were Devised to A. for Life Remainder to B. and the Heirs of his Body Remainder to Wild and his Wife and after their decease to their Children And the Court of Kings-Bench were at first divided Indeed it was afterwards adjudged an Estate for Life to Wild and his Wife First Because having limited a Remainder in Tail to B. by express and the usual words if he had meant the same Estate in the second Remainder 't is like he would have used the same words Secondly It was not after their decease to the Children of their Bodies for then there would be an Eye of an Estate Tail Thirdly The main Reason was because there were Children at the time of the Devise and that was the only Reason the Resolution went upon in the Exchequer Chamber And tho' it be said in the latter end of the Case That if there were no Children at that time every Child born after might take by Remainder 't is not said positively that they should take And it seems to be in opposition to their taking presently but however that be it comes not to this Case For tho' the word Children may be made nomen collectivum the word Issue is nomen collectivum of it self Hill 42. and 43 Eliz. Bifield's Case A Devise to A. and if he dies not having a Son then to remain to the Heirs of the Testator Son was there taken to be used as nomen collectivum and held an Entail I come now to answer Objections First 'T is objected that in this Case the Limitation is expresly for Life and in that respect stronger than Wild's Case And this is the great difficulty But I Answer That tho' these words do weigh the Intention that way yet they are ballanced by an apparent Intention that weighs as much on the other side which is That as long as Bernard should have Children that the Land should never go over to John for there was as much reason to provide for the Issue of the Issue as the first Issue Again A Tenant in Tail has to many purposes but an Estate for Life Again 'T is possible that he did intend him but an Estate for Life and 't is by consequence and operation of Law only that it becomes an Estate Tail 1651. Hansy and Lowther The Case was A Copyholder surrendred to the use of his Will and Devised to his first Son for Life and after his decease to the Heir Male of his Body c. This was Ruled to be an Estate Tail and this differs from Archer's Case in the 1st of Co. for that the Devise there was for Life and after to the Heir Male and the Heirs of the Body of that Heir Male There the words of Limitation being grafted upon the word Heir it shews that the word Heir was used as Designatio personae and not for Limitation of the Estate So is the Case of Clerk and Day 1 Cro. 313. Another Objection was That there being a Power appointed
excused yet 't is merely void as to the Party Et Ad jornatur Norton versus Harvey THe Case was an Executor being possessed of a Term let part of it reserving a Rent and died And the Question was whether his Executor should have the Rent or the Administrator de bonis non It was argued for the Executor that this Rent is meerly due by the Contract and not incident to the Reversion and the Administrator is in Paramount it being now as if the Testator had died Intestate and therefore before the Statute of this King such Administrators could not have had a Scire facias upon a Judgment obtained by the Executor tho' in the Case of Cleve and Vere 3 Cro. 450 457. 't is held that he may have a Liberate where the Executor had proceeded in the Execution of a Statute so far as an Extent for there the thing is executed and not meerly Executory as a Judgment If a Man that hath a Term in the right of his Wife le ts part of it reserving a Rent the Wife surviving shall not not have the Rent On the other side it was said that this case differed from that because the Reservation here is by him that had the whole Right executed in him Another objection against the Action was that here in the Declaration being in Covenant for Non payment of Rent there is not any demand alledged But that was answered because the Covenant was to pay such a Sum for the Rent expresly but if the Condition of a Bond be for performance of Covenants expressed in such a Lease one of which is for payment of Rent in that case the Bond will not be forfeit without a demand and of that Opinion were the Court and that the Executor should have the Rent but when recovered Hale said it should be Assets in his Hands And accordingly Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 26 Car. II. In Banco Regis Silly versus Silly DOwer of 300 Acres of Land 200 Acres of Pasture 100 Acres Meadow The Tenant pleaded Non Tenure The Jury found him Tenant as to 320 Acres of Land and as to the rest that he was not Tenant And the Iudgment was that the Demandant should recover the 320 Acres Error was assigned in this Court that the Verdict and Judgment were for more Acres of Land than were demanded But on the other side it was said Land was a general word and might include Meadow and Pasture Curia In a Grant Land will extend to Meadow Pasture c. but in Pleading it signifies Arable only and here in regard they are distinguished in the Count the Verdict and Judgment must be reversed for the whole Tho' Hale said antiently such Iudgment would have been reversed but for the surplusage Vid Post Batmore Vxor versus Graves TRover for a 100 Loads of Wood upon a Special Verdict the Case was this Copyhold Land was surrendred to the use of J. S. for years Remainder to the Brother of the Plaintiff's Wife who died before the Term expired and so was not admitted any otherwise than by the admission of the Tenant for years And it was resolved First That the admittance of him that had the Estate for years was an admittance for him in the Remainder 4 Co. 23. a. 3 Cro. 504. Fine sur Grant and render to A. for Life Remainder to B. Execution sued by A. serves for B. So an Attornment to Tenant for Life serves for him in Remainder and this brings no prejuduce to the Lord for a Fine is not due until after admittance and the Lord may Assess one Fine for the particular Estate and another Fine for the Remainder But Wild said he need not pay it until his Estate comes in Possession after a Surrender the Estate remains in the Surrender before admittance of the Cestuy que use yet where Borough English Land was Surrendred to the use of J. S. and his Heirs and he died before admittance It was held that the younger Son should have it Secondly It was resolved that the Possession of the Tenant for years was so the Possession of him in Remainder as to make a Possessio Fratris But then it was moved that the Conversion was laid after the Marriage and so the Feme ought not to have joyned with her Husband in the Action But the Court held that in regard the Trover was laid to be before the Marriage which was the inception of the cause of Action the Wife might be joyned as if one has the Custody of a Womans Goods and afterward Marries her she may joyn in Detinue with her Husband for in case of Bailment the Proprietor is to some purposes in Possession and to some out of Possession Hale said in this case the Husband might bring the Action alone or joyntly with his Wife And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Anonymus IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was to save the Obligee harmless from another Bond. The Defendant pleaded Non damnificatus The Plaintiff replies that the Money was not paid at the day and he devenit onerabilis and could not attend his business for fear of an Arrest The Defendant rejoyns that he tendred the Money at the day absque hoc that the Plaintiff devenit onerabilis to which it was Demurred and the Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Money not being paid at the day the Counter Bond is forfeited Vid. 1 Cro. 672. 5 Co. and the Traverse in this case is naught The Mayor and Commonalty of London versus Dupester IN Debt for a Duty accruing to the City for Timber imported called Scavage The Declaration was that they were and had been a Corporation time out of mind and their Customs were confirmed by Act of Parliament Temps R. 2. c. The Defendant tendred his Law and Co. Entries 118. was cited where in Debt for an Amerciament in a Court Baron tho' the imposing of it was grounded upon a Prescription yet Wager of Law was admitted But notwithstanding in this case the Court overruled the Wager of Law for here the Duty it self is by Prescription and that confirmed by Act of Parlimant Debt for a Duty growing by a By-Law if the By-Law be Authorised by Letters Patents no Wager of Law lies So in Debt for Toll granted by Letters Patents 20 H. 7. Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 26 Car. II. In Banco Regis Silly versus Silly THe Case was moved again And the Court said that the Demandant might have taken Judgment for the 300 Acres only habito nullo respectu to the rest and released all the Damages But this was not proper for an Amendment the Mistake being in the Verdict but if it could have been amended in the Common Bench the Court might here have made such Amendment Ante. Burfoot versus Peal A Scire facias was brought against the Bail who pleaded that the Principal paid the Debt ante diem impetrationis Brevis
Trover inter al' de uno Instrumento ferreo Anglicè an Iron Range After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that Instrumentum ferreum was too uncertain and that a Range was the same with a Grate for which Crates was a proper Latin word Sed non allocatur For Crates is such a Grate as is before a Prison But a Fire Range was not in use in the Romans time and therefore Instrumentum ferreum is well enough with the Anglicè Twisden said Trover de septem libris has been held good without saying what they were Blackman's Case IT was assigned for Error that the Venire was to Summon probos legales homines instead of liberos and so a material Variance and alledged that many Judgments had been Reversed for it But the Court here being informed that the Presidents were generally probos instead of liberos would not allow the Exception The King versus Armstrong Harrison al' c. THey and others were Indicted for Conspiring to Charge one with the Keeping of a Bastard Child and thereby also to bring him to Disgrace After Verdict for the King it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the bare Conspiring without Executing of it by some Overt act was not subject to Indictment according to the Poulterers Case in the 9 Co. And it doth not appear that he was actually Charged with the Keeping of a Child nay 't is alledged 't was but a pretended Child neither was he by Warrant brought before a Justice of Peace upon such an account but only that they went and affirmed it to the party himself intending to obtain Money from him that it might be no further disclosed Sed non allocatur For there was as much Overt act as the nature and design of this Conspiracy did admit in regard there was no Child really but only a Contrivance to Defame the Person and Cheat him of his Money which was a Crime of a very heinous nature Then it was alledged That this was tryed at the Old-Baily commonly called Justice-Hall in London and the Jury came de Warda de Faringdon extra London which appeared to be out of the Iurisdiction Sed non allocatur For the Name of the Ward is Faringdon extra to distinguish it from Faringdon infra but both are known to be in London Whereupon Judgment was Entred up against them and Armstrong which appeared to be the principal Offender was Fined 50 l and the other 30 l Burrough's Case HE and others were Indicted for that they being Church-wardens Overseers of the Poor and a Constable did contemptuously and voluntarily neglect to Execute diversa Praecepta Watranta directed to them by the Bayliffs of Ipswich being Justices of the Peace under their Hands and Seals c. It was moved to quash it for that the nature and tenour of the Warrants were not expressed in the Indictment For unless the parties know particularly what they are charged with they cannot tell how to make their Defence And for that Reason it was quashed by the Court. Note The Court never gives Costs for not Executing of a Writ of Enquiry of Damages tho' Notice be given Anonymus AN Indictment of Forcible Entry into certain Lands in the possession of J.S. was quashed for not shewing what Estate J.S. had and tho' the word Disseisivit were in the Court held that tho' that might be taken to imply a Freehold yet it was not sufficient Vid. Mo. 481. And another was quashed because it was said possessed pro termino But the Court held that if it had been pro termino annorum tho' not said for how many years it had been well Note A Bayliff caught one by the Hand whom he had a Warrant to Arrest as he held it out of a Window And the Court said that this was such a Taking of him that the Bayliff might justifie the breaking open of the House to Carry him away Kent versus Harpool AN Ejectment The Case came hither by a Writ of Error out of the Kings-Bench in Ireland and divers Points were in it which concerned the Act for Settlement of Lands in Ireland But the Case was as to the great Point at Common Law to this effect Father Tenant for Life Remainder to the Son for Life Remainder to first Son of that Son who was not born Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of the Father the Father died before the first Son was born and Whether the Descent of the Entail to the Son did prevent the Contingent Remainder was the Question It was Argued that it did not because the Inheritance came to the Son by Act in Law And the Opinion in Cordal's Case in the 1 Cro. 315. was cited the great Reason in Chudley's Case and other Cases wherein Contingent Remainders have been held to be destroyed was for the preventing of Perpetuities which would have been let in if Contingent Remainders had been preserved whatever Act had been done by those which had the Actual Estate But there is no such necessity of making the life Construction upon Acts in Law If Lessee for years makes the Lessor Executor the Term is not drowned But if the Executor that hath a Lease purchases the Inheritance the Term is gone because it is his own act but in the other Case the Law shall not work that which must be construed a Devastavit In Lewis Bowles's Case in the 11 Co. and Co. Litt. where there is an Estate for Life Remainder to the first Son Remainder in Fee to the Tenant for Life the Estates at first close and open again upon the Birth of the first Son which should take the Remainder And so it may be here But the Court seemed to be of Opinion that the Contingent Remainder was destroyed by the Descent of the Estate Tail And Rainsford Chief Justice relyed upon Wood and Ingersol's Case in the 2 Cro. 260. where a Devise was to the first Son for Life Remainder to the Son which should survive and there three Judges against one held that the descent of the Fee upon the first Son prevented the Contingent Remainder to the Survivor Et Adjornatur Note In Lewis Bowle's Case the Estates were united at the first upon making of the Conveyance Smith versus Tracy IN a Prohibition the Case was One died Intestate and whether his Brother of the Half-blood should come in for Distribution upon the new Statute of 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 10. was the Question It was Argued that the Half blood should have no share for the Words are The next of Kindred to the Dead person in equal Degree which the Half-blood is not The Words likewise are Those which legally represent their Stocks and that must be intended in an Act of Parliament such as the Common Law makes to be Representatives and not the Civil Law For then it would be that the Bastard eigne should come in for Distribution For their Rule is that subsequens matrimonium facit
upon the Warranty as well as the other tho' the Declaration saith knowing them to be naught yet the knowledge need not to be proved in Evidence Debt upon a Bond and a mutuatus may be joyned in one Action yet there must be several Pleas for Nil debet which is proper to the one will not serve in the Action upon the Bond. Sed Adjornatur Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 34 35 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Quo Warranto was brought against divers persons of the City of Worcester why they claimed to be Aldermen c. of the said Corporation The Cause came to be tried at the Bar and a Challenge was made to the Jury in behalf of the Defendants for that the Jury men were not Freeholders The Court said that for Juries within Corporate Towns it hath hath been held that the Statutes that have been made requiring that Jurymen should have so much Freehold do not extend to such places for if so there might be a failer of Justice for want of such Jurymen so qualified but then to maintain the Challenge it was said by the Common Law Jurymen were to be Freeholders But the Court overruled the Challenge but at the importunity of the Counsel they allowed a Bill of Exceptions and so a Verdict passed against the Defendants and afterwards it was moved in Arrest of Judgment upon the Point But the Court would not admit the Matter to be Debated before them tho' divers Presidents of like nature were offered because they said they had declared their Opinions before and the Redress might be upon a Writ of Error Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 35 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Motion for a Prohibition to a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Churchwarden's Rate suggesting that they had pleaded That it was not made with the Consent of the Parishioners and that the Plea was refused The Court said That the Churchwardens if the Parish were Summoned and refused to meet or make a Rate might make one alone for the Repairs of the Church if needful because that if the Repairs were neglected the Churchwardens were to be Cited and not the Parishioners and a Day was given to shew Cause why there should not go to a Prohibition Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 35 Car. II. In Banco Regis Gamage's Case ERror out of the Court of the Grand Sessions where in an Ejectment the Case was upon Special Verdict upon the Will of one Gamage who devised his Lands in A. to his Wife for Life Item his Lands in B. to his Wife for Life and also his Lands which he purchased of C. to his Wife for Life and after the decease of his Wife he gave the said Lands to one of his Sons and his Heirs And the Question was Whether the Son should have all the Lands devised to the Wife or only those last mentioned And it was Adjudged in the Grand Sessions that all should pass And upon Error brought it was Argued that they were Devises to the Wife in distinct and separate Sentences and therefore his said Lands should be referred only to the last On the other side it was said that the word Said should not be referred to the last Antecedent but to all If a man conveys Land to A. for Life Remainder to B. in Tail Remainder to C. in forma praedict ' the Gift to C. is void 1 Inst 20. b. It is agreed if he said All the said Lands to his Son and his heirs it would have extended to the whole This is the same because Indefinitum equipollet universali Et Adjornatur Herring versus Brown IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was Tenant for Life with several Remainders over with a Power of Revocation Levied a Fine and then by a Deed found to be Sealed ten Days after declared the Vses of the Fine which Deed had the Circumstances required by the Power The Question in the Case was Whether the Fine had extinguished the Power It was Argued that it had not because the Deed and Fine shall be but one Conveyance and the use of a Fine or Recovery may be declared by a subsequent Deed in the 9 Co. Downam's Case And a Case was Cited which was in this Court in my Lord Hale's time between Garrett and Wilson where Tenant for Life with Remainders over had a Power of Revocation and by a Deed under his Hand and Seal Covenanted to levy a Fine and declared it should be to certain Vses and afterwards the Fine was Levied accordingly This was held to be a good execution of the Power and limitation of the new Vses and the Deed and Fine taken as one On the other side it was Argued That the Deed was but an Evidence to what Vses the Fine was intended and the Power was absolutely revoked by the Fine Suppose he in Remainder had Entred for the Forfeiture before this Deed should the Defendant have defeated his Right Et Adjornatur Postea Hodson versus Cooke IN an Action upon the Case for commencing of an Action against him in an Inferiour Court where the Cause of Action did arise out of the Jurisdiction After a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Not Guilty it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That it was not set forth that the Defendant did know that the Place where the Action arose was out of the Jurisdiction which it would be hard to put the Plaintiff to take notice of On the other side it was said that the party ought to have a Recompence for the Inconvenience he is put to by being put to Bail perhaps in a Case where Bail is not required above and such like Disadvantages which are not in a Suit brought here and the Plaintiff ought at his peril to take notice However to help by the Verdict And of that Opinion were Jeffreys Lord Chief Justice Holloway and Walcot but Withens contra The Court said that it could not be assigned for Error in Fact that the Cause arose out of the Jurisdiction because that is contrary to the Allegation of the Record neither is the Officer punishable that executes Process in such Action but an Action lies against the party And so it was said to be resolved in a Case between Cowper and Cowper Pasch 18 Car. 2. in Scac. when my Lord Chief Baron Hale sate there Anonymus AN Indictment of Perjury for Swearing before a Justice of the Peace that J. S. was present at a Conventicle or Meeting for Religious Worship c. It was moved to quash it because it did not appear to be a Conventicle viz. That there was above the number of Five and so the Justice of the Peace had no power to take an Oath concerning it and then it could be no Perjury To which the Lord Chief Justice said That Conventicles were unlawful by the Common Law and the Justices may punish Unlawful Assemblies And he seemed to be of Opinion that a man might be
Estate Tail in Michael First Because in this Case the Use returns by operation of Law and executes an Estate in Michael for Life which being conjoined to the Estate limited to the Heirs Male of his Body makes an Estate Tail This Estate for Life rising by operation of Law is as strong as if it had been limitted to him for his Life and after his decease to the Heirs Male of his Body Secondly Because that a Limitation to the Heirs Male of his Body is in Construction of Law a Limitation to himself and the Heirs Male of his Body There is a great difference when he who has the Use limits it to A. for Life the Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of B. here no Estate can rise to B. because nothing moved from him but where he who has the Estate limits it to the Heirs Male of his own Body ut res valeat he shall have it for his Life Thirdly It is plainly according to the intent of the Parties the intent perfectly appears that the Issue by the second Wife should take and that Robert the eldest Son should not take till so much Money be paid therefore if we can by any means serve the intent of the parties we ought to do it as good Expositors For as my Lord Hobart says Judges in Construction of Deeds do no harm if they are astuti in serving the intent of the Parties without violating any Law Obj. Here the Use being never out of Michael he hath the ancient Use which is the Fee simple and consequently being the ancient Use and this being a new Limitation to the Heirs Male of his Body the ancient use and the new one cannot be piec'd to make an Estate Tail executed in Michael but it shall be a Contingent Use if any which ought to rise to the Heir Male of his Body and so remains the ancient Fee simple And it hath been compared to these Cases If a Man Covenants to stand seized to the Use of J.S. or of his Son after his Marriage or after the Death of J. D. these are Contingent Limitations and there is a Fee simple determinable in the Covenantor to serve the future Uses Resp 'T is true if a Man Covenants to stand seized to such Uses as that he leaves a discendible Estate in himself As if a Man Covenants to stand seized to the Use of his Son from and after his Marriage this is purely a Contingent Use because t is possible the Marriage may never take effect and nothing is fetch'd out of the Covenantor so if he Covenants to stand seized to the Use of J. S. after 40 years there is a Fee simple determinable in the Covenantor and therefore those Cases are not to be resembled to our Case where the Estate of Michael cannot continue longer than his Life And this without any wrong done to any Rule of Law may be turned to a Use for Life and therefore such construction shall be Object 2. Here is an Estate to rise by way of Use by a Deed and not by a Will which shall not be by Implication by a Deed. Resp It s a certain truth But we are not here upon raising an Estate by Implication but qualifying an Estate that is now in the Father which by this new Deed is to be qualified to be an Estate for Life to preserve the Estate Tail so that the Cases of Implication are not to the purpose Object 3. In this Case Michael shall be in of his ancient Estate in Fee simple which is in him and not of a new Estate created by Implication of Law and it hath been compared to the Devise of Land to a Mans Heir he shall not be in by the Devise but of his ancient Estate that would have descended to him Resp True But in this Case a Man may qualifie his Estate as in Gilpins Case Cro. Ca. 161. Devise to his Heir upon Condition that he shall pay his Debts in a year the Heir is a Purchasor so here is a qualification to turn the Estate of Michael into an Estate for Life ut res valeat Object 4. Michael had not an Intention to have an Estate for Life for in the Limitation of the other Lands he has limited them expressly to himself for Life and if he had intended to have had an Estate for Life in the Lands in question he would also have so expressed it Resp The intention will not controul the operation of Law his main intent was to settle the Lands upon his younger Children this the Law serves but not his secondary intentions If a Man Covenants to stand seized to the Use of himself for Life without impeachment of Wast and afterwards to the Use of the Heirs Male of his Body the Law supervenes his intention and makes him to be Tenant in Tail And in our Case there was a necessity to limit the other Lands to himself for Life because there was another Estate to intervene the Estate for Life and the Estate Tail The Reason given by my Lord Coke in Fenwick and Mitfords Case is plain enough and it appears that he was of that Opinion afterwards by the Report of Pannel and Lanes Case 13 Jac. in Rolls Rep. 1 part 238. The Case upon which I shall rely which has not been answered is my Lord Pagets Case adjudged by all the Judges of England Tho. Lord Paget Covenants in consideration of the discharge of his Funerals Payment of his Debts and Legacies out of the profits of his Land and for the advancement of his Son Brother and others of his Blood that he and his Heirs would stand seized of divers Mannors to the Use of T.F. one of the Covenantees for the Life of my Lord Paget and after his Death to the Use of C. Paget for the term of 24 years and then to the Use of W. Paget his Son in Tail with Remainders in over and afterwards the Lord Paget was aâ—â—â—nted of Treason And it was adjudged that the Lord Paget himself had an Estate for his Life for the Remainder being limited after his Death the Estate cannot pass out of him during his Life and there in Case of a Covenant to stand seized he himself hath an Estate for Life And this is not because the Estate returns as my Brother Twisden has said but because the Estate was never out of him and cannot return either from the Heir or the Covenantee otherwise where should it be during the Life of the Lord Paget who was attainted the Book is that it was never out of him but was turn'd into an Estate for Life So that now it is all one as if he had Covenanted to stand seized to the Use of his eldest Son after his Death And the question is What Estate he has during his Life It is adjudged that he has an Estate for Life for if there had been a Contingent Fee simple in the Lord Paget his Heir could never have had an Amoveas manus
for if a Man Covenants to stand seized to a Contingent Use and afterwards is attainted of Treason before the Contingency happen the Contingency shall never rise for the King has the Estate discharged and the Use is to rise out of the Estate of the Covenantor so is Moor Sir Tho Palmers Case 815 In Moors Rep. of my Lord Pagets Case 194. It s said that W. Paget had an Amoveas manus for the Estate of the Queen leased by the Death of my Lord Paget In Sir Francis Englefeilds Case Popham 18. n. 7. It s resolved that no Use rises because t is that it shall Discend Remain or Come which is uncertain but if he had Covenanted that after his Death he and his Heirs would have stood seized to the Use of John an Use would have resulted to Sir Francis Second Point I conceive if it be impossible for Ralph to take by Discent this would be a Contingent Use in him by Purchase The great Objection against this is that the Limitation is to an Heir and an Heir which ought to take by Purchase ought not to be only Heir of the Body c. but Heir general Of this I am not well satisfied I conceive the Remainder being limited to the Heirs of the Body of Jane begotten by Michael such a Limitation will make a special Heir to serve the turn and t is not to be resembled to Shelley's Case My Reasons are First Because at the Common Law before the Statute de Donis notice was taken that this was a special Heir and therefore 't is no wrong done to make him here a qualified Heir In the Statute de Donis 't is said When Lands are given to Man and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten Secondly Vpon the special penning of the Deed it is apparent that Michael took notice that he had an Heir at Common Law therefore it can't be intended that he meant here such an Heir that should be Heir general to him this would be Contradictio in Adjecto Litt. Sect. 352. puts this Case If a Feoffment be made upon Condition that the Feoffee shall give the Land to the Feoffor and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten In this Case if the Husband dye living his Wife before the Estate Tail is granted to them the Feoffee ought to make the Estate as near the Condition and as near the intent of the Condition as may be viz. To let the Land to the Wife for her Life without impeachment of Wast the Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of the Husband on her begotten If the Husband and Wife dye before the Gift made then the Feoffee ought to make it to the Issue and to the Heirs of the Body of his Father and Mother begotten Suppose that this had been to a second Wife and there had been Issue by a former the Book of 12 H. 4. 3. says that there it shall be in another manner but Litt. says it shall be as near vid. Litt. Sect. 22. Morevils Case Fitzh Tail 23. 2 Ed. 3. 1. 4. Ed. 3. 50. by all these Cases it appears that no regard is had whether the Son be Heir of the Husband if he be Heir of their two Bodies Therefore it seems that by this Limitation Ralph shall take by way of Contingent Remainder For Heirs of the Body of the second Wife is a good name of Purchase I have not read any Case against this Hill 16. or 26 Eliz. there was this Case A Man taking notice in his Will that his Brother who was dead had a Son and that he himself had three Daughters who were his right and immediate Heirs he gave them 2000 l and gave his Land to the Son of his Brother by the name of his Heir Male. Provided If his Daughters troubled his Heir then the Devise of the 2000 l to them should be void And it was resolved that the Devisor taking notice that others were his Heirs the Limitation to his Brothers Son by the name of Heir Male was a good name of Purchase and this agrees with Cownden and Clarks Case in Hob. Wild Justice said he was of the same Opinion with Hale in this last Point And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Three Learned ARGUMENTS One in the Court of Kings-Bench BY Sir FRANCIS NORTH Attorny General And Two in the Court of Exchequer BY Sir MATTHEW HALE Chief Baron there The Argument of Sir Francis North. In Banco Regis Potter and Sir Henry North. IN a Replevin for taking of an Horse in a certain place called the Fenn at Milden-Hall in the County of Suffolk the Defendant makes Cognizance as Bayliff to Sir Henry North and saith That the place Where c. containeth Ten thousand Acres of Pasture in Milden-Hall whereof a certain place called Delfe is parcel and that it is Sir Henry North's Freehold and the Horse was Damage feasant there c. The Plaintiff Replies Confessing the Soyl to be the Freehold of Sir Henry Norths but says That time whereof c. the place Where hath been parcel of the Fenn and parcel of the Mannor of Milden-Hall of which Sir Henry North is seised in Fee and that the Plaintiff was at the time c. seised of an Ancient Messuage one of the Freeholds holden of the Mannor by Rents and Services and parcel of the said Mannor and that Time out of Mind there were divers ancient Freehold Messuages holden of the said Mannor by Rents and Services and divers Copyhold Messuages parcel of the said Mannor by Custom of the said Mannor demised and demisable by Copy of Court Rolls of the said Mannor And the several Tenants of the said Freehold Tenements being seised in their Demesn as of Fee and they whose Estate they have in the same Time out of mind have had together with the Customary Tenants of the said Customary Tenements the sole and several Feeding of 100 Acres of Pasture for all Beasts except Hogs Sheep and Northern Steers levant and couchant upon their several Freeholds every year at all times of the year as to their several Freeholds belonging And that within the said Mannor there is and Temps d'ont c. hath been such a Custom that the several Tenants of the Customary Messuages together with the Freeholders aforesaid have used and accustomed to have the sole and several Feeding of the said 100 Acres of Pasture for all their Beasts except Sheep Hogs and Northern Steers levant and couchant upon their several Copy-holds every year at all times in the year tanquam ad seperal ' Tenementa customar ' spectant ' pertinent ' and the Plaintiff being seised put in his Horse c. and so Iustifies Vpon this the Defendant demurs generally This Prescription is naught in substance and Judgment ought to be given for the Defendant upon these Four Exceptions First That several Freeholders cannot joyn or be joyned in a Prescription to claim an entire Interest in another mans Soyl as
out of Repair Secondly The whole is Sequestred whereas it ought to have been but in proportion to the Charge of Repairing and should be certainly expressed what it required Thirdly The Sequestration is to remain by the Sentence until the Judge should take further Order Whereas it ought to have been but until the Repairs had been done These Exceptions the Court held fatal and therefore gave no Opinion as to the Matter in Law but did incline that there could be no Sequestration for being made Lay Fee the Impropriation was out of their Jurisdiction and it was now only against the Person as against a Layman for not Repairing the Church And they said in case of Dilapidations the whole ought not to be Sequestred but to leave a proportion to the Parson for his Livelyhood Anonymus IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the sole Point was Whether a Lease for a year upon no other Consideration than reserving a Pepper Corn if it be demanded shall work as a Bargain and Sale and so to make the Lessee capable of a Release And it was Resolved that it should and that the Reservation made a sufficient Consideration to raise an Use as by Bargain and Sale Vid. 10 Co. in Sutton's Hospitals Case Rozer versus Rozer AN Indebitatus Assumpsit pro parcell ' Corii ad specialem instantiam requisitionem of the Defendant sold and delivered to J.S. Et sic inde Indebitat ' existens the Defendant promised to pay Vpon Non assumpsit pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there is no Promise laid and no Reason to presume a Promise when 't is the very ground of the Action tho' after a Verdict And admitting there were a Promise yet it being Collateral it did not make a Debt but should have been brought as an Action upon the Case Mo. 702. and Dyer 230. And hereupon Judgment was stayed Tho' as I hear in the King Bench about two years since between Danbey and Kent they held such a Case well enough after a Verdict Quaere Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 33 Car. II. In Communi Banco Page versus Kirke IN an Action of Trespass upon Not Guilty at the Assizes in Suffolk a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff and 10 s Damages and 40 s Costs and Judgment entred accordingly And an Action of Debt was brought upon the Judgment and the Defendant pleaded Specially the Statute 22 23 of Car. II. ca. 9. against Recovering more Costs than Damages where the Damages are under 40 s in Trespass unless certified by the Judge that the Title was chiefly in question the Words of the Statute being If any more Costs in such Action shall be awarded the Judgment shall be void To which the Plaintiff Demurred and the Plea was held Insufficient because the Verdict was for 40 s Costs and not Costs increased by an Award of the Court. 2. If the Judgment were Erroneous yet it was hard to make it avoidable by Plea notwithstanding that the Words of the Statute are Shall be void Termino Sanctae Michaelis Anno 33 Car. II. In Communi Banco Onslowes Case HE brought an Action against a Bayliff being the chief Magistrate of a Corporation for that although he were chosen one of the Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the Corporation by the greater Number c. yet the Bayliff to disappoint him of sitting and to bring trouble c. upon him did return another Person in the Indentures together with him to his Damage c. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Action would not lie And of that Opinion were the whole Court viz. North Chief Iustice Wyndham Charlton and Levins for they said they had no Iurisdiction of this Matter the principal part thereof being a Retorn in Parliament No Action before the Statute H. 6. c. did lie against a Sheriff or chief Officer of a Corporation for a False-retorn and the Courts at Westminster must not enlarge their Iurisdiction in these matters further than those Acts give them That there were no Presidents of any Actions at the Common Law save Nevils Case in the late times and Sir Samuel Bernardistons Case both which miscarried In the Long Parliament there were a great many double Retorns but no Actions had been brought which is a great Argument that no such Action lies as Littleton argues upon the Statute of Merton of disparaging an Heir Termino Paschae Anno 35 Car. II. In Communi Banco The Lord Conwallis's Case THE Case was Isaac Pennington a Copyholder of the Mannor whereof my Lord Conwallis is now feised committed Treason in the matter of the Murder of King Charles the First and then about Anno 1655. surrendred into the hands of the Lord of the Mannor his Copyhold Lands to the use of some of his Children who were admitted In 1659. the Mannor was aliened to the Lord Conwallis then came the Act of Attainder 12 Car. 2. whereby Tychburn with other Regicides were attainted and thereby it was Enacted That all their Mannors Messuages Lands Tenements Rents Reversions Remainders Possessions Rights Conditions Interests Offices Annuities and all other Hereditaments Leases for Years Chattels Real and other things of that nature whatsoever they be shall stand forfeited to the King c. Provided that no Conveyance Assurance Grant Bargain Sale Charge Lease Assignment of Lease Grants and Surrenders by Copy of Court Roll c. made to any Person or Persons other than the Wife or Wives Child or Children Heir or Heirs of such Person or Persons c. After which Attainder c. the Lord of the Mannor caused the Lands to be seised and brought an Ejectment The First Point Was whether in Case of Treason or Felony the Lord can seise before Conviction or Attainder And the Court seemed to be of Opinion that no Seisure could be till Attainder without Special Custom but they agreed the presentment of the Homage was not necessary to precede a Seisure or to entitle the Lord to take the advantage of a Forfeiture but in case of a Capital Crime it would be unreasonable and inconvenient to permit the same to be tried or controverted in a Civil Action before the Conviction appeared upon Record Secondly Whether this were such a Forfeiture as the Lord was bound to take notice thereof for if no notice then the acceptance of the Surrender c. would not preclude him from taking advantage of the Forfeiture And the Court inclined that the Lord should be presumed to take notice in this Case as he shall in the Case of Failer of Suit of Court Non-paiment of Rent c. Vide 2 Cro. Matthews and Whetton 233. Thirdly Whether the Mannor being conveyed away before the Attainder shall purge the Forfeiture Iustice Levins said That although no advantage of this Forfeiture can be taken till Attainder yet after Attainder it has relation and
ann ' For 21 years extunc ê“x ' sequen ' plenar ' complend ' finiend ' Virtute cujus dimissionis praedictus Johan ' in TenÌ„ta praed ' cum pertinen ' Lessee enters intravit fuit inde possessionat ' Et sic inde possessionat ' existen ' idem Johannes postea scilicet decimo die Augusti Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo secundo apud Grancester praedictam dimisit ad firmam tradidit eidem Roberto Dickman Tenementa praedicta cum pertinen ' habend ' occupand ' And Demised to the Plaintiff eidem Roberto Assign ' suis a Festo Sancti Michaelis ArcÌ„hi tunc ê“x ' sequen ' usque plenum finem terminum sex annorum extunc ê“px ' sequen ' plenar ' For six years complend ' finiend ' virtute cujus dimissionis idem Robertus in crastino dicti Festi Sancti Michaelis Arch ' Anno Domini milesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo secundo supradicto in Tenementa praedicta cum pertinen ' intravit fuit inde possessionat ' The Lessee Enters usque finem expirationem ejusdem termini praedictus tamen Abrahamus praemissorum non ignarus sed machinans fraudulenter intendens ipsum Robertum minus rite praegravare ac eum de faldagio praedicto ut praefertur habend ' impedire ac de prosicuo commoditate inde totaliter deprivare diu ante finem termini praedicti ult ' mentionat ' scilicet primo die Maii Anno Regni Domini Jacobi secundi nuper Regis Angliae tertio Oves videlicet ducent ' Oves ipsius Abrahami in Communes Campos de Grancester praed ' ibidem depasturand ' The Cause of Action posuit Oves ibidem eun ' depascend ' extunc usque decimum diem Septembris tunc ê“x ' sequen ' existen ' ante finem termini praedicti ult ' mentionat ' custodivit continuavit sed Oves ill ' in aut super praedictas centum sexaginta acras terrae arrabilis ipsius Roberti vel in aut super aliquam inde parcellam minime faldavit sicut ipse debuisset nec permisit ipsum Robertum habere beneficium faldagii earun-praedicto Abrahamo duran ' eodem termino non existen ' tenen ' For not Folding his Sheep according to Custom sive occupatore aliquorum messuag ' sive terrarum in Villa de Coton praed ' de quibus tenen ' sive occupator ' inde ê“ tempore existen ' a tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit usi fuer ' intercoicÌ„are Causa vicinagii in praedictis Communibus Campis de Grancester praedict ' cum Ovibus suis praedict ' ut praefertur per quod idem Robertus ê“ficuum advantagium faldagii Ovium praedictorum super praedictas centum sexaginta acras terrae arabil ' quibus ipse gaudere debuisset ê‘ tempus illud omnino ê‘didit amisit ad dampnum ipsius Roberti quadraginta librarum inde ê“duc ' Sectam c. Per quod the Plaintiff lost the benefit of Foldage Et praedictus Abrahamus per Richardum Pyke Attorn ' suum ven ' defend ' vim injur ' quando c. Not Guilty pleaded Et dic ' qd ' ipse in nullo est culpabilis de pÌ„missis praedictis suê‘ius ei imposit ' ê“ut praedictus Robertus su ê‘ius versus eum queritur Et de hic pon ' se suê‘ Patriam Et praedictus Robertus similiter Ideo praecept ' est Vic' qd ' venire fac ' hic a die Sanct ' Trin ' in tres septimanas duodecim c. ê‘ quos c. Et qui nec c. ad recogn ' c. quia tam c. Dickman versus Allen. IN an Action upon the Case the Defendant declared That the Provost and Scholars of Kings College in Cambridge were seised in Fee in jure Collegii of a Messuage in Grancester in Cambridge and 160 Acres of Arable Land lying in the Common Fields of Grancester aforesaid and the said Provost c. and all those whose Estate they have in the Tenements aforesaid have time whereof c. for themselves their Farmers and Tenants of the said Tenements libertatem Foldagii Anglicè Foldage omnium Ovium except c. euntium depascentium infra Communes Campos Territoria de Grancester praed ' super praed ' centum sexaginta Acras Terrae ê‘cipiend ' foldand ' tanquam ad praed ' Tenement ' ê‘ertinent ' and then sets forth a Lease made by the Provost and Scholars to Sir John Witwrong of the said Messuage and 160 Acres for 20 years which said Sir John let them to the Plaintiff for six years by virtue whereof the Plaintiff entred and was possessed and the said Defendant Praemissorum non ignarus did put 200 Sheep into the Common Fields of Grancester aforesaid and there kept and depastured them for a certain time sed Oves illas in aut super praed ' centum sexaginta Acras Terrae Arab ' ipsius Quer ' vel in aut super aliquam inde parcell ' minime foldavit sicut ipse debuisset nec permisit ipsum Querentem habere beneficium faldagii earundem and shews how the Defendant was not within exception by which the Plaintiff lost the profit of the Foldage c. and laid it to his damage of 40 l The Defendant pleaded not guilty and a Verdict was for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not in his Declaration set forth a sufficient Cause of Action for he saith that the Defendant had not folded his Sheep upon the 160 Acres as he ought and it is not set forth that the Custom was for the Owner of the Sheep to bring his Sheep to fold them upon the said Lands But it was objected on the Plaintiffs part that the word Foldagium did imply as much and it was the usage in Norfolk and Suffolk for the Owner of the Sheep to put his Sheep into the Lords Land and fold them there for which the Lord provided Hurdles and prepared the Fold to receive them and of this Faldagium a Fine was levied of inter al' as is reported in 1 Ed. 3. fo 2. and the usage in Norfolk and Suffolk is there mentioned And it was said in a Possessory Action 't is enough to say sicut debuit without setting forth any particular Custom or Prescription And Dent and Olivers Case was cited 2 Cro. 122. where an Action was brought for disturbing of him in taking of Toll ad Feriam ipsius le Plaintiff spectan ' and it was moved after Verdict that he made no Title by Prescription or Custom to the Toll and it was held by the Court to be sufficient in a possessory Action to say ad Feriam suam spectant ' So also in an Action for stopping of a way belonging to his House without setting forth any Prescription between St. John and Moody a
ipse paratus est verificare Quam quidem materiam praedicta Priscilla non dedic ' nec ad eam aliqualit ' respondit set verificacon ' illam admittere omnino recusavit ut prius per ' Judic ' quod praed ' Priscilla ab accone sua praed ' versus eum habend ' praecludatur c. Et quia Justic ' hic se advisare volunt de super pÌ„missis praed ' priusquam Judic ' inde reddant dies dat' est partibus praed ' hic usque à die Sancti Michaelis in tres Septimanas de audiendo inde Judicio suo eo quod idem Justic ' hic nondum inde c. Priscilla Web Widow versus Moore THe Plaintiff Declared in an Action upon the Case upon Five several Promises one whereof was upon a Quantum meruit for finding Meat and Drink for the Defendant at his Request The Defendant pleaded in Bar an Outlawry of the Plaintiff in this manner viz. Quod quidam S.C. al' scilicet Termino Sanctae Trinitat ' anno regni nuper Regis Jacobi secundi tertio implacitavit pÌ„d ' Priscillam in Cur ' dicti nuper Regis de Banco hic de placito trangres praedict ' quae Priscilla pro eo quod non venit in praedict ' Cur ' de B. praed ' praefat ' S. C. inde responsur ' secundum legem consuetud ' hujus regni Angl ' in Exigendo posita fuit ad utlagand ' in Com' Wiltes ' ea ratione postea scilicet quinto decimo die Maij anno regni dicti nuper Regis quarto in Com' Wiltes ' praed ' debito juris modo ad Sectam praed ' S. C. waviata fuit adhuc waviata existit prout per recordum processum inde eadem Cur ' dicti nuper de Banco praed retornat ' modo residens plen ' liquet Quae quidem Utlagaria adhuc in suis robore effectu remanet minime reversat ' seu annihilat ' hoc parat ' est verificare per Recordum illud unde pet ' Judicium si action ' c. And to this Plea the Plaintiff Demurred 1. For the Outlawry could not be pleaded in Bar to an Assumpsit upon a Quantum meruit for there is no certainty of Debt appearing till the thing comes to be valued and so cannot be forfeited It was doubted Whether Debt upon a Simple Contract was forfeited till 4 Co. Slade's Case But it was Resolved by the Court in this Case that the Outlawry was a good Plea in Bar for the Consideration created a Debt tho' that Debt was not reduced to a certain Sum. Markham and Pitt in 3 Leon. 205. Outlawry pleaded in Bar to Trover where it lies all in Damages But this Action arose upon a property of Goods which would have been forfeited 3 Leon. 197. where the King had granted all Forfeitures that accrued to him by the Outlawry of J. S. and the Grantee brought an Action But an Exception was taken to the pleading of the Outlawry for it ought to have been set forth that the Plaintiff did not appear upon the Exigent and upon that waviata fuit debito juris modo is too general Fitzherb Account 91. Traverse 31. Stamford 148. And of this the Court doubted and appointed to search Presidents of the Pleading Et Adjornatur Kempe versus Cory al' Quod vide ante ultimo Termino THe Case was now moved again and as to the Matter in Law it was held clear that where A. is seised of a Third part in Common and B. of the other two parts in Common with A. and A. let his Third part reserving Rent and B. puts in his Cattle or a Stranger by his License that such Cattle are not Distrainable for the Rent But the Doubt was because the Avowry was in loco in quo ut in super praedict ' tertiam partem c. Whether the Plaintiff should not have traversed the Taking in tertia parte tantum Vide the Case of Newman and Moor in Hob. 80. 103. And note there that the Traverse was held unnecessary And the Court held clearly that it would have been impertinent to make a Traverse in this Case for the Matter in the Avowry was confessed and avoided CASES Adjudged upon Writs of ERROR IN THE Exchequer Chamber Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 1 W. M. BY Pollexfen Chief Justice Powell Justices Rokeby Justices Ventris Justices Atkyns Chief Baron Nevill Barons Lechmore Barons Turton Barons Willows versus Lydcot VPon a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment in Ejectment in B.R. which was brought for a Messuage in St. Martins in the Fields Vpon the General Issue pleaded and a Special Verdict found the Point was to this effect William Shelton was seised in Fee of the said Messuage and of dvers other Messuages situate in the said Parish of St. Martin and other Parishes and made his Will in Writing and thereby Devised his Houses in the other Parishes to divers Charitable Vses and then devised to one Edward Harris and Mary his Wife the Messuage in question for their Lives and then in the following Clause the better to enable his Wsfe to pay his Legacies he devised all his Messuages Lands Tenements and Hereditaments whatsoever within the Kingdom of England not above disposed of to have and to hold to her and her Assigns for ever and made her Executrix And the Verdict was found That Edward Harris and Mary his Wife were dead and that the Testator left sufficient to his Wife to pay his Legacies without the Reversion of the said Messuages devised to Harris and his Wife That the Lessor of the Plaintiff was Heir at Law to the Testator and that the Defendants claimed from Anne Wife of the Testator c. si super totam materiam c. And Judgment was given in the Kings Bench for the Plaintiff And upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer-Chamber it was this Term Argued before the Justices and Barons and by the Opinion of them all the Judgment was Reversed For they held that there were words in the Devise to the Testators Wife that would carry the Reversion of this House as an Hereditament undisâ—oâ—d of Vide the Case of Whâ—eler and Walroon in Allen's Rep. 28. one having a Mannor and other Lands in Somerset-shire Devised the Mannor to A. for Six years and part of the other Lands to B. in Fee and then comes this Clause and the rest of my Lands in Somersetshire or elsewhere I give to my Brother and it was adjudged by the word Rest the Reversion of the Mannor passed as well as the Lands not Devised before A Case about 20 years ago was cited by the Counsel for the Defendant in the Writ of Error between Bowyer and Milbanke in a Borough where a Nuncupative Will would pass Lands by the Custom a man upon his Death-Bed being asked about his Will said I Give All to my Mother and repeated the
of the Crown so 11. and so it was held in the Case of the Earl of Essex in Queen Elizabeths Time and in the Lord Cobham's Case in the Reign of King James the First And the Chief Justice cited the Statute made 29 H. 6. cap. 1. upon the Rebellion of Jack Cade which Act sets forth that John Cade naming himself John Mortimer falsly and traiterously imagined the Death of the King and the destruction and subversion of this Realm in gathering together and levying of a great Number of the King's People and exciting them to Rise against the King c. against the Royal Crown and Dignity of the King was an Overt act of imagining the Death of the King and made and levied War falsly and trayterously against the King and his Highness c. So that it appears by that Act that it was the Iudgment of the Parliament That gathering Men together and exciting them to Rise against the King was an Overt Act of Imagining the Death of the King Vide Stamford's Pleas of the Crown fo 180. And according to this Opinion Judgment was given against Harding in the following Sessions and he was Executed thereupon NOta At an Adjourned Sessions held the 19th of May 2 Willielmi Mariae it appeared that one of the Kings Witnesses which was to be produced in an Indictment for Treason had been the day before Challenged to Fight by a Gentleman that it was said was a Member of the House of Commons he was by the Court bound in a Recognizance of 500 l to keep the Peace And because it appeared the Witness had accepted the Challenge he was bound in the like Sum. NOta Vpon an Appeal to the House of Lords Anno 2 Willielmi Mariae the sole Question was Whether upon the Statute of Distributions 22 23 Car. 2. the half Blood should have an equal share with the whole Blood of the Personal Estate And by the Advice of the two Chief Justices and some other of the Judges the Decree of the Lords was That the Half Blood should have an Equal share Samon versus Jones IN an Ejectment brought in the Court of Exchequer in the year of the Reign of the late King James the Second The Case upon a Special Verdict was to this effect William Lewis seised of a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate for Life did by Deed Poll in Consideration of Natural love and affection which he had to his Wife and Robert Lewis his Son and Heir apparent begotten on the Body of his said Wife and to Ellen his Daughter give grant and confirm unto the said Robert Lewis the Son all those Lands c. the Reversion and Reversions Remainder and Remainders thereof To have and to hold to his Son and his Heirs to the Vses following viz. to the use of himself for Life and then mentioned several other Vses not necessary to be here mentioned as not material to the Point in question and then to the use of the Wife for Life and after to the use of Robert and the Heirs of his Body and for want of such Issue to the use of Ellen the Daughter and the Heirs of her Body c. William Lewis and his Wife died Robert the Son devised the Estate to the Lessor of the Plaintiff and died without Issue Ellen was in possession and claimed the Lands by this Deed in which thâ—re was a Warranty but no Execution of the said Deed further than the Sealing and Delivery was had either by Enrolment Attornment or otherwise So that the sole Question was Whether this Deed should operate as a Covenant to stand seised or be void And it was Adjudged to amount to a Covenant to stand seised in the Court of the Exchequer And upon a Writ of Error brought upon the Statute of Ed. 3. before the Commissioners of the Great Seal and others empowered by that Act to sit upon Writs of Error of Judgments given in the Court of Exchequer the said Judgment was Reversed by the Opinion of Holt Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Pollexfen Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas And upon a Writ of Error before the Lords in Parliament brought upon the said last Judgment it was Argued for the Plaintiff in the VVrit of Error That this should enure as a Covenant to stand seised to the use of the Wife Son c. It appears by Bedell's Case in the 7 Co. and Foxe's Case in the 8 Co. that the words proper to a Conveyance are not necessary but ut res magis valeat a Conveyance may work as a Bargain and Sale tho' the words be not used so as a Covenant to stand seised tho' the word Covenant is not in the Deed and and Poplewell's Case were cited in 2 Roll. Abr. 786 787. A Feme in Consideration of a Marriage intended to be had between her and J. S. did give grant and confirm Lands to J.S. and his Heirs with a Clause of VVarranty in the Deed which was also Enrolled but no Livery was made It was Resolved to operate as a Covenant to stand seised Vide Osborn and Churchman's Case in the 2 Cro. 127. which seems contrary to that Case but the chiefest Case relied upon was that of Crossing and Scudamore Mod. Rep. 175. where a man by Indenture bargained sold enfeoffed and confirmed certain Lands to his Daughter and her Heirs and no Consideration of Natural Love or Money exprest This was Resolved 22 Car. 2. in B.R. to operate as a Covenant to stand seised and upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Judgment was affirmed It was said on the other side for the Defendant That the Case at Bar differed from the Cases cited for here the Intention of the Deed is to transfer the Estate to the Son and that the Vses should arise out of such Estate so transferred In the Cases cited no Vses are limited upon the Estate purported or intended to be Conveyed but only an Intention appearing to convey an Estate to the Daughter in Crossing's Case and to the intended Husband in Poplewell's Case and seeing for want of due Execution in those Cases the Estate could not pass at Law it shall pass by raising of an Vse But the Case at Bar is much the same with the Case of Hore and Dix in Siderfin the 1st Part. 25. where one by Indenture between him and his Son of the one part and two Strangers of the other part in Consideration of Natural love did give grant and enfeoff the two Strangers to the use of himself for Life Remainder to the Son in Tail c. and no other Execution was three than the Sealing and Delivery of the Deed this was Resolved not to raise an Vse for the Vse was limited to rise out of the Seisin of the Strangers who took no Estate Vide Pitfield and Pierce's Case 15 Car. 1. Marche's Rep. 50. One gave granted and confirmed Lands to his Son after his Death this Deed had been
gives the Action of Covenant to the Assignee of the Reversion saith That they shall have such Actions in like manner as the Lessors should have had Now if it had been brought by the Lessor it had béen transitory and so in the Case of an Assignment by Commissioners of Bankrupt the Assignee of the Commissioners of Bankrupt shall bring Debt as the first Creditor should have done But it was said on the other Side That the Statute intended not to assign it as a bare Chose en Action but to knit it to the Reversion and where it saith The Assignee shall have Remedy in like manner that is the same Remedy in substance And in the case of the Bankrupt's Debt the Contract is only assigned And in the 42 Ed. 3. cap. 3. it is said That an Action of Covenant lay for the Assignee at the Common Law But because the Court was not full it was thought fit this Case should be Adjourned till the next Term. Note It was said in this Case the Word Reddendum makes a Covenant Day and Pitts A Prohibition was moved for to stay a Suit in the Spiritual Court upon a Suggestion that it was for calling one Old Thief and Old Whore and if there were any such Words spoken they were spoken at the same time Which Suggestion was not good for the Words ought to have been fully confest And it was said by the Court That this Matter ought to have been pleaded there and if they had not admitted the Plea then to move for a Prohibition and not before Gilman and Wright BUrgh moved against Wright Steward of Havering Court in Essex for refusing to admit Gilman an Attorney in this Court to Appear for a man in an Action sued against him there alledging That the Attorneys of the Courts of Westminster might Practise in any Inferiour Court neither had they a Prescription or Charter to have a certain Number of Attorneys of their own and to exclude others But because it was the general Vsage of those Inferiour Courts to admit none but their own Attorneys tho' the Court seemed to incline That they ought not by Law to refuse Others and it was said to be so Adjudged in the 15th of Car. 1. in one Darcie's Case yet they would be Advised until the next Term. Note One who is Subpoena'd for a Witness may have a Writ of Priviledge to protect him from Arrests in going and returning Anonymus A Prohibition was granted to the Court of the Marches of Wales for that Lands being discended to an Infant which were subject to a Trust they had not only enjoyned the possession of those Lands but of other Lands discended to him And it was said by the Court That they could not Sequester Lands at all for the performance of a Decree of their Court to pay Money For they can only agere in personam non in rem Termino Sanctae Paschae Anno 21 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus THe Sheriff Returned Non est inventus to a Writ brought against his own Bayliff and delivered to him But the Court Amerced him Forty shillings and he was ordered to amend his Return Anonymus TRover and Conversion was brought against Baron and Feme for that they ad usum proprium converterunt disposuerunt and held not to be good because the Wife cannot Convert with her Husband Skinner and Gunter c. A Bill in the nature of Conspiracy was brought against Three for that they 2 Cro. 667. Hob. 205 266. Conspiratione inter eos habita caused the Plaintiff to be Arrested in London on purpose to vex him and have him Imprisoned knowing that he was not able to find Bail whereas they had no cause of Action The Defendants pleaded Not guilty and the Issue was found only against one of them It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Declaration was Insufficient because it was not declared that the first Action was determined as no Conspiracy lies upon an Indictment before Acquittal But the Court inclined to disallow this for here the ground of the Action is the caussess troubling of him to put in Bail But when a man is Indicted he lies under the scandal of the Crime until he is acquitted Another Exception was That this Bill being in the nature of a Writ of Conspiracy there being One only found Guilty the Action fails But it was said True it is so in case of Conspiracy to Indict One of Felony but here 't is rather in nature of an Action upon the Case and the Conspiracy alledged by way of aggravation Fitz. N.B. 116. Et Adjornatur Anonymus AN Indictment was removed hither the last Term out of Middlesex against Edward S. of Perjury and he was named Edward all along in the Indictment unto the Conclusion and then it was sic praedictus Johannes commisit perjurium The Court was moved that this might be amended and it was said Indidictments removed out of London have béen amended by the Original for they do not certifie that but only a Transcript and a Jury have been resummoned to amend an Indictment found in this Court and in this case if by Examination of the Clerk of the Peace it appeared the Indictment certified varied from the Original it might be amended sed Curia advisare vult Nota If a Venire Facias be returned and not filed a new one may be taken out Thomas Burgen's Case AN Indictment was brought against Thomas Burgen for selling Ale in Black Pots not marked and doth not conclude contra formam Statuti and held to be good enough for the Common-Law appoints just Measures and tho' the Statute adds this circumstance yet the Crime being at the Common-Law the conclusion is as it ought to be Where a Statute makes an offence more Penal as that which deprives one that Steals the value of Five shillings out of a dwelling house in the day time of his Clergy yet the conclusion of an Indictment in that case is not contra formam Statuti Nota Where one is sued by a name with an Alias the Addition must ever be expressed after the first name Clerke and Cheney IN Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant justifies by reason of a way from his House thorough the place where usque aâ—tam viam regiam in parochia de D. vocat London Road and Issue was joyned upon the way and found for the Plaintiff Vid. Hob. 189. it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no Issue joyned for the incertainty of the terminus ad quem whether this way should lead and one that justifies for a way if he alledges the place from whence and to which and that it leads over the place where 't is sufficient tho' he mistake the other mean passages of it and tho' this be the Defendants own Plea yet he may take exceptions to it not being certain enough to make an Issue Sed non allocatur for in regard it is found
a Jury But the Court inclined to grant the Writ for it did not appear that it was parcel of his Tenure but rather imposed upon him by the Custom of the Mannor and if Attorneys shall be discharged of the Service of the Common-wealth à fortiori of any private Service Vid. postea The King versus Webb IN an Action brought against him for imbesiling of the Kings Goods which was laid in the Declaration to be in London it was moved for the King that the County might be changed And the Court held the King might choose his County and might wave that which he had seemed to have elected before as he may wave his Demurrer and joyn Issue contra Perries Case IN an Information of Forgery against him being an Attorney of the Common Pleas it was alledged That he had framed a certain Writing in the Form of a Release at Sherborn and that he published and gave it in Evidence at Dorchester and the Venue came out of Dorchester whereas it was said it ought to have come out of both places To which it was answered That the publishing and not the framing was the Crime But notwithstanding it was held to be a Mis-trial and being in an Information it was not aided by any Statute Postea Anonymus IN Trover and Conversion amongst other things the Plaintiff declared de sex bovibus instead of bobus Vpon Not guilty pleaded and found for the Plaintiff and entire Damages assessed It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Jury ought to have given no Damages for bovibus being a word insensible and entire Damages being given it was naught for all To which it was answered That if the word be insensible notwithstanding the Anglice the Jury shall not be intended to have regarded it in the giving of Damages and if it hath a signification then it is well enough And it was said bovibus was an old Latin word and is found in Plautus and 't is bobus only by contraction It was also said That the Plaintiff brought this Action as Executor and the Trover was laid in the Testators time which was not sufficient tho' the Conversion was alledged in his own But the Court held neither of these Exceptions sufficient to Arrest Judgment Rumsey versus Rawson IN Replevin The Defendant Avowed for Damage Feasant The Plaintiff replies That the Parson of such a Parish and all his Predecessors have had time out of mind Common in the place where c. belonging to his Glebe and that the Beasts of the Plaintiff were Levant and Couchant upon the Glebe and he put them into the Common by the Licence of the Parson The Defendant Traverses that they were Levant and Couchant and found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Plaintiff had not alledged matter sufficient to justifie his Beasts going in the Common for no other Beasts ought to be put in the Common but those of the Tenant of the Land to which it is appendant or those which he takes to Compester his Land Fitz. N. Br. 180. b. and that tho' the Common be claimed for a certain number And the Opinion of the Court was That the Defendant might have demurred in this case But after a Verdict the Court shall intend they were Beasts which the Parson procured to Compester his Land and the right of the case is tryed so aided by the Statute of Oxford But they gave further time to shew cause Postea Anonymus AN Action was brought for these words Thou hast received Stoln Goods and knew they were Stoln Alice S. Stole them and thou wert partner with her For the first words the Court held them not Actionable for they might admit for a justifiable construction as if the Goods were waived But the last were holden sufficient for Partner with her must intend Partner in the Felony Skinner versus Gunter al. THe case was moved again by Pomberton and alledged in maintenance of the Action that it was but in the nature of an Action upon the Case for at the Common Law no Writ of conspiracy lay but for indicting one of a capital Crime and that after an acquittal by Verdict But since the Statute of 33 Edw. 1. de Conspiratoribus Actions have been brought for conspiring to Indict one of Trespass or to Sue one maliciously without cause of Action as this case is and so is Br. tit Consp pl. 2. and by F.N.B. 116. Such an Action in the nature of Conspiracy lies against one And the Title of the Action in this Case is In placito transgr super casum and for these Reasons all the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff Vid. Ante. Braithwaites Case BRaithwaite brought a Mandamus to the Mayor Bailiffs and Burgesses of the Town of Northampton to be restored to his place of Alderman there They make a Return and in their Return set forth the Letters Patents of 16 Car. by which they were Incorporated and power is given them of holding a Common Council consisting of a Mayor 2 Bailiffs and 48 Burgesses and that the Mayor Bailiffs and such Burgesses as had been Mayors commonly called Aldermen should have power upon just Cause to amove any Common Council Man from his place there and then they set forth how Braithwaite was a Member of the Common Council and had committed divers Offences which they expressed in particular Whereupon the 18 of Dec. 17 Car. the Common Council assembled together summoniri procuraverunt the said Braithwaite and he not coming to answer was the same day amoved ab officio suo loco suo in Communi Concilio per Majorem Burgenses authoritate secundum Chartam praedictam It was also set forth That they had a command from the Kin and Council to amove him Vpon this Return there were four Exceptions taken First That it did not appear that he was summoned for it ought to have been qui quidem Braithwaite postea summonitus fuir and not summoniri procuraverunt Sed non allocatur for it was held clearly to be all one Otherwise if it had been quod procuraverunt J.S. eum summonire A Second Exception was That their proceedings were too quick for they amoved him the same day wherein he was summoned Sed non allocatur for it appearing he lived in the same Town and refused to come to make his defence they might immediately amove him A Third Exception was That they had exceeded their power which was only to amove him from his place in the Common Council and they had amoved him from his Office Sed non allocatur for 't is that wherein his Office consists and indeed it was so averred in the Return But the main Exception was For that they had not as was alledged pursued their Authority for the Mayor and such Burgesses who had been Mayors have power given them to amove And here the Amotion is said to be per Majorem Burgenses so that it might be by
against Bates a Schoolmaster who as it was alledged taught School without the Bishops Licence and it was granted because they endeavoured to turn him out whereas they could only Censure him he coming in by the Presentation of the Founder In a Feoffment of Tythes and Lands where there is no Livery if they do adjudge the Tythes to pass notwithstanding there is no Livery a Prohibition will lye In Debt upon a Lease at Will there must be an Averment that the Lessee occupied the Lands But it is otherwise upon a Lease for Years Anonymus THe Court was moved to grant an Attachment against a Justice of the Peace who upon Complaint refused to come and view a Force But the Court denied it and directed the party to bring an Action of Debt for the 100 l Forfeiture given by the Statute in that case It was said by the Court That in an Execution upon a Statute Merchant there is no need of a Liberate as there is upon a Statute Staple And in the Case of a Statute Staple the Conusee can bring no Ejectment before the Liberate neither can the Sheriff upon the Liberate turn the Terre-Tenant out of possession as he is to do upon an Habere facias possessionem Dier versus East AN Action was brought against the Defendant upon an Indeb ' pro diversis Mercimoniis venditis deliberatis to the Wife to the use of her Husband it being for her wearing Apparel And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that this Declaration being laid That the Sale was to the Wife tho' it was to the use of the Husband it was not good as if it had been sold to the Servant of the Plaintiff Nevertheless the Court were of Opinion That it being for her Apparel and that suitable to her Degree the Husband was to pay for it as had been Resolved in this King's time in Scot and Manby's Case in the Exchequer Chamber and that the Declaration was well enough Anonymus THe Defendant in an Action of Debt upon a Bond sued out an Injunction in Chancery where after the Case had depended for two years the Court was moved that the Plaintiff might accept of his Principal Interest and Charges The Court said If the Defendant comes before Plea pleaded and makes such a proffer they are ex debito Justitiae to allow it But now he having delayed the Plaintiff in Chancery two years it was in their discretion And the other three against the Opinion of Keeling thought fit to deny it Clarke versus Phillips al' UPon the Trial in an Ejectment the Title of the Plaintiff's Lessor appeared to be by a Remainder limited to him for Life upon divers other Estates and that there was a Fine levied and Proclamations passed but he within the Five years after his Title accrued sent two persons to deliver Declarations upon the Land as the course is upon Ejectments brought The Court Resolved that this was no Entry or Claim to avoid the Fine he having given no express Authority to that purpose and the Confession of Lease Entry and Ouster by the Defendant should not prejudice him in this respect In this Case Keeling and Twisden were of different Opinions in this Point Viz. If he that hath power of Revocation over Lands c. makes a Lease for Life whether it suspends the Power only as a Lease for years would do or extinguisheth it as a Feoffment The King versus Monk al' IN an Information for a Riot it was concluded contra formam Statuti 13 H. 4. which appoints Justice of the Peace upon complaint of Riots to View and Record them And after Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that this Information was not good it being grounded upon this Statute which only mentions Riots and appoints them to be punished in the manner there expressed But the Chief Justice Keeling was of Opinion that it being a Crime at the Common Law and mentioned in this Statute the Information was well concluded But the other Justices inclined to the contrary Anonymus DEbt upon a Bond Conditioned to perform Covenants in an Indenture The Defendant pleaded That there were no Covenants contained in the Indenture on his part to be performed The Plaintiff demands Oyer of the Indenture which is Entred verbatim and then Demurs which he could not well do before the Entry of it whereby it becomes part of the Bar so the cause of the Demurrer appears Then it was alledged by Saunders whose Hand was to the Plea That the Plaintiff could not have Judgment because he had set forth no Breach But the Court was much offended with him For they held the Plea in Bar meerly for delay and advised against the Statute of Westm 1. Robinson versus Pulford IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would deliver such silver Threads and other Wares into the Shop of J. S. that he should require that he would see him paid Now after an Assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Plaintiff had not averred in his Declaration that J. S. had not paid for the Goods For the promise to see him paid was no more than if he had said If J.S. doth not pay you I will in which Case such Averment must have been But the Court Resolved that a Promise to pay and to see him paid was all one and the Averment unnecessary Rushden versus Collins IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared the Consideration to be pro opere preantea facto After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that opere was too general and might intend so inconsiderable a matter as would not amount to a Consideration for the Plaintiff But they gave Judgment for they said labore or servitio had been adjudged sufficient Lee versus Edwards IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That in Consideration that he would employ his skill and pains and provide Medicaments for and Cure a certain person of a Pthysick that he would pay what he deserved and lays another Promise at the same time in Consideration as aforesaid and alledges the Promise somewhat varying from the first and concludes with an Averment That he had bestowed his pains and cured accordingly Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff the Court was moved to stay Judgment because the Plaintiff had made no Averment of the Cure upon the first Promise and entire Damages were given so it was ill in all But the Court were of Opinion That in regard he had Averred it upon the second Promise so as it appeared upon Record that the Cure was done it aided the omission of it in the first especially being after a Verdict Nota There is an Inquisition upon every ones death that dies in the Kings-Bench by the Master of the Crown-Office and Coroner Pomfret versus Rycroft IN a Writ of
Covenant the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant demised to him a House with the use of a Pump and that he suffered it to be so out of Repair that it became Useless To this Declaration the Defendant demurs and Counsel being heard on either side divers times the Court delivered their Opinions severally Keeling Rainsford and Moreton held that the Action did lye the Use of the Pump being part of the things demised which Words make a Covenant as in 4 Co. Noke's Case and in 5 Co. Spencer's Case If a man let an House together with Estovers to be taken in the Wood of the Lessor and afterwards the Wood is stubbed up there Covenant lies for the Lessee And Rainsford put this Case If a mans Lets the Middle Rooms of his House to one and the Vpper to another and lets the Roof of the House decay he conceived Covenant would lie for the Lessee of the middle Rooms And if a Parson makes a Lease and then Resigns he is liable to Covenant as in 12 H. 4. And the Lessee would be at a mischief for he should be a Trespasser to Enter and Repair and if the Lessor ousts the Lessee of any of the things demised 't is clear the Covenant lies and this is as much an ouster as can be in this case where the Lessor is possessed himself And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff against the Opinion of Twisden who held strongly to the contrary for he said he might have an Action upon the Case and so remedy for his Damage Also he held clearly That he might Enter and Repair as if one Licence another to lay Pipes in his Ground to convey Water he may justifie an Entry to Repair the Pipes And he cited a Case adjudged in 9 Jac. where one by Licence erected a Cock of Hay in anothers Ground And it was held That the Owner of the Soil might put in his Beasts into that Ground but he that had the Licence might by vertue of that Licence also fence in his Hay Quando aliquid conceditur conceditur id sine quo res ipsa uti non potest and he said that he never met with a Case where Covenant would lie but upon an actual ouster either by a Stranger that hath eigne Title or the Lessor himself And this was a non feasans and in that he differenced it from the Case of Estovers being an actual Tort to stub the Wood up and in Covenant upon an ouster of a Term if it be not incurred Iudgment shall be to recover the Term it self as F. N. B. 145. which cannot be in this Case for the Sheriff cannot put him into possession of the use of the Pump neither is it fit that he should recover Damages for all the Term for it may be the Pump will be presently repaired And he conceived that if the Lessor Cuts down Trées growing upon the Land Demised no Covenant lies yet the Trees are Demised with the rest Ante. Anonymus A Draws a Bill upon B. to the use of C. and Vpon Non-payment C. Protests the Bill he cannot Sue A. unless he gives him notice that the Bill is Protested for A. may have the Effects of B. in his Hands by which he may satisfie himself Note It was said if an Action to recover Lands of which a Fine was Levied were brought and discontinued by the Demandant this would not amount to a Claim Glyn versus Smith A Scire facias upon a Record in the Kings Bench where the Action is brought by Original must alledge a place where the Court was holden because 't is Ambulatory and the Writs returnable there are coram nobis ubicunque tunc fuerimus in Angliâ But it is otherwise upon Records in the Common Pleas for that is confined to a certain place by Magna Charta Anonymus IT was moved to quash a Return of a Rescous because it was Mandavi Ballivis who took him virtute Warr ' praed ' And it was said Mandavi did not imply that it was in Writing But the Exception was disallowed by the Court. Anonymus IF the Party that brings an Audita Querela be out of Prison the Court will Bail him though grounded upon a surmise of a matter of Fact as payment c. But if he be in Prison not unless there be a Specialty Parries Case DIvers Deeds and Evidences were shewn to Counsel for his Opinion of the Title to certain Lands which were to be sold He delivers them to one Parry a Scrivener by the consent of the Parties Parry finding a Deed to concern the interest of a third person gives it to him and upon complaint to the Court they commanded him to produce the Deed that it might be delivered back again to the Parties they conceiving it an abuse in his practice which was under the Regulation of this Court Anonymus IN Replevin in the Court at Canterbury the Defendant avowed for Rent Afterward this was removed by the Plaintiff into the Kings-Bench and the Defendant prayed a Procedendo because Canterbury was a County of it self and no Assizes there and so the Cause could not be tried But the Court denied it saying it was their own fault that they had not the Assizes there and every Subject had the liberty of removing his Suit into a Superiour Court Twisden said He had formerly known it to be denied in an Ejectment Girlington versus Pitfield IN an Action upon the Case for malitiously prosecuting of an Indictment of Perjury against him of which he was acquitted upon Not guilty pleaded it appeared upon the Evidence that the Defendant was a Justice of the Peace and procured some as Witnesses to appear against him and his own name was endorsed upon the Indictment to give Evidence The Court agreed that this did not make him a Prosecutor for if a Iustice of the Peace knows any person that can give Evidence against one that is indicted he ought to cause him to do it But it was proved on the Defendant's side That this Indictment was drawn up by an Order of the Sessions Wherefore Keeling Chief Justice said That the Plaintiff deserved to be bound to his Good Behaviour for bringing of this Action Horne versus Ivie IN Trespass for taking of a Ship and Sails the Defendant justified by a command from the Governours and Society of the Trade into the Canaries who were Incorporated by that name and had the sole Trade granted to them with a Forfeiture of all such Goods as should be imported hither from thence by any person not of their Company and that the Ship of the Plaintiff brought Goods from thence To this the Plaintiff Demurred His Counsel did not much insist upon the validity of the Patent because it was a Monopoly though it was said to be also against divers Statutes to Prohibit Merchants frèe trading to forein parts as 9 E. 3. cap. 1. 25 Ed. 3. cap. 2. 11 R. 2. cap. 7 and that there could grow no Forfeiture of
to the same purpose and that a Fine doth not bar an Interest which is not divested He quoted also the 1 Inst 388. 9 Co. 106. and 5 Co. Saffin's Case where a Fine and Non claim shall bar the Interest of a Term yet it appears in 2 Cro. 60. that two Judges were against that Iudgment given by the other three 2 Cro. 659. Tenant at Will makes a Lease for years and it was held to be no Disseisin volens nolens to him that had the Inheritance And for Isham and Morris's Case 1 Cro. 74. it was the Judges Opinion upon Evidence and there a Fine was levied of the Inheritance which passed the Trust inclusively but this Fine was only to establish an Interest for 54 years Then he Argued that the Inconvenience would be very great to Purchasers who often keep such Leases and Interests on Foot tho' they buy the Inheritance if they should be all barred by Levying of the Fine The Solicitor è contra He agreed that a Fine could not bar any Interest which was not divested at the time of the Fine He Argued first That the Cestuy que Trust was not Tenant at Will for a man shall not be Tenant at Will against his own Conveyance unless by Construction of Law to avoid a Tort as in Littleton's Case where the Cestuy que Use enters upon his Feoffee But tho' the Lessor hath a right to the possession before the Entry of his Lessee for years yet when the Lessee Enters as 't is found in out Case he doth as much as declare that Cestuy que Trust shall not be Tenant at Will Indeed the Bargainee of an Estate for years is in actual possession by force of the Statute yet the Bargainor in case of a Mortgage may Enter to hold at Will because there was no Act done to express his dissent He agreed also that no Disseisin was wrought but there may be an Expulsion without a Disseisin as Hob. 322. where it is said If the Lessor puts out his Lessee for years there is no Disseisin committed and yet the Lessee hath lost his Estate and hath but a Right to it and that whether he will or no And if he were Tenant at Will he by making this and divers Leases before hath absolutely determined his Will if Tenant at Will be ousted by a Stranger and he in Reversion disseised he may enter again not where he is the Wrong-doer himself for that were to make him Tenant at Will against his Will If Tenant at Will makes a Lease for years and the Lessee enters the Tenant at Will is the Disseisor 2 Cro. 660. 3 Cro. 830 5. E. 42. and Tenant at Will is intrusted with and hath power over the possession And where it was said it should be in the Election of the Lessee for 100 years to take this for an Ejectment or no he Argued that it ought clearly to be in the Election of the Lessor For first it was his own act and therefore he could best explain quo animo hoc fecit and that his antecedent Acts had sufficiently done especially being Cestuy que Trust and having also the Inheritance in him and he insisted very much upon the Notice that the Law takes of such an Interest tho' relievable only in Equity 7 H. 5. 3. Cestuy que Use of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant was Outlawed the Church became void the King brought a Quare Impedit 2 Cro. 512. A Trust of a Chattel resolved to be forfeit by Attainder Hob. 214. in that case the King shall have the Land it self and Process shall issue out of the Exchequer to seize the Land it self which shews that it hath a legal influence upon the Land therefore he and not the Trustee ought to have the Election If Cestuy que Use had made a Lease for years this had been a Disseisin until 1 R. 3 5 H. 7. 56. 8 H. 7. 8. A Lease of two Acres habendum the one for Life that other in Fee to the use of another shall not the Cestuy que Use determine in which the Inheritance shall be Again It is agreed that this Fine conveys away the Trust shall the Law strain to save the Interest of the Trustee to occasion a Chancery Suit And the Judges ever Expounded the Statute of 4 H. 7. strictly to bind the Right of Strangers Leonard 99. It was the Chief Baron Manwood's Opinion That he that had a future Interest to Lands of which a Fine was Levied ought to have five years after his Interest came in esse neither is there any reason to favour long Leases By the Ancient Law a Lease for above 40 years was void Mirror 164 293. 1st Inst 46. they are never without suspicion of Fraud and 3 Co. Twyne's Case that which is called a Trust is in plain English a Fraud and as this is found it appears by the Circumstances to be almost Fraud apparent And as to the Inconvenience which was alledged would come to Purchasors who desire to keep Leases on foot he Answered That might be prevented by claiming within five years and it would be mischievous to Purchasors if it were otherwise to have such Leases set up against their Titles Postea Note One makes a Lease wherein the Lessee Covenants to Repair and then bargains and sells part of the Reversion He shall have an Action of Covenant per 32 H. 8. Bosvile versus Coates IN Debt upon a Bond with Condition That the Obligor should bring in the Son and Daughter of J.S. at their full Age to give such Releases as a Third person shall require The Defendant pleads That the Son is alive under Age at Doncaster To which the Plaintiff demurs and held he might for it must be taken at their respective Ages Vid. 5 Co. Justice Wyndham's Case Crispe and Jackson versus The Mayor and Commonalty of Berwick IN a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiffs declared upon an Indenture of Demise of an House from the Defendants wherein they Covenanted That the Plaintiffs should enjoy it without the Interruption of any Persons whatsoever and assigned for Breach That J. S. entred and dispossessed them at Berwick Vpon which the Defendant takes Issue Whereupon the Plaintiff suggests That such a place in Northumberland is the next to Berwick and the Venire is awarded to the Sherriff accordingly and a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff It was moved by Jones in Arrest of Judgment That here was a Mis-Trial not aided by any Statute for the last Act which is the largest remedies all Trials so as they be in the proper County but this is not so And he said It ought to have been tried where the Action was laid As when an Action is brought upon a Chartr-Party and a Breach is assigned in a Foreign Kingdom it shall be Tried where the Charter-Party is dated and here the Covenant bore Date at the Castle of York and there the Trial ought to have been 6 Co. Dowdale's Case and
constant Practice Secondly There was no good Trial for there is an Award of a Venire facias but no Writ certified But this was also Over-ruled for it is the Course of the Assizes not to make out any Writ Thirdly Issue is joyned by the Clerk of Assize which the Court said ought to be for he is Attorney General there Parker versus Welby THe Plaintiff brought an Action upon the Case against the Defendant and Declared that he Sued out a Latitat against a third Person directed to the Defendant being Sheriff who thereupon Arrested him and after let him go at large And then he Returned a Cepi Corpus paratum habuit ubi revera he had not his Body at the Day To this Declaration the Defendant Demurred supposing that no Action would lye for this False Return for the Statute of 23 H. 6. obliges the Sheriff to let to Bail and if he hath not the Body at the Day he is to be amerced But the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff For it shall be intended that he let him go without Bail and if he did not he ought to have pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. which is a Private Law And at the Common Law a man could not be let at large in such case without a Homine Replegiando Or else he might have pleaded Not Guilty and given the Statute in Evidence And so it is Adjudged in Layton and Gardiner's Case 3 Cro. 460. So Moor placito 996. 2 Cro. 352. and 3 Cro. 624. Where the Defendant pleaded That he let to Bail according to the Statute and the Plaintiff was barred Twisden cited a Case in this Court Paschae 21 Car. 1. Rot. 616. between Franklyn and Andrews where the Plaintiff Declared as in this Case And the Defendant pleaded the Statute and that he let him at large upon Sureties and traversed absque hoc that he returned his Writ Aliter aut alio modo To which the Plaintiff Demurred It was Resolved First That the Sheriff could Return nothing but Cepi Corpus And he was then amerced because he offered to make a Special Return Secondly That where the Sheriff let the parties out to the Bail and he made such Return that it was no False Return and therefore he should not have traversed Absque hoc that he Returned Aliter vel alio modo As in Maintenance where the Defendant Iustifies for that the party could not speak English and therefore he went with him to instruct his Counsel He shall traverse Absque hoc that he maintained Aliter because that he maintained Would not do tho' it be justifiable So in that case the Court ordered it to be Entred upon the Roll that Judgment was given for the Plaintiff quia Traversia fuit mala So here they Ordered it to be Entred because the Defendant did not plead the Statute of 23 H. 6. Hocking versus Matthews AN Action upon the Case was brought for Maliciously Impleading and causing him to be Excommunicated in the Ecclesiastical Court whereby he was taken upon an Excom ' Cap ' and Imprisoned until he got himself absolved The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty and found against him And it was afterwards moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was not good for no Action will lye for suing a man in the Spiritual Court tho' without cause no more than in Suing in the Temporal Courts For Fitz. N. B. is That a man shall not be punished for bringing the Kings Writs So Hob. Waterer and Freeman's Case And it hath been lately held that no Action will lye for an Indictment of Trespass tho' falso but an Action of the Case will lye for suing in Court Christian for a Temporal Cause But the Court in this Cause gave Judgment for the Plaintiff For tho' in an Action between party and party in the Ecclesiastical Court where if the matter goes for the Defendant he shall have his Costs no Action will lye if the Court hath Iurisdiction Yet where there is a Citation ex Officio and that is prosecuted malicously without ground the Party shall have his Action for in such Suit he can have no Costs And so is Carlion and Mills's Case Adjudged 1 Cro. 291. And this shall be so intended after the Verdict or otherwise the Defendant should have shewed it to be otherwise and Iustified And Rainsford said without Cause shall be understood without any Libel or Legal Proceedings against him Anonymus IN Debt upon an Obligation to perform an Award which was to pay the Rent mentioned in such an Indenture He that pleads performance of this Award needs not set forth the Indenture but refer generally to it But if it be to be paid in such manner and at such times as is expressed in the Indenture then it must be set forth at large The like of an Award of payment of Money given by a Will Wilson versus Armorer THe Case was Argued again this Term by Coleman for the Plaintiff who Argued that the Exception takes the two Closes wholly out of the Grant and that no modification can be annexed to it 3 Cro. 657. and Moor Pl. 747. A Lease was made for certain Lands excepting a Close and Covenants were for quiet Enjoyment of the Premisses The Lessee disturbed the Plaintiffs possession in the Close excepted yet he could not bring a Writ of Co-venant for by the Exception it is as much as if it had been never mentioned and in this Case the Livery being secundum formam Chartae could not work upon these Closes The Case of Hodge and Crosse cited in Hob. 171. was this A man gave Lands to another Habendum to him and his Heirs after the death of the Feoffor and Livery secundum formam Chartae Resolved a void Feoffment and relyed upon the Case in 1 Anderson 129. as full in the Point A Lease of an House excepting a Chamber pro usu suo proprio occupatione It was held that he might assign Weston ê contra This Exception is altogether void for it cannot be for the Life of the Feoffor only Bro. tit Reservation 13. and it shall not except the whole Fee against the Intention of the Parties for then the Ill wording of his Exception should give him above twice as much as otherwise be should have had and it is but one entire Sentence and taking it altogether it must have an effect which the Law doth not admit and is therefore to be wholly rejected As where a man grants his Term after his death the Grant is void Otherwise where he grants his Term habendum after his death for there the last Sentence is rejected Hob. 171. The Case of the Exception of the Chamber is not alike for excepting it for his own use are apt words to give him power to dispose of it at his pleasure Keeling Rainsford and Moreton held the Exception good for the entire Fee Twisden That it was wholly void because one Sentence Plus Postea Sympson versus Quinley
had a Scire facias against Noell and Iudgment thereupon Noell brings a Writ of Error and assigned it in this that the Plaintiff confessing the Plea of fully Administred ought to have béen barred And it was argued by Wynnington for the Plaintiff and Sympson for the Defendant Wynnington Where an Executor pleads falsely or deceitfully Iudgment is to be given against him as upon â—he unques Administer come Executor Iudgment shall be de bonis propriis But where he Pleads truly it is the Reason the Plaintiff should be barred and the Plaintiff confessing his Plea It is as strong as if found by a Jury or rather more for Verdicts may be false and therefore Attaints are provided and such express confession as here is is much stronger than an implied Confession sur Demurrer Indeed if upon plene Administravit Assetts are found for part of the Debt Iudgment shall be for the whole 8 Rep. 134. Shipley's Case Because the Plea was false But if an Executor should be liable to be Sued and have Iudgment given against him when he had fully administred it would put a great inconvenience upon him as to be put to charge to defend the Suit and to be in Misericordia And whereas it was objected That if the Plaintiff should be barred in such Case he would yet have no advantage by Commencing his Suit of having his Debt paid before other Debts in pari gradu he answered this inconvenience is not to be matched with that that the Executor should be liable to besides the Law will ever favour the Executor for if an Executor be Sued and the Plaintiff Nonsuit he shall have Costs but an Executor Plaintiff shall pay no Costs upon a Nonsuit 3 Cro. 503. vid. Hob. 83. Lawneys Case Also a Man may be presumed to know whether an Executor hath Assetts or no for he may consult the Inventory And for the Cases that might be objected as that of the Warrantia Chartoe against an Heir who Pleads Riens per descent or that the Plaintiff is not impleaded the Plaintiff may pray Iudgment presently F. N. B. 134. He Answered 't is true the Writ may be brought quia timet for he may be after impleaded in an Action wherein he cannot Vouch yet if he be after impleaded in a Praecipe he must Vouch and this is a line real and the Heir merely in loco patris whereas when an Executor hath fully Administred the Executorship is as it were determined And for the Case where Debt is brought against the Heir who Pleads riens per descent the Plaintiff may pray Iudgment presently to have Execution of Assetts as shall afterwards descend he said he knew no particular Authority where it was so done but if it be so as it is said in Shipleys Case yet not to be resembled to this Case for the Heir is charged as for his own Debt and the Action is in the Debet Detinet Com. 443. and if the Heir Pleads riens per discent and found against him the Iudgment is general not so so of an Executor so where the Iudgment is sur nihil dicit Moor 522. Dier 81. 344. 2 Rolls 67. Tit. Heir so where he confesses the Action but if an Executor after pleading Plene Administravit confess the Action the Iudgment shall be de bonis Testatoris Hob. 178. And for the Opinion in Shipleys Case 8 Rep. which is according to the Iudgment here he said it was obiter but he relied upon Cro. Dorchester and Webbs Case where that Opinion is denied and said there that all the Presidents are that the Plaintiff is in such case to be barred Rastals Entries 323 324. Sympson contra The nature of the Plea is to be considered it both not deny the Cause of Action but goes only to take away the present effect of it remoto impedimento resurgit Actio vel Executio 34 H. 6. 23. Prisot saith If an Executor Pleads ne unques Executor and found against him Iudgment is to be de bonis propriis But otherwise If he Pleads Plene Administravit for then be doth not put the Party from his Action for ever He said the Case of the Action of Debt against the Heir was the same for he is bound only by reason of the Land descended 1 Rolls 929. If an Executor Pleads Plene Administravit and the Plaintiff takes Issue and found against him he is to be barred for he as the Book saith hath waived his advantage he cited also the Book of the Office of Executors 3 Cro. 887. supposed to be written by Doderidge lib. 7. cap. 15. and relied pricipally upon Shipleys Case 8 Co. 134. which is cited and allowed in Hob. 199. And upon a President in this Court Trin. 13 Jac. Rot. 1104. between Perryman and Westwood where Iudgment was just as in this Case and Mich. after Rot. 206. Vpon Suggestion of Assets a Scire facias was taken out and Issue taken and tried at Guild-hall before my Lord Coke where Assetts were found for part and Iudgment to Recover so much and the residue if Assetts should come after which as to the latter Iudgment was somewhat further than the principal Case Keeling Rainsford and Moreton Held clearly that Iudgment ought to be affirmed chiefly for the great inconvenience it would be to one that had Commenced an Action and yet his Debt should have no preference before others of the same sort and many times the Testator leaves a great Estate in Bonds and Specialties which yet are no Assetts until the Money is paid Whereas the Case of the Heir is much stronger in regard of the improbability of his having Assetts in futoro In 16 H. 7. 10. it is said if an Executor Pleads Plene Administravit it is but a Temporal bar A Rent is granted in Fee provided that it shall cease during the minority of the Heir the Wife brings Dower the Heir being under Age she shall have Iudgment sed cesset Executio Vid. Hutton 128. the case reported without any such Opinion Twisden stuck much to the Authority of Dorchester and Webbs Case but at length consented that Iudgment should be affirmed Note The Iudgment was in Misericordia and the Court doubted at first whether it were not Erroneous for that Cause but it appeared that the Executor did not come in primo die wherefore notwithstanding they affirmed the Iudgment Ante. Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 22 Car. II. In Banco Regis Prydyerd versus Thomas A Writ of Error was brought upon two Judgments given in an inferiour Court and they returned two Records betwéen the same Parties but it seems not those which the Plaintiff intended and this was complained of to the Court and it appeared that those which the Plaintiff brought his Writ of Error upon were not determined for Writs of Enquiry of Damages were returned but no Judgments entred Curia If there be divers Records betwéen the same Parties the inferiour Court may remove which they please they being
is where it is imposed for such things as are of common Right incident to its Jurisdiction as for Contempts or the like Yet where Custom only enables them to set a Fine it cannot be Distrained for without Custom also 11 Co. Godfrey's Case And to this Opinion did the Court incline Sed Adjornatur Anonymus TWo Actions of Account were removed into this Court by Habeas Corpus and Special Bail put in And it was moved that the Bail might be discharged and Common Bail filed because in an Account Special Bail is not to be put in But it was said the Plaintiff had declared in one in an Action upon the Case and so prayed that the Bail might stand quoad that But it was Ruled That the Bail should be discharged and if the Plaintiff would have Special Bail he must Arrest the Defendant again in an Action upon the Case Doctor Lee's Case DOctor Lee having Lands within the Level was made an Expenditor by the Commissioners of Sewers whereupon he prayed his Writ of Priviledge in this Court and it was granted For the Register is Vir militans Deo non implicetur saecularibus negotiis and the ancient Law is Quod Clerici non ponantur in Officia F.N.B. Clergy-men are not to serve in the Wars Jemey versus Norris ERror to Reverse a Judgment in an Assumpsit upon a Quantum meruit for divers things sold It was assigned for Error that the Declaration amongst the rest was for unum par Chirothecarum and did not express what sort of Gloves they were which are of much different prices according to the different Leather they are made of And Playter's Case 5 Co. was cited where Trespass for taking of his Fishes was held not good because not ascertainedb of what kind Sed non allocatur Another of the things declared for was una parcella fili which as it was said was utterly uncertain and that was held to be naught Tho' it was said an Action was brought for taking away unum cumulum Foeni Anglicè a Rick of Hay and not alledged how much it contained yet held good But in Webb and Washburn's Case an Action was brought for a pair of Hangings and it was Adjudged against the Plaintiff for the Incertainty Jones contra and cited a Case in this Court 24 Car. 1. Green and Green in Trover for six parcels of Lead and notwithstanding the Incertainty the Plaintiff had Judgment So in Trover for a Trunk de diversis Vestimentis and did not say what Garments and yet held good But admitting it should not be good in Trover yet it is well in this Action 'T is the Common course to declare sur Indebitatus pro mercimoniis and never express what they are And the Court were of Opinion that the Plaintiff was to have Judgment for it is an Action much of the same nature with an Indebitatus And Twisden said Where the Promise is to pay Quantum meruit he knew not why the Plaintiff might not declare upon an Indebitatus in a certain Sum and that he might prove the value upon the Evidence and if such a Case came to be tried before him he would have a Special Verdict found in it The Court said Such an uncertain Declaration would hardly be good in Trover or Replevin and held the Case of the six Parcels to be strange and for the Trunk that an Action lies for that the things contained in it were alledged but as matter of aggravation of Damages Vid. the Case of Taylour and Wells ante Trover de decem paribus velorum tegularum Anglicè Ten pair of Curtains and Vallance Wilson versus Armorer IN Debt against the Heir and Reins per discent pleaded the Case upon Special Verdict was thus The Ancestor made a Feoffment of a Mannor to divers uses excepting two Closes for the Life of the Feoffor only and whether those two Closes did discend was the Point referred to the Iudgment of the Court. And it was Adjudged That they did discend either for that the Exception was good tho' the latter part of the Sentence viz. for the Life of the Feoffor only was void and therefore to be rejected or if the whole Exception were void because one intire Sentence Yet they all agreed that there was no Vse limited of those two Closes which were intended to be excepted for the Vse was limited of the Mannor exceptis praeexceptis which excluded the two Acres For altho' there were not sufficient words to except them yet there was enough to declare the intention of the Feoffor to be so Anonymus AN Indictment for Erecting of a Cottage for Habitation contra Statut ' 31 Eliz. cap. 7. was quashed because it was not said that any had inhabited in it for 't is no Offence before per Rainsford Moreton caeteris absentibus Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 22 23 Car. II. In Banco Regis Robson's Case A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit for Tythes by the Parson upon a Suggestion of a Modus paid to the Vicar and that the Vicaridge had time out of mind been Endowed Coleman moved for a Consultation because the Endowment of the Vicaridge was not proved by two Witnesses within six Months according to the Statute But it was denyed for that part of the Suggestion is not to be proved by Witnesses but only the payment of the Modus And it was said If the Suggestion consisted of two parts it was sufficient to produce one Witness to the one and another to the other Dacon's Case DAcon was presented in the Court Leet for refusing the Office of Constable and Fined It was moved to quash it because it expressed the Court to be held infra unum mensem Sancti Michael ' viz. 12 November and so the Day shewn above a Month after Michaelmas And it is necessary to set down the precise Day for it may else be upon a Sunday and yet within a Month after Michaelmas and for this cause the Court held that it must be quashed Error AN Outlawry was Reversed for that the Proclamations were Returned to be ad comitat ' meum tent ' apud such a place in Com' praedict ' and not said pro Comitatu For anciently one Sheriff had two or three Counties and might hold the Court in one County for another Calthorpe versus .... IN Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared that he let the Defendant such Land anno 16 of the King quamdiu ambabus partibus placeret and that anno 16 the Defendant entred and occupied it pro uno anno tunc proximê sequent ' and because the Rent was behind pro praedict ' anno finit ' 18 he brought the Action Vpon which it was Demurred Because the Rent is demanded for the Year ending 18 and it is not shewn that the Defendant enjoyed the Land longer than anno 17. And in Debt for Rent upon a Lease at Will Occupation of the Tenant must be averred To which it was Answered That it is said
King by general words of all Land c. Conditions c. 3 Co. 2. a. b. much less could it pass from the King if it could pass at all by general words but I rest upon this First That it is a Power or kind of Trust to revoke but no Condition Secondly At least not such a Condition as is given to the King Thirdly If it were it ought to have béen executed by the same means as it should have béen by S. M. In Englefields Case there was no pretence to have more than to execute the Condition it ought here to have béen executed in the Life of S. M. and so it appears to be done in Englefields Case and Harding and Warners Case for I caused the Cases to be searched This is like the Case of the Statutes of 15 R. 2. cap. 5. 1 R. 3. cap. 1. 19 H. 7. cap. 15. these Statutes give the same advantage to Lords c. where persons have Uses in Lands respectively as if they had the very Lands but the Lord's c. cannot thereby claim any greater Interest than the cestuy que Uses had respectively in the Uses Now in this Case The Body of the Act and the Proviso fetch back and save the Trusts for all but S.M. As to the Execution for the Kings Debts it differs for the Process for they ever did and do run de terris de quibus illi aut aliquis ad eorum usum c. 'T is true in Sir Charles Hattons Case it was resolved That the Kings Debr should be executed upon Land wherein he had a power of Revocation Vid. Chirtons Case 11 Co. 92. And so Iudgment was affirmed per toram Curiam Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 22 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Debt upon a Bond. After Verdict for the Plaintiff the Judgment was entred quod recuperet the Sum pro misis custag ' instead of pro debito praed ' But this was ordered to be amended as the default of the Clerk tho' in another Term The Court having power over their own Entries and Judgments Anonymus IN an Account it was held by the Court that if a man delivers Money to his Bayliff or Factor to lay out for him in Commodities he cannot bring an Assumpsit but only his Action of Account For the Chief Justice said that he knew such an Action once brought and the Jury that were to try the Cause informed him That if they should Examine all the Accounts which were between the Plaintiff and Defendant it would take up three or four days time So that it hath been always holden that in such case he should be driven to his proper Remedy which is an Action of Account and it may be the Factor hath laid out more Mony that he received Eaton versus Barker IN an Action upon the Statute of 17 Car. nunc for residing in a place where he had formerly kept a Conventicle and demands the 40 l penalty After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no Costs or Damages given For it was said that where a Statute gave a certain Penalty if this be not paid upon demand he that sues for it shall recover his Costs and Damages as North and Wingate's Case in the 3 Cro. 559. is But the Court held that they ought not to be given in Actions Popular whether the Forfeiture be certain or not but where a certain Penalty is given to the party grieved there he shall recover his Costs and Damages 10 Co. 116. Vide postea Polexphen versus Polexphen IN a Prohibition the Case was that Henry Polexphen died Intestate Andrew his Brother gets Letters of Administration in the Inferiour Diocess One who pretended to be the Wife of H. surmizing Bona notabilia procured Administration from the Prerogative Court Andrew appeals to the Delegates and dies Henry his Son and Heir comes in and gets the Administration committed in the Prerogative Court Repealed and hath Letters granted to himself Vpon this the Wife prayed a Prohibition supposing that the Delegates could not proceed after the death of Andrew but that their Commission was determined For their Authority is by that to proceed in a Case between such parties one of which is dead To which it was Answered That the Commission is to hear and determine the Cause And both in the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law the Suit shall continue after the death of either party for those which shall be concerned as appears by the Bishop of Carlisle's Case in 2 Cro. 483. and in the 1st Leonard 117 and 178. it is said That if one party dies ante litis conrestationem then it shall abate but if after it is otherwise And there are a number of Presidents of this nature both in the Arches and Admiralty Courts c. And in this very Case Henry Polexphen having obtained Administration de bonis non of his Vncle Andrew in the Country the now Plaintiff got it set aside by the Delegates because granted while an Appeal was depending and that upon full debate before them who would yet now suggest that the Appeal was determined by the death of Andrew The Court were of Opinion that no Prohibition was to be granted and that the Delegates Authority to proceed in that case continued notwithstanding the death of Andrew For the Commission is to proceed in causis Administration c. una cum suis incidentibus vel annexis qualitercunque c. Summariè juxta Juris exigentiam So that the Ecclesiastical Law is appointed to be their Rule by the course of which a Suit doth not abate by the death of the parties And Hale said The Appeal is to the King in Chancery and it is by reason of his Original Jurisdiction and thereupon he grants a Commission to hear it Now if he could hear it in Person none could object but that he might determine the Cause after the death of the parties and by the same Reason they may to whom he hath delegated his Authority But the Attorney General coming in and desiring to be heard in it for the Plaintiff the Court gave further time Eaton versus Barker THe Case was now moved again upon the Statute for coming to a place where he had formerly Preached in a Conventicle And Exception was taken to the Declaration For that it was not averred that the Defendant was in Holy Orders For the words of the Statute are That if any one that hath been Parson Vicar Lecturer c. or within Holy Orders and have taken upon them to Preach c. But to this it was Answered that there is another Clause in the Act That all such persons as shall take upon them to Preach c. which is general and extends to all men whether in Orders or no which have been Preachers And of that Opinion were the Court. It was also Objected That there was no Averment That the Defendant was not there upon Summons Sub
Defendant pleaded that the place Where was the Freehold of Sir Thomas Hooke and that by his Command he entred The Plaintiff traverseth That it was the Freehold of Sir T.H. And thereupon this Special Verdict was found That Nicholas Heale was seised in Fee and that 16 Dec. 1640. he made a Deed to Jane Heale Enrolled within six Months by which the said Nicholas did for and in Consideration of Natural Love augmentation of her Portion and preferment of her in Marriage and other good and valuable Considerations give grant bargain sell alien enfeoff and confirm unto the said Jane Heale and her Heirs Then they found there was a Covenant that the said Jane Heale should after due Execution c. quietly enjoy c. and also a special Clause of Warranty And that the Deed was Enrolled within six Months and that there was no other Consideration of making the Indenture than what was expressed And if it were sufficient to convey the Premisses to the said Jane they found for the Plaintiff if not for the Defendant And it was Argued by Winnington for the Plaintiff He agreed that it could not take the effect as a Bargain and Sale because no Money was paid but Argued that the Deed should enure as a Covenant to stand seized It is a Ground in the Law that the intention of the parties ought to guide the raising of Uses and the Construction how they shall enure Co. Lit. 49. Rolls 2d part 789. and to give the effect the words shall be disposed to other Construction than what otherwise they would import As if a man demises grants and to Farm-lets certain Lands in Consideration of Money and the Deed is Enrolled this is a good Bargain and Sale So if a man Covenants in Consideration of Money to stand seised to the use of his Son 8 Co. 93. Foxes Case 2 Rolls 789. it is said Nota per Cur ' if it appears that it was the Intent of him that made the Deed to pass the Estate according to Rules of Law it shall pass though there be not formal Words Again the Consideration expressed in this Deed is purely applicable to a Covenant to stand seised and a Deed shall enure upon the Consideration expressed rather than upon one that is implied As in Bedell's Case 7 Co. 40. If the Father in Consideration of 100 l paid Covenants to stand seised to the use of his Son and the Deed is not Enrolled nothing shall pass But where there are two Considerations expressed there the Vse may arise upon either As if the Father in Consideration of Blood and 100 l paid by the Son Covenants to stand seised c. and the Deed is not Enrolled yet the Vse shall arise as upon a Covenant to stand seised Pl. Com. 305. And so it was Adjudged between Watson and Dicks in the Common Pleas 1656. The Father by Deed in Consideration of Love and 100 l paid by the Son conveyed Land to him with a Letter of Attorney in the Deed to make Livery in that case the Son hath his election to take by the Enrolment or Livery which shall be first Executed 2 Rolls 787. pl. 25. But it hath been Objected here that there is a Clause of Warranty in the Deed which shews that the parties intended a Conveyance at the Common Law for if it enure by way of Covenant to stand seised the Warranty can have no effect but to Rebut Also there is a Covenant for quiet Enjoyment after Sealing and Delivery of the Deed and due Execution of the same which shews the parties had a prospect of Executing it by Livery c. To which he Answered That such remote Implications as those shall never make a Deed void against an express Consideration upon the which an Use may arise 'T is true if there had been a Letter of Attorney in the Deed it might have been void unless Livery had followed As if the Father by Deed grants Land to the Son and a Letter of Attorney in it to make Livery if none be made nothing passes Co. Lit. 49. a. The Authorities which have been cited on the other side are first Pitfields and Pierce's Case 2 Roll. 789. where the Father by Deed Poll in Consideration of Blood did give grant c. as in our Case to his Son Habend ' after his decease and a Proviso in it That the Son should pay a Rent during the Father's Life It was Adjudged That the Lands should not pass in that Case by way of Covenant to stand seised But in that Case the Conveyance was repugnant to the Rules of Law for that it was Habend ' the Land after the death of the Grantor and also repugnant in it self For notwithstanding that it reserves the Land to the Father during his Life yet it provides for a payment of Rent to him wherefore the Law would not help out a Deed so contradictory and repugnant by way of raising an Vse The other Case relied upon is between Foster and Foster Hill 13. of this King in this Court in Ejectment The Case was The Mother for divers good Considerations and 20 l paid did by a Deed which was Entituled Articles of Agreement demise grant bargain sell assign and set over to the Son and his Heirs for ever certain Lands the said Margery the Mother quietly enjoying the Premisses during her Life The Court Resolved that it should not amount to a Covenant to stand seised for they were but intended as Articles of Agreement and preparatory for a further Conveyance So the Case differs very much from ours as also that it reserves the Land to the Mother during her Life The Case also of Osborn and Bradshaw in 2 Cro. 127. hath been cited Where the Father in Consideration of Love which he hears to his Son and for Natural affection to him bargained and sold gave granted and confirmed Land to him and his Heirs the Deed was Enrolled It was held the Land should not pass unless Money had been paid or the Estate executed This Case cannot be urged as any great Authority for it appears that the Son was in possession Therefore the Court Adjudged that the Deed should be a Confirmation and it being clear that way they had not much occasion to insist upon or debate the other Point And he relied upon Debb and Peplewell's Case as an Authority in the Point 2 Rolls 78. 6. where there was a Clause of Warranty in the Deed and an Enrolment within six Months as in the Case at Bar But they Resolved there If a Letter of Attorney had been in the Deed it should not have been construed a Covenant to stand seised and therefore he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Finch Attorney General contra The Lands here cannot pass by Bargain and Sale there being no Money paid which I find is admitted by the other side neither shall it amount to a Covenant to stand seised There are Five things necessary to raise an Use by way of Covenant
First A Sufficient Consideration Secondly A Deed as in Callard and Callard's Case in 3 Cro. and in Popham's Reports and hath been often Resoved since Thirdly A Seisin in the Covenantor of the Lands at the time of the Deed For a man cannot Covenant to stand seised to an Vse of Lands which he shall after purchase Fourthly A Clear and apparent Intent Fifthly Apt and proper Words And the two last things are wanting in our Case I agree the word Covenant is not necessary so there be other Words sufficient in Law and to declare the parties Intent for all Words will not serve A man Covenanted upon good Consideration that his Feoffees should stand seised It was Resolved that no Use should anise upon it 1 Cro. 856. So Sir Thomas Seymor's Case Where a Covenant was upon good Consideration to levy a Fine to certain Vses and no Fine was after levied It was Resolved that the Covenant did not raise any Vse Dyer 96. Therefore 't is usual to express in such Deeds of Covenant that if the Conveyances therein contained be not executed that then the party shall from henceforth stand seised And where it is said in Vivian's Case Dyer 302. One having given granted and released to his Brother and his Heirs certain Mannors and no Livery made that Plowden would have averred that the Deed was made pro Fraterno amore and so should raise an Use Vnder the Favour of the Court I deny that Opinion of Plowden to be Law And in Debb and Peplewell's Case it is said That the Land was enjoyed against the Release And in Moor pl. 267. One Covenanted in Consideration of Marriage to let his Land discend remain or come to his Daughter It was Resolved no Use did arise thereupon In this Conveyance there are not any Words that sound in Covenant the only word that looks towards an Use is the word Bargain and Sell. and in Ward and Lambert's Case in 3 Cro. 394. it is held That if one gives or bargains and sells Land to his Son it shall not amount to a Covenant to stand seised for want of apt words Now the other are all words of Common Law Give Crant Alien Enfeoff and Confirm There is also a clause of Special Warranty in the Deed and a Covenant to make further assurance by Fine Recovery c. as great a preparation at Common Law as could be And if the Parties intend the Land shall pass at the Common Law by Transmutation of Possession there shall no use arise Co. Lit. 49. Charter of Feoffment to the Son it shall raise no use if no Livery be made The word Dedi in this Deed imports a General Warranty which is not qualified by the Special Warranty after yet if the Land pass by way of use there can be only a Rebutter and so no use of the General Warranty The Authorities since have not béen concurrent with Debb and Poplewells Case but contrary to it And I rely upon the Cases of Pitfeild and Pierce and Forster and Forster in this Court which have been remembred on the other side but no answered And whereas it is said That the Habend is after the Death of them which conveyed the Land they are in that respect stronger than the Case at Bar for by that it appears they could not intend a Conveyance at the Common Law which doth not allow such kind of Limitations therefore it must be by way of use or no way Yet it was resolved they should not pass so It would introduce universal ignorance and carelesness in such as draw Conveyances if the Court should apply their Art to give them effect however they were penned and it is a Rule Politia legibus non leges Politiis adaptantur The Court after heaving the Case twice argued were all of Opinion That the Land should pass by way of Covenant to stand seized and Hale cited Hob. 277. who doth there commend the Judges who are curious and almost subtil to invent reasons and means to make Acts effectual according to the just intent of the parties They all held clearly That words proper for a Conveyance at Common Law would raise an Use as Demise and Grant have béen adjudged to amount to a Bargain and Sale without other words And they said Pitfields and Pierces Case was adjudged upon the absurd contrivance of the Conveyance and so Foster and Fosters Case in this Court and for that in that case the Deed was Articles of Agreement preparatory to what the party intended after and the case in Moor Pl. 267. where there was a Covenant in Consideration of Marriage to suffer the Land to remain descend or come to the Daughter no Use did arise there for the incertainty how it was intended the Daughter should take And they said That if they should not construe an Use to arise by such Conveyance as in the case at Bar it would overthrow all Conveyances by Lease and Release And for the Objection of the Warranty in the Deed it is well known there is so in most Conveyances to Uses Wherefore they gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Note This Iudgment was afterwards affirmed upon Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber Anonymus AN Indictment was brought for using of a Trade to which he had not béen bound an Apprentice It was moved to quash it because it was not alledged that he did not use the Trade 5 Eliz. for if he did he is excepted out of the Statute But the Court did not much regard that exception Tho' they said it had béen often allowed but it cannot here be intended it being so long since the Statute was made Secondly It was for using the Trade Aromatarij without an Anglicè so it could not be known what Trade was meant and tho' that word is often used for a Grocer yet it must be so Englished or else it shall not be taken for that Trade more than another And for this Cause the Court quashed the Indictment Note If a Man be taken upon a Warrant de securitate pacis or any criminal cause he is not to be charged with Actions unless the Court gives leave which they will rarely do The Case of the Heirs of the Earl of Southampton KIng James by his Leters Petents Enrolled in this Court granted to the E. of Southampton all Deodands within the Mannor of Ditchfield An Inquisition was certified here that a Deodand was forfeited within the said Mannor and Process went out thereupon The Court were moved in behalf of the Daughters and Heirs of the Earl whether they should be driven to set forth their Title in pleading for if so the charges would far exceed the value of the Deodand and it would be very inconvenient that every new Heir should be forced to plead upon every Deodand that happens But the Court said in regard the Letters Patents are here Enrolled and that it appeared by the Inquisition that this Deodand was forfeited within the Mannor it should suffice without pleading
not to be removed out of Corporation Courts where they are held before an Utter Barrister so that 't is far better for the Corporation to have such an one their Recorder Twisden said The case of Bernardiston differed besides that he apprehended he had much of the favour of the times in it for he that was tried before him for having two Wives was arraigned before him not as Recorder of Colchester but as a Commissioner of the Gaol delivery neither was it returned That he was Summoned which was said not to be material because they could not have examined the matter It was returned also That he absented himself for nine Months but not set forth that any Court was held during that time or any occasion for it He said That Cholmley Recorder of Lincoln was turned out of his place for trying the Accessory before the Principal and altho' there be no Special Fact returned here yet it may be tried in an Action upon the Case The Court said They would look upon Bernardistons Case Et Adjornatur Anonymus A Prohibition shall not go to the Admiralty to stay a Suit there for Mariners Wages tho' the Contract were upon the Land For First It is more convenient for them to sue there because they may all joyn Again according to their Law if the Ship perish by the Mariners default they are to lose their Wages therefore in this special Case the Suit shall be suffred to proceed there Dier versus East WHere by the Statute of Ed. 6. It is ordained That striking in the Church-yard shall be Excommunication Ipso facto this tho' it takes away the necessity of any Sentence of Excommunication yet he that Strikes doth not stand Excommunicated until he be thereof convicted at Law and this transmitted to the Ordinary Theodore Morris's Case HE was indicted of Murther in Denbigh and obtained a Certiorari to remove it into this Court in order to have it tryed in an adjacent English County And it was moved whether by Law it might be The Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 6. empowers the next English County to take Indictments of Treasons and Felonies committed in Wales and to try them but here the Indictment was taken in a Welsh County Herbets Case in Latch was cited who was indicted at Montgomery and tryed at Salop and Plowden Matters del corone avenants a Salop and Southley and Prices Case 3 Cro. is That the Statute doth not extend to a Tryal upon an Appeal In Chedleys Case a Certiorari was granted as here to remove an Indictment found in Anglesy which was afterwards tryed in the next English County 3 Cro. 331. And the Court held that so it might be here Large versus Cheshire HIll 22. and 23 Car. 2. Rot. 520. In Covenant the Plaintiff declared upon Articles of Agreement between him and the Defendant whereby the Defendant covenanted to pay him such a Sum the Plaintiff making to him a sufficient Estate in such Lands before the Feast of St. Thomas next ensuing the date of the Deed and then he saith that licet he the Plaintiff semper a tempore confectionis scripti paratus suit ad performand ' all the Agreements of his part usque ad diem Exhibitionis bille the Defendant had not paid the Money The Defendant pleaded quod ipse obtulit solvere the Money aforesaid apud Derby si le Plaintiff faceret ei bonum sufficient ' Statum de in Premissis c. The Plaintiff replied Protestando That the Defendant did not offer the Money pro placito that he the 21 of Decemb. apud Derby fecit sigillavit quandam Chartam Feoffamenti whereby he conveyed the Premisses to the Defendant and that he came to the Premisses an hour before Sun-set the same day paratus ad deliberand ' seisinam c. quod Desendens nec aliquis ex parte illius venit ad recipiend ' c. to which the Defendant demurred and adjudged for him It was held That these words ipso faciente bonum statum were a Condition precedent to the payment of the Money therefore the Plaintiff in his Declaration should have averred the performance of it particularly and not by such general words that he had done all on his part And it differs from the Case where in Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration the Plaintiff should permit him to enjoy such Land for seven years that he would pay him pro quolibet anno 20 s and the Action was held well brought within the seven years for that it was Executory contract for every of the years according to the intention of the Parties It was resolved also That the Replication was insufficient for that the Plaintiff having Election to make what Conveyance he pleaded he ought to have given notice to the Defendant that he would execute this Charter of Feoffment by Livery for it might have béen by Enrollment But Hale said The time when in this Case was not necessary to be in the notice because the Charter was sealed and delivered upon the extream day limited by the Agreement so the Defendant knew it must be upon that day so for the place because it is a local thing and must be done upon the Land But because he had set forth no notice given to the Defendant that he would make Livery the Replication is insufficient as if a Man be bound to Levy a Fine he must shew whether he will do it in Court or by Dedimus and the Court said if the Defendant had refused to accept of Livery the Plaintiff might as well have brought the Action as if he had actually made it Sacheverel versus Frogate IN Covenant the Plaintiff declares That Jacinth Sacheverel was seized in Fee and demised to the Defendant certain Lands for 21 years rendring to him his Executors Administrators and Assigns 120 l Annually during the Term By force of which Lease the Defendant entred and that J. S. Devised the Reversion to the Plaintiff and died and for Non-payment of Rent accrued since his Death he brought the Action and to this Declaration the Defendant demurred And it was argued by Winnington That the Rent determined by the Death of the Lessor as where the Lessor reserves the Rent only to himself 1 E. 4. 18. 27 H. 8. 19. Dier 45. Com. 171. the Heir shall not have it for reservations are taken strongliest against the Lessor so where the reservation is to the Lessor his Executors and Assigns it continues but for his Life Co. Lit. 47. a. 'T is true Here is also added Durante Termino and in Mallories Case 5 Co. where the reservation was to the Abbot or his Successors during the Term it went to the Successor but that was because they expounded or as a Conjunctive for if Successor had béen left out I suppose it would have been resolved otherwise Richmond and Butchers Case 1 Cro. 217. is in point that the Heir shall not have it So 2 Rolls 451.
And Doderidge gives the Reason That the Party by his words hath abridged what otherwise the Law would make and so it is held in Bland and Inmans Case 3 Cro. 288. where a Man possessed of a Term for a 100 years did joyn in a Lease with his Wife solvendo so much Rent during the Term to him and his Wife and the Survivor of them that the Executors should not have this Rent Hunt contra In the Reservation of a Rent there is no need of words of Limitation If the words are Yeilding and Paying Generally without saying to whom it is a good Reservation to all those to whom the Reversion shall come so if two Joynt-tenants reserve a Rent generally it is good to both Here are sufficient words to declare the intent that the Rent should continue and then they shall not be restrained by any affirmative words after and where Executors Administrators and Assigns are named that shall be taken as an Enumeration of some particulars without any intent to exclude others as where a man made one his Executor of all his Corn and moveable Goods this gave him an Interest as Executor in all his Chattels as well as in those which were named 3 Cro. 292. Rose and Barlett's Case 8 Co. Whitlock's Case If the Reservation be to such persons to whom the Reversion shall come this is good to the Heir and all others If a Lease be made excepting a Chamber to the Lessor this remains excepted after the death of the Lessor 7 H. 8. 19. Hale If this were res integra it might be a strong Case for the Plaintiff but the Authorities go the other way Sed Adjornatur Vide postea Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 23 Car. II. In Banco Regis Dorrel versus Jay THe Plaintiff declared that Communication being between J.S. and the Defendant of the last Will of John Rowe Esquire deceased that the Defendant said of the Plaintiff He hath forged his Uncle Rowes Will. After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved by Serjeant Ellis in Arrest of Judgment that it is not averred that John Rowe was dead at the time of the speaking of the words Sed non allocatur For it is said there was a discourse of the Will of John Row Esquire defuncti and there defuncti goeth to the description of his person and expresseth that he was then dead and not only when the Action was brought Besides the words imply it for if he were not dead he could not forge his Will Vid. ante Phillips and Kingston's Case Pasch 23 Car. The Case of St. Katherines Hospital THe Case as it appeared upon the Evidence at a Trial at Bar in Ejectment for part of the Lands of the Hospital between the Lessee of Sir Robert Atkins the Queens Solicitor and George Mountague Esquire was this Elianor Queen Dowager of Henry the Third in the year 1273. Founded or at least amply Endowed this Hospital reserving to her self during her Life Reginis Angliae nobis succedentibus the Nomination of the Master to this Hospital which was Incorporated and her Grants to it confirmed by the King's Letters Patents In the Year 1660 Henrietta Maria Queen Mother granted the Mastership of this Hospital to H. Mountague for Life and the King in the same year reciting his Mothers Grant and that the Right of it belonged unto her Confirmed it by his Letters Patents and did further by the same Letters Patents grant unto the said H.M. the said Mastership Afterwards the King married Katherine the now Queen Consort and she granted the Mastership to Sir Robert Atkyns for his Life It was urged on the part of the Plaintiff that the Right of appointing the Master was only in the Queen Consort for Queen Elianor reserved it to her self and her Successors Queens of England and Queen of England is not Queen Dowager but Queen Consort And tho' Land cannot be limited to discend in such manner without Act of Parliament as is Resolved in the Prince's Case in 8 Co. yet such a Desultory Inheritance as this was called may be created of a thing de novo As a Rent may be granted and appointed to cease during the Minority of the Heir or upon the first Foundation of a Church the Patronage may be reserved to A. and if he Presents not within four Months then to B. So in the Book of E. 3. it was limited that the Chapter should present while the Deanry was vacant And to prove that this Clause had been construed only to intend the Queen Consort a Record was shewn of a Case between Luttishall and Basse in 4 E. 3. Where Luttishall exhibited a Petition to the King which was Intituled To our Lord the King and his Counsel Which Petition was sent into the Kings-Bench under the Great Seal in which Luttishall sets forth That Queen Isabel Mother to Edward the Third had granted him the Mastership of the Hospital for his Life and that he was disturbed by Basse and Process was issued out against Basse who appeared and pleaded a Grant from Queen Philip. Wife to Edward the Third and a Writ came from the King reciting That the Nomination of the Master did belong to Queen Isabel And so three Writs more came after to the same purpose and expressing that the Matter was delayed ad inestimabile damnum Consortis nostrae And in that Record Isabel tho' living is styled nuper Regina and Luttishall that claimed under her was barred On the other side Divers Grants were produced during the time that there were no Queens by the King and sometimes by a Queen Dowager during the time that there was a Queen Consort And these Points following were agreed by all the Court First That an Inheritance might be limited in this manner in a thing de novo Secondly That this Reservation being to Queen Elianor and her Successors Queens of England did not exclude Queen Dowagers and extend only to Queen Consorts For 1. A Dowager Queen is Queen of England and as Hale said hath the Prerogative to Sue in the Exchequer 2. When once she is so qualified to have the Estate vest in her it shall continue tho' she doth not remain in the same Capacity As where one hath power to Limit an Estate to his Wife it may very well continue in her after the Coverture Thirdly It was much observed and relyed upon that Queen Elianor was only Dowager at the time of the Foundation and so could never be intended to exclude such Queens as should succeed her in that Capacity Fourthly During such time that there should be no Queen it was held that the King was to constitute the Master for he is Heir to Queen Eleanor And whereas it was urged for the Plaintiff That the King had not power to dispose of the place but only by way of provision till such time as a Queen should be so as to commit the Care of the Poor to one but not the Interest of the Mastership It was
clearly Resolved that the King might grant it and that the Estate of the Grantee should continue tho' the King's Interest devolved upon the succeeding Queen And it was Resembled to the Case of the Dutchy of Cornwal If the King while there is no Prince of Wales makes a Lease of Lands belonging to that Dutchy this shall determine upon the Birth of that Prince but if he Presents to a Church the Incumbent shall not be removed as in case where the King presents to a Church by reason of the Temporalties of a Bishoprick the Bishop after Created shall not remove the Clerk And the Chief Justice said in this case that the Interest of the Mastership did not properly pass from the King so as it should have a dependance upon the King's Estate for the King doth but Nominate and the Master is Intituled as from the first Foundation and Constitution It was further agreed that a thing of this nature could not be granted in Reversion for 't is not like an Office but rather as a Prebendary or Incumbency of a Church and the Master as Head of the Corporation with his Brethren hath the whole Estate in him As to the Record in 4 Ed. 3. it was said Note For Evidence and so shewn out of Speeds Chronicles produced in Court That at that time Queen Isabel was under great Calamity and Oppression and what was then determined against her was not so much from the Right of the thing as the Iniquity of the Times neither hath it been heard that one who had been Queen of England should be called nuper Regina in her Life time So that that Authority was much invalidated from the Circumstance of the Time The Plaintiffs observing the Court thus clearly for the Defendants Title was Nonsuit Note It was not Resolved whether if there had been a Queen Consort at the time of this Grant it had been good to the Defendant But the Judges rather inclined that it should Davison versus Hoslip IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff sets forth That J. S. owed him 20 l for the Arrear of an Annuity and that the Defendant was Receiver of the Rents of J. S. and appointed by J. S. to pay the Plaintiff his 20 l That the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear him adtunc Receptor ' serv ' J.S. to such a time that then he would pay him if he lived and continued Receiver To this the Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit and a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that it did not appear that the Defendant had at the time of the Promise any of the Rents of J. S. in his hands and then the forbearing of him could be no Consideration because not liable to any Suit And tho' in case of an Executor's Promise there need be no Averment of Assets for notwithstanding that he may be Sued and the Plaintiff may have Judgment to recover when Assets shall come yet 't is not so in this Case Sed non allocatur For it being shewn That he was Receiver at the time of the Promise and averred That he so continued 't is a strong Intendment that he had Effects in his hands especially after a Verdict It was also said That the taking of this Promise did not discharge the Principal Debtor but that there might be resort to him so long as the Money was unpaid Brown versus London IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared upon the Custom of Merchants that J. S. drew a Bill of Exchange upon the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff which he accepted and hath not paid him And declared further sur Indebitat ' upon such a Sum for that the Defendant accepted a Bill of Exchange from him c. Vpon non Assumpsit a Verdict was fâ—und found for the Plaintiff and entire Damages given And it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that an Assumpsit sur Indebitat ' did not lye upon his matter but only an Action upon the Case as it was laid in the first part of the Declaration where the Custom of Merchants is set forth and that the Defendant by reason thereof is chargeable and this is not to be involved in a general Indebitatus assumpsit And of that Opinion were Hale and Rainsford who said it had been so Adjudged in the Exchequer since the King's Return But they said If A. delivers Money to B. to pay to C. and gives C. a Bill of Exchange drawn upon B. and B. accepts the Bill and doth not pay it C. may bring an Indebitatus assumpsit against B. as having received Money to his use But then he must not declare only upon a Bill of Exchange accepted as the Case at Bar is So by their Opinions the Judgment was stayed haesitante Twisden for he conceived that the Custom made it a Debt for him that accepted the Bill Ile's Case A Mandamus was prayed to restore a Sexton The Court at first doubted whether they should grant it because he was rather a Servant to the Parish than an Officer or one that had a Freehold in his Place But upon a Certificate shewn from the Minister and divers of the Parish That the Custom was there to choose a Sexton and that he held it for his Life and that he had 2 d a Year of every House within the Parish They granted a Mandamus and it was directed to the Churchwardens Twisden said that it was Ruled in 1652. in this Court That a Mandamus did not lye to be restored to a Stewardship of a Court Baron but of a Court Leet it did for there the Steward is Judge but of a Court Baron the Suitors are Judges But Hale said He was of another Opinion for the Steward is Judge of that part of the Court which concerns the Copyholds and is Register of the other Ante. Oble versus Dittlesfield IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff sets forth That J.S. was Indebted to him in 40 l and that the Defendant was Indebted in the like Sum to J. S. and that J. S. did appoint him to receive this 40 l from the Defendant in satisfaction for the Debt due to him from J.S. Which he signifying to the Defendant he in consideratione praemissorum and that the Plaintiff would forbear him a Quarter of a year promised that he would then pay him To this the Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit and a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that here was no sufficient Consideration for it doth not appear that the Defendant was party to this Agreement whereby he should become chargeable by the Plaintiff and then the Forbearance is not material and in the mean time he is Suable by J.S. his Creditor And Clipsham and Morris's Case was cited which was Adjudged in this Court Hill 20 21 Car. 2. where the Plaintiff in an Assumpsit declared that J. S. was Indebted to him in 50 l and gave him a
Note directed to the Defendant whereby he required the Defendant to pay him who upon view of the Note in Consideration that the Plaintiff would accept of his Promise and forbear him a Fortnight promised to pay him the Money There after Verdict for the Plaintiff Judgment was Arrested because that was held no Consideration Sed non allocatur For Hale said When Assumpsits grew first into practice they used to set out the Matter at large viz. in such a Case as this Quod mutuo aggreatum fuit inter eos c. and they should be discharged one against the other but since it hath been the way to declare more concisely And upon the whole Matter here it appears that the Defendant agreed to this Transferring of the Debt of J. S. to the Plaintiff and that it was agreed that he should be discharged against J. S. And he said that the Case of Davison and Haslip hoc Termino ante was to the same effect And for Clipsham's Case that was said to be good Law for there it did not appear that the Defendant was at all Indebted to him that sent the Note Sir William Hicks's Case DEbt was brought against him by the Name of Sir William Hicks Knight and Baronet He pleaded in Abatement that he was never Knighted The Plaintiff moved that he might Amend an that he had put in Bail by the Name of Knight and Baronet so that he was concluded to alledge this Matter which the Court agreed if it were so But it was found to be Entred for William Hicks Baronet only So they said they could not permit any Amendment but the Plaintiff must of necessity Arrest him over again Fisher versus Batten A Bill was Exhibited in the Dutchy Court to be relieved against the Forfeiture of a Mortgage of Lands lying within the County of Lancaster The Defendant prayed a Prohibition Surmizing that the Lands in question were not the Kings Lands or holden of him and therefore he ought not to Answer in the Dutchy Court And the Court appointed to hear Counsel on both Sides whether or no this Prohibition were to be granted And it was Argued by Sir William Jones for the Prohibition That a Court of Equity must begin by Prescription or Act of Parliament That there can be no Prescription in this Case for both the Dutchy and County Palatine of Lancaster began within time of Memory Henry Father of John of Gaunt was the first Duke of Lancaster and he was made so in Edward the Third's time and then Lancaster was made a County Palatine The Act of Parliament upon which this Case must depend is that of 1 Ed. 4. which takes notice that the Dutchy and County Palatine of Lancaster were forfeited to the Crown by the Attainder of H. 6. and Enacts That they shall be separate and distinguished from other Inheritances of the Crown and appoints a Chancellor for the County Palatine and a Chancellor for the Dutchy and that each should have his Seal so that the Chancellor of the Dutchy is not to intermeddle in the County Palatine which hath a Chancellor of its own for Matters there Counties Palatine had their Original from a Politick Reason and Lancaster Durham and Chester were made so probably because they were adjacent to Enemies Countries viz. the two first to Scotland and Chester to Wales so that the Inhabitants having Administration of Justice at home and not being obliged to attend other Courts those parts should not be disfurnished of Inhabitants that might secure the Country from Incursions 'T is true of a long time the Chancellorship both of County and Dutchy have been in one Person but 't is the same thing as if there were two for the several Capacities remain distinct in him The first Patent that made it a County Palatine Ordained that it should have Jura regalia ad Comitatum Palatinum pertinen ' adeo libere integre sicut Comes Cestriae Com. 215. infra eundem Comitat ' Cestriae dignoscitur obtinere c. So that by that the Jurisdiction ought to be exercised within the County They have shewn indeed a multitude of Presidents but I can hear but of One for the first Fifty years after 1 Edw. 4. most of the other are of Personal things and of the rest divers began in the County Palatine and were transmitted to the Dutchy Court As they may send Causes out of the Courts there to be Argued in the Kings Bench but doubtful whether the Court here can give Judgment They have very few Presidents of Causes which commenced Originally in the Dutchy Court which is but a Court of Revenue 4 Inst The Court of Requests had a multitude of Presidents but could not thereby gain it self any Jurisdiction 4 Inst 97. Holt's Case Hob. 77. A Bill was Exhibited to be relieved against the Penalty of a Bond which concerned an Extent of Lands within the County Palantine and a Prohibition was granted for the Dutchy Court is said there to have nothing to do but with the Kings Land and his Revenue Vid. Rolls accordingly Weston contra We cannot pretend to a Court of Equity by Prescription but we have Presidents of above Two hundred years last past as well of Bills retained which commenced Originally here as of those transmitted and that of Transmission is agreed on the other side which proves the Jurisdiction For if a Certiorari or Corpus cum causa should go out of the Kings-Bench Conusans of Pleas might be demanded and so to stop the Removing of the Cause out of the Inferiour Court We maintain our Jurisdiction upon the Statute of 1 Ed. 4. before which the County Palatine and Dutchy of Lancaster were distinct as they were 1 H. 4. by which Act they were both severed from the Possessions of the Crown But now 1 Ed. 4. makes one Body of these distinct Bodies and gives a superiority to the Dutchy over the County Palatine for that is annexed unto and made parcel of the Dutchy as the supream Name of Corporation The Words of the Act are That our Liege and Sovereign Lord King Edward the Fourth and his Heirs have as parcel of the Dutchy the County of Lancaster and County Palatine and there is a Chancellor and Seal appointed for the County Palatine and a Seal also for the Dutchy and a Chancellor there for the keeping thereof and Officers and Counsellors for the Guidance and Governance of the same Dutchy and of the particular Officers Ministers Tenants and Inhabitants thereof So that the Act having Constituted a Chancellor indefinitely over the Dutchy and not circumscribing his Power it is not reason to exempt any part of the Dutchy and that the County is by force of this Act. In the 4 Inst 119. it is said that seeing there hath been time out of mind a Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be also in the Exchequer a Court of Equity So the Book of the 2d of H. 8. and Rolls Tit. Prohibition to the
Chancery that where there is a Chancellor time out of mind a Court of Equity follows of consequence 4 Inst 212. It is said that the Chamberlain of Chester hath the Jurisdiction of a Chancellor within the County Palatine of Chester as the Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster hath lawfully used and executed within the County Palatine of Lancaster Hale Chief Justice The County Palatine of Lancaster is by Act of Parliament and therefore Outlawry there is a good Plea in disability but an Outlawry in Chester is not pleadable here for that is a County Palatine by Prescription The Possessions of the Duke of Lancaster were not made a Ducatus until 2 H. 5. in the Parliament Roll for that year 't is entred Quod sigilla pro Ducatu Lancastriae allocentur and that it should be governed per Ministros Ducatus By the Parliament Roll 39 H. 6. amongst the Tower Records it appears that there was appointed a Chancellor of the Dutchy an Attorney Auditor a Steward and a General Receiver also a Chancellor and the like Officers for the County Palatine So that before the Statute of 1 Ed. 4. there was a Chancellor of the Dutchy I do not think the hare granting of a Chancellor will incidently give a Court of Equity nor is such a Court incident to a County Palatine tho' there is a general grant of Jura regalia but the main matter is upon the Statute of the 1 Ed. 4. which Enacts That the County of Lancaster be a County Palatine which perhaps would have otherwise determined by the Attainder and that it be parcel of the Dutchy and that there be Officers and Councellors for the guiding of the same Dutchy and of the particular Officers Ministers and Tenants and Inhabitants thereof in as great ample and large Form as Henry calling himself King Henry the 5 at any time herein had used and enjoyed lawfully and further That in the same Dutchy be used had and occupied all such Freedoms Liberties Franchises Priviledges Customs and Jurisdictions as were used therein lawfully These words would not of themselves give a Court of Equity but are relative to what was formerly and the Presidents that have been produced are an Evidence that there was such a Jurisdiction exercised before this Act which is confirmed and established by it We have no full account of its original but there are such Prints and Footsteps of it that we must presume it lawful or otherwise 't is not to be thought that the Act should refer to it Holts Case agrees that they have a Court of Equity and so as 't is reported in Rolls tho' there is a mistake in the Report where 't is said that the Dutchy have no Iurisdiction of such Lands as lye out of the County Palatine tho' holden of the King but possibly they may extend their Iurisdiction too far when they retain Bills concerning Lands lying out of the County Palatine within the precinct of the Dutchy but not holden But that matter is not now in question I think no Prohibition ought to go in this Case First Because the Statute of the 1 Ed. 4. makes the County Palatine parcel of the Dutchy Secondly For that the Statute refers to the Iurisdiction formerly exercised and appoints the Tenants and Inhabitants of the Dutchy to be under the same Regulation And for that there are such multitude of Presidents of Proceedings in this nature and allowing transmission of Causes yields them a Iurisdiction for the space of 200 years and so many Mens Estates depend upon their Decrees which have been made with the assistance of so many Learned Iudges which at all times have béen called to assist in this Court that it would be very unreasonable and inconvenient to unsettle them Vpon a Quo Warranto the matter might be more strictly examined than it is fit to do upon a Prohibition And Twisden and Rainsford concurred That no Prohibition ought to go It was then objected That this Bill was not well exhibited for it was directed Cancellario only whereas the Court is holden coram Cancellario Concilio Hale said That would not be material for in Ed. 1. time the Stile of the Kings Bench was coram Rege Concilio and the Writ de Ideota examinando commands the Ideor to be brought coram nobis Concilio nostro apud Westmon ' and anciently Bills were so directed in Chancery but since have been altered Maddys Case JOhn Maddy was indicted for that he ex malitia sua praecogitat ' felonice murdravit Franc ' Mavers upon which he was arraigned at the Assizes in Southwark and pleaded Not guilty and the Jury found a Special Verdict by the direction of Justice Twisden then Judge of Assize there which was to this effect That Maddy coming into his House found Mavers in the act of Adultery with his the said Maddys Wife and he immediately took up a Stool and struck Mavers on the Head so that he instantly died They found that Maddy had no precedent malice towards him and so left it to the Iudgment of the Court whether this were Murder or Manslaughter The Record was this Term removed into the Kings Bench by Certiorari and Maddy brought by Habeas Corpus And the Court were all of Opinion that it was but Manslaughter the provocation being exceeding great and found that there was no precedent Malice and it was taken to be a much stronger Case than Royley's Case 2 Cro. 296. Where the Son of Royley coming home with a Bloody Nose and telling his Father that such an one beat him in such a Field to which Field which was a mile off the Father immediately run and found him that had beat his Son there and killed him all which was found upon a Special Verdict and resolved to be but Manslaughter But Twisden said there was a Case found before Justice Jones which was the same with this only it was found that the Prisoner being informed of the Adulterers familiarity with his Wife said he would be revenged of him and after finding him in the Act killed him which was held by Jones to be Murder Which the Court said might be so by reason of the former declaration of his intent but no such thing is found in the present Case Barber versus Fox TRrin 22 Car. 2. Rot. 855. In an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That the Ancester of the Defendant became bounden to him in a certain Sum and afterwards died and that he demanded it of the Defendant being his Heir and the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear to Sue him for such a time promised he would pay him To this the Defendant pleaded Non Assumpsit and a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Judgment for that at the time of the Promise there doth not appear that there was any cause of Suit agaist the Heir for 't is not set forth that the Ancester did bind his Heirs and the Consideration is not
here to forbear to Sue generally but to stay a Suit against the Defendant whom he could not Sue To which it was answered That after a Verdict it shall be intended there was cause of Suit as Hob. 216. Bidwell and Cattons Case And Attorney brought an Assumpsit upon a Promise made to him in Consideration that he would stay the Prosecution of an Attachment of Priviledge and there held that it need not appear that there was cause of Suit for the Promise argues it and it will be presumed And here 't is a strong intendment that the Bond was made in Common Form which binds the Heirs But Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for the Court said it might be intended that there was cause of Action if the contrary did not appear which it doth in this Case for the Bond cannot be intended otherwise than the Plaintiff himself hath expressed it which shews only that the Ancestor was bound And whereas it was said by the Plaintiff's Counsel that this would attaint the Jury they finding Assumpsit upon a void Promise Hale said there was no colour for that conceit The Plaintiff having proved his Promise and Consideration as 't was laid in the Declaration which is the only thing within their charge upon Non Assumpsit modo forma Bulmer versus Charles Pawlet Lord Saint John IN an Ejectment upon a Tryal at Bar this question arose upon the Evidence Tenant for Life Remainder in Tail to J. S. joyn in a Fine J.S. dies without Issue whether the Conusee should hold the Land for the Life of the Tenant for Life Serjeant Ellis pressed to have it found Specialy tho' it is resolved in Bredons Case that the Estate of the Conusee shall have Continuance but he said it was a strange Estate that should be both a Determinable Fee and an Estate pur auter vie and he cited 3 Cro. 285. Major and Talbots Case where in Covenant the Plaintiff sets forth that a Feme Tenant for Life Remainder in Fee to her Husband made a Lease to the Defendant for years wherein the Defendant covenanted with the Lessors their Heirs and Assigns to repair and they conveyed the Reversion to the Plaintiff and for default of Reparations the Plaintiff brought his Action as Assignee to the Husband And resolved to be well brought because the Wives Estate passed as drowned in the Fee The Court said Bredons Case was full in the point but the Reason there given Hale said made against the Resolution for 't is said that the Remainder in Tail passes first which if it does the Freehold must go by way of Surrender and so down but they shall rather be construed to pass insimul uno flatu Hob. 277 In Englishes Case it was resolved it Tenant for Life Remainder in Tail to an Infant joyn in a Fine if the Infant after Reverse the Fine yet the Conusee shall hold it for the Life of the Conusor 1 Co. in Bredons Case and he resembled it to the Case in 1 Inst a Man seized in the right of his Wife and entituled to be Tenant by the curtesie joyns in a Feoffment with his Wife the Heir of his Wife shall not avoid this during the Husbands Life Nevertheless he told Ellis That he would never deny a Special Verdict at the request of a Learned Man but it appearing that he Plaintiff had a good Title after the Life should fall the Defendant bought it of him and the Jury were discharged Sacheverel versus Frogate PAs 23 Car. 2. Rot. 590. In Covenant the Plaintiff declared That Jacinth Sacheverel seized in Fee demised to the Defendant certain Land for years reserving 120 l Rent And therein was a Covenant that the Defendant should yearly and every year during the said Term pay unto the Lessor his Executors Administrators and Assigns the said Rent and sets forth how that the Lessor devised the Reversion to the Plaintiff an for 120 l Rent since his decease he brought the Action The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Indenture wherein the Reservation of the Rent was yearly during the Term to the Lessor his Executors Administrators and Assigns and after a Covenant prout the Plaintiff declared and to this the Defendant demurred It was twice argued at the Bar and was now set down for the Resolution of the Court which Hale delivered with the Reasons He said they were all of Opinion for the Plaintiff For what interest a Man hath he hath it in a double capacity either as a Chattel and so transmissible to the Executors and Administrators or as an Inheritance and so in capacity of transmitting it to his Heir Then if Tenant in Fee makes a Lease and reserves the Rent to him and his Executors the Rent cannot go to them for there is no Testamentary Estate On the other side if Lessee for a 100 years should make a Lease for 40 years reserving Rent to him and his Heirs that would be void to the Heir Now a Reservation is but a Return of somewhat back in Retribution of what passes and therefore must be carried over to the Party which should have succeeded in the Estate if no Lease had béen made and that has béen always held where the Reservation is general So tho' it doth not properly create a Fee yet 't is a descendible Estate because it comes in lieu of what would have descended therefore Constructions of Reservations have been ever according to the Reason and Equity of the thing If two Joynt-teants make a Lease and reserve the Rent to one of them this is a good to both unless the Lease be by Indenture because of the Estoppel which is not in our Case for the Executors are Strangers to the Deed. 'T is true if A. and B. joyn in a Lease of Land wherein A. hath nothing reserving the Rent to A. by Indenture this is good by Estoppel to A. But in the Earl of Clare's Case it was resolved That where he and his Wife made a Lease reserving a Rent to himself and his Wife and his Heirs that he might bring Debt for the Rent and declare as of a Lease made by himself alone and the Reservation to himself for being in the Case of a Feme Covert there could be no Estoppel altho' she signed and sealed the Lease There was an Indenture of Demise from two Joynt tenants reserving 20 l Rent to them both one only sealed and delivered the Deed and he brought Debt for the Rent and declared of a Demise of the Moiety and a Reservation of 10 l Rent to him And resolved that he might Between Bond and Cartwright which see before and in the Common Pleas Pas 40. Eliz. Tenant in Tail made a Lease reserving a Rent to him and his Heirs It was resolved a good Lease to bind the Entail for the Rent shall go to the Heir in Tail along with the Reversion tho' the Reservation were to the Heirs generally For the Law uses all industry imaginable to conform
the first Man for he is only to compound the business if he can Twisden The discharge being set forth in an Order we must intend it duly made 't is the common practice to go to the Sessions first It was moved at first that it did not appear that the Plaintiff had Notice but that Point was waided for being in a judicial proceeding it shall be intended Et Adjurnatur Lucy versus Levington PAsch ult Rot. 96. Covenant by the Plaintiff as Executor of J. S. for that the Defendant covenanted with J.S. his Heirs and Assigns to levy a Fine c. and that they should enjoy the Lands against all persons claiming under Sir Peter Vanlore and then he says that Sir Robert Crooke and Peter Vandebendy in the Testators life time did enter claiming under Sir P. Vanlore c. The Defendant pleads That he had a good and indefeasible Title in the Lands at the time of the Covenant by vertue of certain Fines from Sir Ed. Powel and his Wife but that in 13 Regis nunc there was an Act of Parliament by which these Fines were made and declared to be void and that Sir R. C. and P. Vandebendy had Title and entred by reason of the Act and not otherwise The Act which was pleaded in haec verba recites that certain Men came with armed force and thereby extorted and took the Fines c. And to this the Plaintiff demurred It was urged for the Defendant That this Title was by matter subsequent to the Covenant and not any thing which was in being then as 9 Co. 106. Sir T. Gresham conveys Land to certain uses with power of Revocation and then does revoke and Aliens and dies the Revocation was not warranted by his power but was after made good by Act of Parliament and then Process went out against his Widow for a Fine for the Alienation of Sir T. G. the Lands being of capite tenure but she was discharged because the Alienation had its effectt by an Act of Parliament which can do no wrong Twisden 'T is hard this should be a breach for the Defendant cannot be intended to Covenant against an Act of Parliament a thing out of his power Baron and Feme levied a Fine J. S. Covenants that the Conusee shall enjoy it against all lawfully claiming from B. and F. brings Dower after the Death of B. the Conusee does not plead the Fine but suffers Judgment and brings Covenant against J.S. and adjudged against him for the Covenant shall not extend to a Right which is barred and besides she did not claim lawfully There is an Old Book which says that if an Attainder be reversed by Parliament the person shall have Trespass against him which took the profits of his Land in the interim Hale My Lady Greshams Case is not like this for there the party was in by the Queens consent to the Alienation by the Act she passed but here the Covenant is broken as much as if a Man recover Land and then sell and Covenant thus and then it be evicted in a Writ of Right for this is in the nature of a Judgment Tho' it be by the Legislative power it may be the prospect of this Act was the reason of the Covenant nor has the Defendant reason to complain for the Act was made because of his own fraud and force Every Man is so farr party to a private Act of Parliament as not to gainsay it but not so as to give up his Interest 't is the great question in Barringtons Case 8 Co. the matter of the Act there directs it to be between the Forresters and the Proprietors of the Soil and therefore it shall not extend to the Commoners to take away their Common Suppose an Act says Whereas there is a Controversie concerning Land between A. and B. 'T is Enacted That A. shall enjoy it This does not bind others tho' there be no saving because it was only intended to end the difference between them two Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff It was agreed by all the Justices that tho' the Covenant were made only to J. S. his Heirs and Assigns and it were an Estate of Inheritance yet the Breach being in the Testators Life time the Executor had well brought the Action for the Damages Peter versus Opie IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares That there was an Agreement between him and the Defendant that be the Plaintiff should pull down two Walls and build an House c. for the Defendant and that the Defendant should pay him pro labore suo in circa divulsionem c. 8 l and that in consideration that the Plaintiff assumed to perform his part the Defendant assumed to perform his and the Plaintiff avers that he was paratus to perform all on his part but that Defendant had not paid him the Money And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That he did not aver that he had done the work Hale Pro labore here makes a Condition precedent and therefore the performance of the work ought to have been averred for tho' in case of a Reciprocal Promise performance need not be averred yet if the Promise refers to an Agreement which contains a Condition precedent the performance of that must be averred as if I should promise one to go to York and in consideration of that he promise to pay me 10 l there needs no averment of my going to York otherwise if the Counter promise were to pay 10 l for my going to York So if the Counter promise were to do a thing after a time ascertained or to be ascertained it must be averred that the time is past Therefore that it is said by way of Reciprocal promise will not concern much for every Agreement is a Reciprocal promise but the matter is what the Agreement is Here tho' the Reciprocal promise be the foundation of the Consideration yet 't is to be considered that it refers to a Conditional promise or an Agreement and the Promise obliges not the Defendant to do it otherwise than according to the Agreement Now to shew this pro labore makes a Condition precedent Suppose the Agreement to be in writing thus Memorand that J.S. agrees and promises to build and J. N. promises to pay him so much for his pains it cannot be taken but that the building must be precedent to the payment 'T is the common way of Bargaining and in common dealing men do not use to pay before the work be done it would be inconvenient to give cross Actions in such cases especially since 't is likely that the Workman is a poor Man 'T is true if there be a time limited for the payment which time may fall out before the work or thing be done there the doing it is not a precedent Condition Vivian and Shipping 3 Cro. An Award that one should pay 10 l and in Consideration thereof the other should become bound
Grant recites the former Settlement which Grant was without Consideration And Secondly makes a Feoffment And it was Resolved that the Grant should not hinder the arising of the Contingent Use because the Grantee had Notice and was therefore subject to the Covenant to stand seized by the Grantor and that the Feoffment should not destroy the Contingent Estate because the right of Remainder for Life in the Daughter upon which she might have entred for the Forfeiture did support it tho' indeed the Remainder for Life in the Wife would not for the Feoffment by the Husband tolls her Right during the Coverture cui contradicere non potest upon which reason is Biggot and Smiths Case adjudged 3 Cro. Now this is stronger than the Case at Bar because the Settlement was by way of use but here Act executed The Case of my Lord Cooke was adjudged by Roll in Banco Regis and after by Glyn. It hath béen the most common way of Conveyancing to prevent the disappointing Contingent Estates to make Feoffments c. to the use of the Husband c. for Life Remainder to the use of the Feoffees for the Life of the Husband and so on to Contingent Remainders and the more modern ways have béen to make the first Estate but for years but in both Cases he which hath the first Estate cannot destroy the Remainders It hath been a question Whether a right of Action would support a Contingent Estate but never doubted but that a right of Entry would Vid. Archers Case 1 Co. Katherin Austins Case AN Indictment was found against her that she vi armis a certain part of the Kings High-way leading from Shorditch Church to Stoke Newington thorough Hogsdon postibus repagulis inclusit c. Vpon a Tryal at Bar the principal question was Whether the place where the obstruction was were an High way Hale said If a way lead to a Market and were a way for all Travellers and did communicate with a great Road c. it is an High-way but if it lead only to a Church to a Private House or Village or to Fields there 't is a Private way But 't is a matter of Fact and much depends upon Common Reputation If it be a publick way of Common right the Parish is to repair it unless a particular person be obliged by Prescription or Custom Private ways are to be repaired by the Village or Hamlet or sometimes by a particular person In the Case at Bar it was found no High-way Ante. Castilian versus Platt ERror of Judgment in Communi Banco in Scire facias against three Executors the Error assigned was that one was an Infant Hale No doubt a Scire facias lies against him and seeing this case is that he did not appear Iudgment was well given against him Symon Morse versus Willam Sluce MIchael ' ult Rot. 421. An Action upon the Case was brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant and he declared that whereas according to the Law and Custom of England Masters and Governours of Ships which go from London beyond Sea and take upon them to carry Goods beyond Sea are bound to keep safely day and night the same Goods without loss or substraction ita quod pro defectu of them they may not come to any damage and whereas the 15 of May last the Defendant was Master of a certain Ship called the William and John then riding at the Port of London and the Plaintiff had caused to be laden on Board her three Trunks and therein 400 pair of Silk Stockings and 174 pound of Silk by him to be transported for a reasonable reward of Fraight to be paid and he then and there did receive them and ought to have transported them c. but he did so negligently keep them that in default of sufficient care and custody of him and his Servants 17 May the same were totally lost out of the said Ship Vpon Not guilty pleaded a Special Verdict was found viz. That the Ship lay in the River of Thames in the Port of London in the Parish of Stepney in the County of Middlesex prout c. That the Goods were delivered by the Plaintiff on Board the Ship prout c. to be transported to Cadiz in Spain That the Goods being on Board there were a sufficient number of Men for to look after and attend her left in her That in the night came 11 persons on pretence of pressing of Seamen for the Kings service and by force seized on these Men which were 4 or 5 found to be sufficient as before and took the Goods That the Master was to have Wages from the Owners and the Mariners from the Master The She was of the Burden of 150 Tunn c. So the question was upon a Tryal at Bar whether the Master were chargeable upon this matter It was insisted on for the Plaintiff that he who took Goods to carry them for profit ought to keep them at his peril To which it was answered That there was no negligence appeared in the Master By the Civil Law if Goods were taken by Pirates the Master shall not answer for them and this is not the Case of a Carrier for tho' here the Goods are received at Land yet they are to be transported and being one intire Contract they shall not be under one Law in the Port and another at Sea the Master is not liable in case of Fire or Sinking the Ship Owen 57. every one knows the Ship is liable to inevitable accidents and there is no Case of this nature in experience And Serjeant Maynard added that this differed from the case of a Carrier for that he is paid by the Owner of the Goods but here the Master is Servant to the Owner of the Ship and he pays him and not the Merchant The Court inclined strongly for the Defendant there being not the least negligence in him but it was appointed to be Argued but since I 've heard it was compounded It was agreed on all hands that the Master should have answered in case there had been any default in him or his Mariners Anonymus UPon a motion for Restitution after the Reversal of an Outlawry Hale said that he must plead the Reversal to the seisure in Scaccario Puckle versus Moor. MIchael ult Rot. 461. A Promise was made seven years since to pay Money within three Months after The Defendant pleaded Non Assumpsit infra sex annos ante exhibitionem Bille whereas it should have béen causa Actonis non accrevit infra sex annos tho' in this case it appears within the Declaration that the time of payment was not within six years before yet because the Defendant had not pleaded it he cannot have advantage of it Goff versus Loyd MIchael ult Rot. 268. Trespass quare domum fregit and took away so many Nails c. The Defendant pleads Specially and sets forth the two Acts for Hearth-Money 14 Car. nunc cap. 10. and 16
the Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Manchester or the major part of them And in case she Marries without such Consent or happen to dye without Issue then I give and bequeath it to George Porter viz. the Lessor of the Plaintiff The Earl of Newport dies and the Lady Anne Knolles being of the Age of 14 years marries with Fry without the Consent of her Grandmother or either of the Earls and it was found that she had no Notice of the Will until after the Marriage and that George Porter at that time was of the Age of 8 years and that after the Death of the Countess she Entred and George Porter Entred upon her and made the Lease to the Plaintiff This Case having been twice Argued at the Bar viz. in Michaelmas Term by Sir William Jones for the Plaintiff and Winnington for the Defendant And in Hillary Term last by Finch Attorney General for the Plaintiff and Sir Francis North Solicitor General for the Defendant It was this Term Resolved by the Court viz. Hale Twisden and Rainsford Moreton being absent for the Plaintiff upon these Reasons Rainsford Here have been three Questions made First Whether the words in the Will whereby the marriage of the Defendant is restrained make a Condition or Limitation If a Condition then none but the Heir can Enter for the Breach But 't is clear that they must be taken as a Limitation to support the intent of the Devisor and to let in the Remainder which he limits over 1 Rolls 411. Secondly Whether the Infancy of the Defendant shall excuse her in this Breach and clearly it cannot For a Condition in Deed obliges Infants as much as others 8 Co. 42. Whittingham's Case the difference between Conditions in Fact and Conditions in Law Especially in this Case the nature of the Condition shewing it to be therefore imposed upon her because she was an Infant Thirdly and the main Point of the Case Whether the want of Notice shall save the Forfeiture of the Estate As to that Let the Rules of Law concerning Notice be considered First I take a difference where the Devisee who is to perform the Condition is Heir at Law and where a Stranger The Heir must have Notice because he having a Title by Discent need not take notice of any Will unless it be signified to him And so is Fraunce's Case 8 Co. Where the Heir was Devisee for 60 years upon Condition not to disturb the Executor in removing the Goods and Resolved that he should not lose his Estate upon a Disturbance before he had Notice of the Will But where the Devisee is not Heir as in this Case he must inform himself of the Estate devised to him and upon what terms Another Rule is When one of the Parties is more privy than the other Notice must be given but where the Privity is equal Notice must be taken by the party concerned A Bargainee shall not Enter for a Condition broken before Notice for the Bargain and Sale lies in his Cognizance and not the Lessees So if a Lease be made to commence after the end of the former if the first be surrendred the Lessor shall not Enter for a Condition broken for Non payment of Rent until Notice given of the Surrender 3 Leon. 95. And therefore there shall be no Lapse to the Ordinary upon a Resignation without Notice If a man makes a Feoffment upon Condition to Enter upon payment of such a Sum at a place certain he must give Notice to the Feoffee when he will tender the Money Co. Lir. 211. a. Dyer 354. And upon this Reason is Molineux's Case 2 Cro. 144. where a Devise was that his Heir should pay such Rents and if he made default then his Executors should have the Lands paying the said Rents and if they failed of Payment then he devised the Land to his younger Children to whom the Rents were to be paid It was Resolved Non-payment by the Executors should be no Breach until they had Notice that the Heir had failed which was a thing that the younger Children must be privy to But in 22 E. 4. 27 28. Tenant for Life Lets for years and dies the Lessee must remove in convenient time to be reckoned from the death of the Tenant whether he had Notice of it or no For he in Reversion is presumed to be no more privy to it than himself So Gymlett and Sands's Case 3 Cro. 391. and 1 Rolls 856. where Baron and Feme were Tenants for Life Remainder to the Son in tail Remainder to the right Heirs of the Baron the Baron makes a Feoffment with Warranty and dies then the Feme and Son joyn in a Feoffment this is a Forfeiture of the Estate of F. tho' she had no Notice of the Feoffment or Warranty whereby the Right of the Son was bound So Spring and Caesar's Case 1 Rolls 469. A. and B. joyn in a Fine to the use of A. in Fee if B. doth not pay 10 l to A. before Michaelmas and if he doth then to the use of A. for Life Remainder to B. B. dies before Michaelmas the Heir of B. is bound to pay the 10 l without any Notice given by A. The Reason given which comes home to our Case is For that none is bound to give Notice and then it must be taken tho' indeed a second be added For that B. from whom his Heir derives had Notice The Mayor and Comminalty of London aganst Atford 1 Cro. where a Devise was to six Persons to pay certain Sums for the Maintenance of an Almshouse c. and if through Obliviousness or other Cause the Trusts were not performed then to J. S. upon the same Condition and if he failed by two Months then to the Mayor and Comminalty of London upon the same Trusts The six did not perform the Trusts J.S. enters J. N. enters upon him and a Fine with Proclamations was levied and Five years passed and the better Opinion was that the Mayor and Comminalty of London were bound to pay the Money appointed by the Will altho' they had no Notice that the six persons or J. S. had failed tho' indeed the Case is adjudged against them as being barred by the Fine and Non-claim Sir Andrew Corbet's Case 4 Co. is very strong to this purpose where a Devise is to J. S. until he shall or may raise such a Sum out of the Profits of the Land If a Stranger Enters after the death of the Devisor tho' the Devisee had no Notice of the Will yet the time shall run on as much as if he had the Land in his own possession These Rules being applied to the present Case it will appear no Notice is to be given First The Defendant is as privy to the Will as any one else viz. as George Porter who is found also to be an Infant It is not found whether there were any Executors if it had they were not concerned to give Notice nor did it
business to enquire of the Condition of her whom he will make his Wife Then the next thing to be considered is the Infancy of the Defendant and that is nothing in this Case Porter who was the probablest person to give notice is found to be an Infant too Conditions in Fact bind Infants Again the Condition here relates to an Act which she is capable of doing The Statute of Merton which Enacts Non currant usurae c. whereby Infants are exempted from Penalties yet in another Chapter gives the Forfeiture of the said double value to the Lord where his Ward Marries without his consent 'T is a restraint laid upon her in a matter proper for her Condition and with respect to her Condition that being and Infant she might advise with her Friends about her Marriage The Cases which have been objected do not come to this Case as the Opinion in Sanders and Carwells Case which might be good Law if it could be known what that case was for the words might either explicitly or implicitly require notice as if they were if he refused to pay c. or it may be no time might be set for payment for in Molineux Case there Rents were granted and after a Devise for the payment of them which naturally lie in demand Secondly There it concerned the younger Children to give notice for the Rents were not only to be paid to them but upon failer of payment the Land was Devised to them So that was a Concurrence of concern in them as to the performance of the Condition and the Estate they should acquire by the Breach Whereas the Plaintiff in this Case is not concerned in the performance of the Condition Thirdly The penning of the Condition were quite differs for 't is upon default of payment which implies notice must be first had In Frances Case there would have been no need of notice if the Devise had not béen to the Heir which is the only thing wherein it differs materially from this Case In Alfords Case the debate was occasioned by the special penning for it was thus that if thorough Obliviousness the Trusts should not happen to be performed Now there could be no Oblivion of that they never knew therefore there is some Opinion there that the Mayor and Citizens of L. ought to have had a precedent notice yet the Judgment is contrary for they could not have been barred by the Fine and Non-claim if notice had been necessary to the Commencement of their Title and 't is not found whether those to whom the Estate was devised before had notice so that this cause proves rather that there needs no notice in this case than otherwise Wherefore the Plaintiff must have his Judgment When my Lord Chief Justice had concluded Rainsford said he had spoken with Justice Moreton who declared to him that he was of the same Opinion Fitzgerald versus Marshall ERror of a Judgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland in affirmance of a Judgment removed thither by Error out of the Common Pleas in Ireland By the Record it appeared that the Writ of Error to the Common Bench was directed Rob. Booth Militi Socijs suis quia in Recordo processu ac in redditione Judicij loquelae quae suit coram vobis Socijs vestris And the Judgment certified appeared to be in an Action commenced in the time of Sir R. Smith who died and Sir R. Booth made Chief Justice in his place before Judgment given And the Court here were of Opinion that the Record was not well removed into the Kings Bench there by that Writ which commanded them to remove Recordum loquelae coram R. Booth whereas the loquela commenced before R. Smith and the Titling of the Record is in such case placita coram R. Smith c. tho' some of the Continuances might be entred coram R. Booth and the Judgment given in his time and for this Cause the Judgment given in affirmance in the Kings Bench there was reversed Sir Samuel Sterling versus Turner ERror of a Judgment in the Common Bench in an Action upon the Case where the Plaintiff declared upon the Custom of London of Electing of two Men in the Office of Bridge-masters every year by the Citizens assembled in a Common Hall and a Custom that if two be Competitors he that is chosen by the greatest number of Votes is duely Elected and that if one in such case desire the Polls to be numbred the Mayor ought to grant the Poll. And shews that there was a Common Hall assembled the 18 of October 22. Regis nunc Sterling being Mayor and that then the Plaintiff and one Allet stood as Competitors to be chosen to that Office and avers that he had the greatest number of Voices and that he affirmed then and there that he had the greatest number which the other denying he requested the Mayor that according to the Custom they might go to the Poll and the Defendant not minding the Execution of his Office but violating the Law and Custom of the City then and there did maliciously refuse the numbering of the Polls but immediately made Proclamation and dismissed the Court by which he lost the Fees and Profits of the Place which he averred belonged unto it Vpon Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff after it had béen several times argued in Arrest of Judgment that this Action did not lie it was adjudged for the Plaintiff by Tyrrel Archer and Wyld Vaughan dissenting And now Error was brought and assigned in the matter of Law and argued for that it was incertain whether the Plaintiff should have been Elected and that he could not bring an Action for a possibility of damage and this was no more not being decided who had the greatest number of Voices But the Court were clear of Opinion that the Judgment should be affirmed for the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of the means whereby it should appear whether he had the greatest number of Electors or no. And Hale said it was a very good President and so it was adjudged by both Courts One D. of Bedfordshire Esquire was indicted of High Treason for coyning a great number of counterfeit pieces of Guinnies of Gold 23 Regis nunc and being Arraigned at the Bar he pleaded the Kings Pardon which was of all Treasons and of this in particluar but did not mention that he stood indicted Twisden said that my Lord Keeling was of Opinion that such a Pardon was not good But Hale said it might be well enough in this case but in case of Murther it is necessary to recite it because of the Statute of 27 E. 3. 2. vid. 10 E. 3. 2. 14 E. 3. 15. and so it was allowed The Lady Chesters Case A Prohibition was prayed to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury Sir Henry Wood having devised the Guardianship of his Daughter by his Will in VVriting according to the Act of this King to the Lady Chester his
only shewn upon the Declaration to enable the Plaintiff to bring his Action Note This is aided by a late Act of Parliament Jay versus Bond. IN Trespass the Defendant pleads that Ante Quinden ' Sancti Martini usque ad hunc diem praed ' Jay Excommunicatus fuit adhuc existit protulit hic in Cur ' literas Testamentarias Episcopi Sarum quae notum faciunt universis quod scrutatis Registeriis invenitur contineri quod Excommunicat ' fuit c. pro contumacia in non comparendo to a Suit for Tythes c. in cujus rei Testimonium praed ' Episcopus Sigillum apposuit It was objected that such a kind of Certificate of Excommunication as this is was not allowable for it ought to be positive and under the Seal of the Ordinary whereas this is only a relation of what is found in their Register Sed non allocatur for tho' such a form of pleading would be altogether insufficient in our Law yet their course is sometimes to certifie Excommunication sub sigillo Ordinarij and sometimes per literas Testamentarias as here Hale said to plead Letters Patents without saying sub magno sigillo is naught and that because the King has divers Seals Note The entry was here quod Defendens venit dicit c. Hale doubted whether he ought not to have made some kind of defence tho' no full defence is to be made when Excommengment in the Plaintiff is pleaded Owen versus Lewyn THe Plaintiff declared in Action upon the Case upon the Custom of the Realm against a Common Carrier and also sur Trover and Conversion Hale said so he might for Not guilty answers both but if a Carrier loseth Goods committed to him a General Action of Trover doth not lye against him Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 24 Car. II. In Banco Regis Davenant against the Bishop of Salisbury IN Covenant The Plaintiff declared that the Bishop of Salisbury the Defendants Predecessor being seized in Fee demised unto him certain Lands for 21 years reserving the antient Rent c. and Covenanted for him and his Successors to discharge all publick Taxes assessed upon the Land and that since the Defendant was made Bishop a certain Tax was assessed upon the Land by vertue of an Act of Parliament and that the Plaintiff was forced to pay it the Defendant refusing to discharge it unde Actio accrevit c. The Defendant demurred first to the form for that 't is said that the Predecessor Bishop was seized and doth not say in jure Episcopatus But Hale said the Old Books were that where it was pleaded that J. S. Episcopus was seized that it implies seizin in the right of the Bishoprick which is true if he were a Corporation capable only in his politick capacity or as an Abbot c. but in regard he might also be seized in his natural capacity the Declaration was for this Cause held to be ill The matter in Law was whether this were such a Covenant as should bind the Successor as incident to a Lease which the Bishop is empowred to make by the 32 H. 8. For 't is clear if a Bishop had made a Covenant or Warranty this had not bound the Successor at the Common Law without the consent of the Dean and Chapter and if it should be now taken that every Covenant would bind the Successor then the Statute of 1 Eliz. would be of no effect But Hale said admitting this were an antient Covenant and if so it should have been averred to have been used in former Leases to discharge ordinary payments as Pentions or Tenths granted by the Clergy then it might bind the Successor by the 32 H. 8. But it were hard to extend it to new charges And we all know how lately this way of Taxes came in But the Court said that the Declaration being insufficent for the other matter they would not determine this But they held that however this Covenant should prove it would not avoid the Lease Vid. Gee Bishop of Chicester and Freedlands Case 3 Cro. 47. Note Hale said that antiently when the Sheriff returned a Rescous upon a Man he was admitted to plead to it as to an Indictment But the course of the Court of latter times has been not to admit any Plea to it but to drive the party to his Action upon the Case as upon the return of a Devastavit c. Cole versus Levingston IN Ejectment upon a long and intricate Special Verdict the Chief Justice said never was the like in Westminster Hall these following Points were resolved by the Court and declared by Hale as the Opinion of himself and the rest of the Judges First That where one Covenants to stand seized to the use of A. and B. and the Heirs of their Bodies of part of his Land and if they die without Issue of their Bodies then that it shall remain c. and of another part of his Land to the use of C.D. and E. and the Heirs of their Bodies and if they die without Issue of their Bodies then to remain c. that here there are no cross Remainders created by Implication for there shall never be such Remainders upon construction of a Deed tho' sometimes there are in case of a Will 1 Rolls 837. Secondly As this Case is there would be no cross Remainders if it were in a Will for cross Remainders shall not rise between three unless the words do very plainly express the intent of the Devisor to be so as where black Acre is devised to A. white Acre to B. and green Acre to C. and if they die without Issue of their Bodies vel alterius eor ' then to remain there by reason of the words alterius eor ' cross Remainders shall be Dier 303. But otherwise there would not Gilbert v. Witty and others 2 Cro. 655. And in this case tho' some of the Limitations are between two there shall be no cross Remainders in them because there are others between three and the intent shall be taken to the same in all The Dean and Chapter of Durham against the Lord Archbishop of York IN a Prohibition the Archbishop pleaded a Prescription that he and his Predecessors have time out of mind been Guardians of the Spiritualties of the Bishoprick of Durham Sede vacante and Issue joyned thereupon and tried at the Bar this Term. Hale said De jure communi the Dean and Chapter were Guardians of the Spiritualties during the vacancy as to matters of Jurisdiction but for Ordination they are to call in the aid of a Neighbouring Bishop and so is Linwood But the Usage here in England is that the Archbishop is Guardian of the Spiritualties in the Suffragan Diocess and therefore it was proper here to joyn the Issue upon the Usage There was much Evidence given that antiently during the vacancy of Durham the Archbishop had exercised Jurisdiction both Sententious and other as Guardian of the Spiritualties
that time this made an Estate Tail But if it had béen and after their decease to their Children then the Children should take by Purchase tho' born after 'T is true that case is variously reported in the Books but I adhere to my Lord Coke presuming that being brought before all the Judges in the Argument of VVilds Case it was a true Report As for the second Point 't is plain that the power is extinguished for by the Recovery the Estate for Life to which it was annexed in privity is gone and forfeited so that 't is not necessary to dispute the third Point whether well executed or no But upon the whole I agree with my Brother Rainsford that the Plaintiff ought to have Judgment Hale I differ from my two Brothers and tho' I was of their Opinion at the finding of the Special Verdict yet upon very great Consideration of the Case I am of Opinion for the Defendant I shall proceed in a different method from my Brothers and begin with that Point which they made last and I agree with them admitting that Bernard had but an Estate for Life that the power was destroyed also here the Recovery does not only bar the Estate but all powers annexed to it for the recompence in value is of such strong Consideration that it serves as well for Rents Possibilities c. going out of and depending upon the Land as for the Land it self So Fines and Feoffments do ransack the whole Estate and pass or extinguish c. all Rights Conditions Powers c. belonging to the Land as well as the Land it self Secondly I agree with my Brother Rainsford that if Bernard had but an Estate for Life by the Devise the power was not well executed Where Tenant for Life has a power to make Leases 't is not always necessary to recite his power when he makes a Lease but if he makes a Lease which will not have an effectual continuance if it be directed out of his interest there it shall be as made by virtue of his power and so it was resolved in one Roger's Case in which I was Counsel Again Tho' it be here by Covenant to stand seized an improper way to execute his power yet it might be construed an Execution of it Mich. 51. In this Court Stapleton's Case where a Devise was to A. for Life Remainder to B. for Life Remainder to C. in Fee with power to B. to make his Wife a Joynture B. covenanted to stand seized for the Joynture of his Wife reciting his power tho' this could not make a legal Joynture yet it was resolved to enure by virtue of his power quando non valet quod ago ut ago valeat quantum valere potest But in this Case Bernard has got a new Fee which tho' it be defeasible by him in Remainder yet the Covenant to stand seized shall enure thereupon and the use shall arise out of the Fee Thirdly I was at the first opening of the Case of Opinion that Bernard had but an Estate for Life but upon deep Examination of the Will and of the Authority and Considerations of the Consequences of the Case I hold it to be an Estate Tail And first to ease that Point of all difficulties if cannot be denied but a Devise to a Man and the Heirs of his Body by a second Wife makes an Estate Tail executed tho' the Devisee had a Wife at the time As the Case often cited Land given to a Married Man and a Married Woman and the Heirs of their Bodies We are here in case of the Creation of an Estate-Tail where intention has some influence voluntas Donatoris c. and may help words which are not exactly according to legal form 39 Ass 20. Land given to a Man and his Wife haeredi de corpore uni haeredi tantum this judged an Entail Again we are in case of an Estate Tail to be created by a Will and the intention of the Testator is the Law to expound the Testament therefore a Devise to a Man and his Heirs Males or a Devise to a Man and if he dies without Issue c. are always construed to make an Entail It must be admitted that if the Devise were to B. and the Issue of his Body having no Issue at that time it would be an Estate Tail for the Law will carry over the word Issue not only to his immediate Issue but to all that shall descend from him I agree it would be otherwise if there were Issue at the time Tayler and Sayer 41 Eliz. rot 541. a Devise to his Wife for Life 1 Cro. 742. Remainder to his Issue having two Children it was held the Remainder was void being to the Issue in the singular number for incertainy which should take But that was a little too rank for Issue is nomen collectivum Again I agree if a Devise be made to a man and after his death to his Issue or Children having Issue at that time they take by way of Remainder And that was the only Point adjudged in Wild's Case and there also against the Opinion of Popham and Gawdy This way being made I come to the Case it self and shall briefly give my Reasons why I hold Bernard has an Estate Tail First Because the word Issue is nomen collectivum and takes in the whole Generation ex vi termini and so the Case is stronger than if it were Children And where 't is said to the Issue that he shall have of the Body of the second Wife that is all that shall come of the second Wife For so 't is understood in common Parlance Secondly In all Acts of Parliament Exitus is as comprehensive as Heirs of the Body In Westm 2. de donis Issue is made a term of equivalence to Heirs of the Body for where it speaks of the Alienation of the Donee 't is said quo minus ad exitum discenderet So in 34 H. 8. of Entails setled by the Crown 'T is true in Conveyances c. the wisdom of the Law has appropriated the word Heirs as a Term of Art In Clerke's Case A Lease was made to commence after the death of his Son without Issue the Son had a Son and died and then that Son died without Issue It was Resolved both in the Kings Bench and the Exchequer that the Lease should commence for Issue being nomen collectivum whenever the Issue of the Son failed the term of Commencement did happen But now to see the difference Tyler's Case Mich. 34 Eliz. B.R. He had Issue A. B. C. and D. and Devised to his Wife for Life and after her death to B. his Son in Tail and if he dies without Issue then to his Children A. had Issue a Son and died and B. died without Issue Resolved that the Son of A. should not take as one of the Children of the Testator Which Case I cite to shew the odds between the word Issue and the
five years pass Whether the Lessor should have five years after the Term expired was the question and after the hearing of Arguments the Court resolved that he should as well as when Lessee for Life levies a Fine which differs not in reason from this Case for there the Lessor may have his Writ de consimili casu presently as here he may bring his Assize And though in 9 Co. Podgers Case 'T is said that where Lessee for years is ousted by a Disseisor who levies a Fine if five years pass without claim the Lessor is barred that is not the same with this Case for the Disseissor comes in without the consent of the Lessee and of his own wrong and if he can defend his Possession five years he shall hold it but here all is done with the privity and by the means of the Lessee who is trusted with the Possession and it would be of most mischievous import to Mens Inheritances if they should not have five years after the Lease ended and it being put of a Disseisin in Podger's Case seems to imply the contrary in other Cases and tho' there were many notorious Circumstances of fraud in Fermours Case which Co. in his report of it lays much weight upon yet it does not thence follow that the Law is not the same where there are not such evidences of fraud In other Books where that case is reported the resolution does not seem to go so much upon the particularities of the Fraud 'T is Fraud apparent in the Lessee Wilston versus Pilkney IN Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared that the Dean and Chapter of c. demised to the Defendant for Life by force of which he entred and demised the Land to the Plaintiff for years by virtue of which he was possessed and afterward granted to the Defendant reserving a Rent for which he brings his Action To this Declaration the Defendant Demurrs First Because he doth not say of the Deans Demise hic in Curia prolat ' which Demise must be by Deed. Secondly He says that the Defendant entred by force thereof which is impertinent to be alledged upon a Lease for Life because Livery implies it Thirdly As to the matter that the Reservation was void it being upon a surrender by Parol A Rent cannot be reserved upon a Feoffment by Parol so where Lessee for life or years assigns over his whole interest 12 H. 4. 14. 9 H. 6. 43. 12 H. 4. 17. also no Rent can be reserved upon a Conveyance that works an Extinguishment unless by Deed where it is good upon the contract Peto's Case 3 Cro. 101. is that a Surrender drowns the interest to all intents and purposes between the Parties Dier 251. The Tenant for Life agreed with him in Reversion that he should have his Land for the Annual Rent of 20 s 't is doubted there whether this amounts to a Surrender there being no Deed or Livery But in 2 Rolls 497. 't is said if it had been a Surrender the reservation had béen void Hale I do most doubt of the first exception because the Deed was not produced And for the second it were better pleading to have said by force of which he was seized but that 's not of necessity And as to the matter the Court resolved for the Plaintiff For 1. The Reservation was good by the contract tho' without Deed. And so it was adjudged in this Court in Manly's Case that Tenant for years might assign his whole Term by Parol rendring Rent so in the Case of Purcas and Owen 23 Car. But it was doubted whether an Action would lye until the last day were past 'T is all one where the Grant is made to him in Reversion which is not actually but consequentially a Surrender by operation of Law before which the contract is perfected upon which the Rent arises 7 E. 4. is that the Lessee may Surrender upon Condition and there is no reason why a Rent cannot be created upon it as well as a Condition If it were in the case of Tenant for Life a Deed were requisite as well for a Rent as a Condition in respect of the Freehold but that is not so in case of Tenant for years Vide Postea Cartwright and Pinkney Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 25 Car. II. In Banco Regis Hanslap versus Cater IN Error upon a Judgment in the Court of Coventry where the Plaintiff Cater declared That the Defendant being indebted to him infra Jurisdictionem Curiae pro diversis Bonis Mercimoniis ante tunc venditis deliberatis did then and there assume c. Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded and a Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff the Error assigned was That the Goods were not alledged to be sold within the Jurisdiction of the Court. Hale and Wild seemed to be of Opinion that it was well enough the being indebted and the promise being laid to be within the Jurisdiction Twisden Contra and said he had known many Judgments reversed for the same Cause It being moved again this Term Hale consented that it should be reversed according as the latter Presidents have been for he said it was his Rule Stare decisis Parsons and Muden Pasch 22. Car. 2. Rot. out of Barnstaple Court John Brown's Case HE was indicted upon the Statute of 3 H. 7. cap. 2. for the forcible taking away and marrying of one Lucy Ramsy of the Age of fourteen years having to her Portion 5000 l He was tried at the Bar and the fact appeared upon the Evidence to be thus She was inveigled into Hide Park by one Mrs. P. confederate with Brown who had prepared a Coach for that purpose to take the Air in an Evening about the latter end of May last and being in the Park the Coachman drove away from the rest of the company which gave opportunity to Brown who came to the Coach side in a Vizar-mask and addressing himself first to Mrs. P. soon perswaded her out of the Coach and then pulls out a Maid servant there attending Mrs. Ramsy and then gets himself into the Coach and there detains her until the Coachman carried them to his Lodgings in the Strand where the next Morning he prevails upon her having first threatned to carry her beyond Sea if she refused to Marry him but was the same day apprehended in the same House It was a first doubted whether the Evidence of Lucy Ramsy was to be admitted because she was his Wife de facto tho' not de jure But the Court seriatim delivered their Opinions that she was to be admitted a Witness First For that there was one continuing force upon her from the beginning till the Marriage wherefore whatsoever was done while she was under that violence was not to be respected Secondly As such Cases are generally contrived so hainous a Crime would go unpuished unless the Testimony of the Woman should be received Thirdly In Fulwoods Case reported in 1 Cro. which was read in the
Court the Woman was a Witness tho' married as here and Rainsford cited my Lord Castlehavens Case where the Countess gave Evidence that he assisted the committing a Rape upon her But Hale said he was not governed by that case because there was a Wife de jure the Evidence being clear as to all the Points of the Statute viz. First That the taking was by force Secondly That the Woman had substance according to the Statute Thirdly That Marriage ensued tho' it did not appear she was deflowred the Jury found him guilty Whereupon Judgment was given and he was hanged Note 39 Eliz. cap. 9. takes away Clergy from this Offence Bayly versus Murin IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was to this effect One Cooper Vicar of Granbrook in Kent being seized of an House and Lands thereunto appertaining parcel of the Endowment of his Vicaridge situate in a Market Town in the year 1672 lets it for three years and one year of the said Lease being expired the 11 of Sept. 1673. lets it for 21 years to begin from Michaelmas following reserving the Rent during the Term payable at the usual Feasts or within ten days after this Lease was confirmed by the Archbishop Patron of the Vicarage and Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Some years after Cooper dies and the Question was Whether Buck the succeeding Vicar could avoid this Lease The first Point was Whether the Lease became void within 80 Days after the death of Cooper by the Statute of Non-residence 13 Eliz. 20. And as to that all the Justices were of Opinion that Death would not make such a Non-residence as should avoid the Lease for the Intention of the Statute was to oblige the Incumbents to Residence First By imposing of the Forfeiture of a years Value of their Benefice if they did not Reside Secondly By making their Leases void which tho' prima facie seemed to be to their advantage yet was not so in the consequence for none would be induced to Farm their Lands because it was in their power to defeat their Leases by Non residence Again 'T is plain the Statute meant a Wilful Absence because it says The party so offending the Statute of the 13th of Eliz. that allows Leases of Houses c. in Market Towns for 40 years would be of no effect if Death should be interpreted a Non-residence and the Confirmation of Patron and Ordinary would be to no purpose Butler and Goodale's Case in the 6 Co. 21. b. is that where the Incumbent is absent upon an Inhibition or for the sake of his Health he is not within the Penalty of that Law There is only one single Authority against this viz. Mott and Hale's Case in the 1 Cro. 123. which Twisden doubted whether it were so adjudged because my Lord Coke mentions it no where supposing so Notable a Point would not have escaped his Observation especially in a Case wherein he was Counsel But Hale said It was Adjudged by the Opinion of three Judges tho' in Moor 't is said the Court was Divided but it was a hard Opinion And in the 38th of Eliz. B.R. Moor 609. the very Point was adjudged contrary The second Point Whether it were void because the Rent was reserved at the usual Feasts or within Ten days after For it was urged that the Term ending at Michaelmas would be expired before the last Payment And for the other payments 't is for the Successor's advantage because the Predecessor may dye within the Ten days But the Court were clear of Opinion in regard the Reservation was during the Term that there should be no Ten days given to the Lessee for the last payment according to Barwicke and Foster's Case in the 2 Cro. 227 233. The third point Whether this were a Lease in Reversion and so not warranted by the Statute of the 14 of Elizabeth And all the Court held that it was This Statute repeats that of the 13th of Eliz. as to Houses in Market Towns which Liberty was given as Twisden said to render those places more populous but excepts Leases in Reversion which this is being to commence at a Day to come where a Power is annexed to an Estate for Life to make Leases in possession A man cannot make a Lease to commence in futuro In the 6 Co. Fitz William's Case 4 E. 3. tit Waste 18. the Lessor made a Lease to commence after the death of the Tenant for Life and notwithstanding maintained an Action of Waste And Co. Lit. citing that Case distinguishes between a Grant of the Reversion and a Lease in Reversion as that Case was In Plowden's Commentaries Tracy's Case A Lease made to commence at a Day to come is given as a most proper Instance of a Lease in Reversion In the 1 Cro. 546. Hunt and Singleton's Case a Lease of an House for 40 years there being 10 years unexpired of a former Lease by the Dean and Chapter of St. Pauls was held not warranted by the 14th of Eliz. The like was Resolved in C. B. 14 Car. 2. in the Case of Wyn and Wild of a Lease of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster and there the Court denied the Opinion in Tomson and Trafford's Case Poph. 9. And two of the Judges seemed to be of Opinion and Twisden strongly that if the Lease in the Case at Bar had been made to commence presently it yet would have been void there being another Lease in being so that for so many years as were to come of the former Lease it would be a Lease in Reversion And that the 18th of Eliz. that permits a concurrent Lease so that there be not above three years in being shall not in their Opinion make any alteration of the 14th of Eliz. but it only extends to the 13th of Eliz. because it recites that but not the former And so is the Opinion of Hobart in the Case of Crane and Taylour 269. and it hath been often held that it does not extend to the Statute of 1 Eliz. concerning Bishops But of this Hale doubted and rather conceived the contrary viz. That the Lease had been good if it had been made to commence presently there being less than three years to come of the former Lease And that of the 18 of Eliz. did give a qualification to Leases made upon the 14th as well as the 13th First Because the 14 of Eliz. is a kind of an Appendix to the 13th of Eliz. and does not repeat it but sub modo a little enlarging it as to Houses in Market Towns Wherefore the 18th of Eliz. reciting the 13th does by consequence recite the 14th also Secondly There is such a Connexion betwixt all the Statutes concerning Leases of Ecclesiastical persons that they have been taken into the Construction of one another The Statute of the 32d of H. 8. is not recited neither in the 1st or the 13th of Eliz. yet a Lease is not warranted upon those Statutes unless it hath the Qualifications
c. be indicted for not repairing of a Way within their Precinct they cannot plead Not guilty and give in Evidence that another by Prescription or Tenure ought to repair it for they are chargeable de communi Jure and if they would discharge themselves by laying it elsewhere it must be pleaded Error ERror to Reverse a Judgment in Debt upon a Bond given in Norwich Court where by the Custom the plea of the Defendant was quod non dedicit factum sed petit quod inquiratur de debito First It was moved to be Error for that the Venire was XII Men c. in figures Sed non allocatur for being in these letters XII and not in the figures 12. it was well enough Secondly It was ad triandum exi tum whereas there was no Issue joyned wherefore it ought to have been ad inquirend ' de debito c. Sed non allocatur for the Presidents are as the Case is here Thirdly The Condition of the Bond was to pay at Alborough and that ought to have been shewn to be within the Jurisdiction of the Court Sed non allocatur for the Plea here is not payment secund ' formam Conditionis but the Jury is to inquire by the custom of all manner of payments and discharges Fourthly In the Record it was continued over to several Courts and in the Court where the Judgment is given 't is said in Curia praedicta and so incertain which but notwithstanding these matters the Iudgment was affirmed Anonymus THe Case upon Evidence at a Tryal in Ejectment was this a Dean and Chapter having a right to certain Land but being out of Possession Sealed a Lease with a Letter of Attorney to deliver it upon the Land which was done accordingly and held to be a good Lease for tho' the putting the Seal of a Corporation aggregate to a Deed carries with it a delivery yet the Letter of Attorney to deliver it upon the Land shall suspend the operation of it while then Tenant for Life being in Debt to defraud his Creditors commits a Forfeiture to the end that he in Reversion may enter who is made privy to the contrivance The Opinion of Hale was that the Creditors should avoid this as well as any fraudulent Conveyance Anonymus IN an Ejectment upon a Tryal at Bar for Lands in antient Demesne there was shewn a Recovery in the Court of antient Demesne to cut off an Entail which had been suffered a long time since and the Possession had gone accordingly But there was now objected against it First That no sufficient Evidence of it appeared because the Recovery it self nor a Copy of it was shewn for in truth it was lost But the Court did admit other proof of it to be sufficient and said if a Record be lost it may be proved to a Jury by Testimony as the Decree in H. 8. time for Tythe in London is lost yet it hath been often allowed that there was one Secondly It appeared that a part of the Land was leased for Life and the Recovery with a single Voucher was suffered by him in Reversion and so no Tenant to the Praecipe for those Lands But in regard the Possession had followed it for so long time the Court said they would presume a Surrender as in an Appropriation of great Antiquity there has been presumed a Licence tho' none appeared Thirdly It was objected That the Tenant in Tail which suffered the Recovery having first accepted of a Fine sur Conusans de droit come ceo his Estate Tail was changed for he was estopped during his Life to say that he had any other Estate than Fee then he being made Tenant to the Praecipe the Recovery was not of the Estate Tail and so should not bind But the Court held clearly that the acceptance of this Fine made no alteration of his Estate If Tenant for Life accepts such a Fine 't is a Forfeiture because he admits the Reversion to be in a Stranger but it does not change his Estate so where two Joynt-tenants in Fee accept a Fine which is to the Heirs of one of them yet they continue Joynt-tenants in Fee as they were before Fourthly The Writ of Right Close did express the Land to lie in such a Mannor and a Praecipe that demands Land ought to mention the Vill in which they lie for a Praecipe of Land in Parochia or in Manerio is not good But this exception was disallowed by the Court for Hale said the Writ of Right Close is directed Ballivis Manerij c. quod plenum rectum teneant of the Land within the Precinct of the Mannor and it is not to be resembled to another Praecipe But if a Praecipe be faulty in that Point unless exception be taken to it in Abatement it cannot be assigned for Error but if it were Erroneous the Recovery would bind until reversed Note After Judgment quod computet tho' it be not the final Judgment yet no motion is to be admitted in Arrest of Judgment and after such Judgment a Scire facias lies against the Executor of the Defendant Note In an Action of Debt against the Lessee he may plead nil debet and give the expulsion in Evidence Anonymus IN an Assumpsit the consideration appeared to be that the Defendant promised to pay a Sum of Money which he owed this is no good consideration tho' after a Verdict unless it appeared that the Debt was become remediless by the Statute of Limitations but payment of a Debt without Suit is a good consideration Anonymus A Justice of the Peace brought an Action of Slander for that the Defendant said He was not worth a Groat and that he was gone to the Dogs and upon motion in Arrest of Judgment notwithstanding that it was urged to maintain it that the Statute of H. 6. requires that a Justice of Peace should have 40 l a year And therefore in regard an Estate was necessary to his Office that the Action would lie yet the Judgment was stayed for such words will not bear an Action unless the person of whom they are spoken lives by buying and selling Anonymus IT was returned upon Elegit that the Sheriff had delivered medietatem Terrar ' Tenementorum in extent and after the Filing and Entry of it upon the Record the Plaintiff moved to quash it because it was insufficient for the Sheriff ought upon such Execution to deliver the Possession by Metes and Bounds Wild held that it being entred upon the Record there was no avoiding of it but by Writ of Error But Hale held that in regard it appeared by the Record to be void it might be quashed as if upon an Ejectment to recover Possession upon such a return it appears upon the Evidence that there was more than the half the Land delivered this shall be avoided So if a Fieri facias be not warranted by the Judgment upon which it is awarded tho' the Sheriff shall be
Vpon which it was Demurred Jones Sollicitor for the Defendant said Tho' the Bail may plead payment because the Condition of the Recognizance is in the Disjunctive viz. for rendring the Body or paying the Money yet the Principal cannot Also it ought to have been pleaded to be paid before a Capias ad satisfaciendum taken out for as it is it may be after the Recognizance forfeited As if the Death of the Principal be pleaded it must be alledged to be before the Capias ad satisfaciendum taken out But the Court held it to be well enough For if that matter be material 't is to come on the other side and ex gratia Curiae the Bail has time to save himself before the Return of the second Scire facias Anonymus IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff Declared that on the 28th of June Discoursing with the Defendant about the Marriage of his Daughter the Defendant promised him That if he would hasten the Marriage and should have a Son within Twelve Months then next following he would give him an Hundred Pound And sets forth That he did Marry soon after and had a Son within 12 Months after the Marriage Vpon non Assumpsit pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had not set forth That he had a Son within the time for then next following shall be referred to the Day of the Discourse and not to the Marriage But the Court were of another Opinion and gave Judgment for the Plaintiff Crawfoot versus Dale IN an Action for Words it was thus There being a Discourse of the Plaintiffs Trade the Defendant said He was a cheating Knave and kept a false Debt-Book with which he cheated the Country After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that to say a Tradesman was a Cheating Knave tho' there were a Colloquium of his Trade was not Actionable for that might be said because he sold too Dear and so cheated in the Price but to say that He sold bad Commodities is Actionable and to say He kept a False Book will not bear an Action for that may be unwittingly But the Court Resolved that the Words laid together were Actionable for Tradesmens Books are of much regard and sometimes given in Evidence Jennings versus Hunking IN an Action for saying He was Perjured the Declaration was laid in Devonshire The Defendant Iustified for that the Plaintiff made a false Affidavit at Launceston in Cornwal and Issue was taken upon that and tryed at the Assizes in Devonshire and moved that this was a Mis trial But it was Answered That the Statute of 17 Car. 2. cap. 8. helps all Mis-trials so as the Trial be in the County where the Action is brought And a Case was cited in this Court between Crosse and Winton in the 21 Car. 2. where an Action was brought for saying He stole Plate from Wadham Colledge in Oxford The Defendant Iustified that he did Steal there Vpon which there was Issue joyned and tryed in London where the Action was brought and it was held good And this Term a Case was moved in the Common Bench in a Writ of Covenant against Wise The Defendant pleaded a Feoffment of Lands in Oxfordshire and he Issue was non feoffavit and afterwards tryed in London where the Action was laid and the Opinion of the Court there was that the late Statute would help it The Court said It was within the words of the Act but as they conceived not within the meaning for they intended only so the Trial was in the County where the Issue did arise But in regard of the Resolutions before they would not stay Judgment Anonymus IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff sets forth that the Defendant malitiose crimen Feloniae ei imposuit and not mentioned any Felony in particular and yet held to be well enough Anonymus Trespass with a Continuando which was alledged for some time after the Term wherein the Action was brought and Damages given to 10 l It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that for part of thâ— Trespass it appears by the Plaintiffs own shewing that the Action was brought before the Plaintiff had Cause of Action And it was said That if the Bill were Filed at the End of the Term and the Trespass reached to some time within the Term the Filing should not relate so as to make it Insufficient But here it was carried to the 3d of July which the Court must see is out of the Term because they take Cognizance of the beginning and end of every Term. Anonymus IF an Audita Querela he brought before the Execution of a Judgment quia timet and it goes for the Defendant he shall execute his Principal Judgment But if it he brought after the party is in Execution and he be bailed out then the Judgment being once Executed there can be no after resort to that but the Defendant shall proceed upon the Record of the Audita Querela Fawkener versus Annis THe Priviledge of the Chancery was pleaded by way of Prescription and upon Demurrer it was held naught First Because it was not Concluded hoc paratus est verificare And Secondly No place alledged for they are Matters of Fact and Triable Anonymus IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff Declared That the Defendant the Tenants and Occupiers of such a parcel of Land adjoyning to the Plaintiffs have time out of Mind maintained such a Fence and that from the 23th of April to the 25th of May postea the Fence lay open and that una Equa of the Plaintiffs went through the Gap and fell into a Ditch the 28th of May submersa fuit Vpon Not Guilty pleaded and found for the Plaintiff Holt moved in Arrest of Judgment First That the Prescription is laid in Occupiers and not shewn their Estate and that hath been adjudged naught in the 1 Cro. 445. and the 2 Cro. 665. Curia 'T is true there have been Opinions both ways but 't is good thus laid for the Plaintiff is a Stranger and presumed ignorant of the Estate But otherwise it is if the Defendant had prescribed Secondly It was Objected That the Cause of Action is laid after the 25th of May and for ought appears the Fence might be good at that time tho' 't is said to be open till the 25th of May postea Sed non allocatur For 1. 'T is after a Verdict 2. 'T is said expresly that the Beast was lost in defectu fensuratum and so cannot be intended but that it was down at the time Anonymus AN Indictment of Forcible Entry upon the 8 H. 6 being removed hither by Certiorari a Restitution was prayed But to stop that it was said that the Indictment was traversed and a Plea that the party had had three years quiet possession according to the 31st of Eliz. and tho' Dyer 122 is That 't is in the
Discretion tion of the Court to grant Restitution even after a Traverse put in yet now since the Statute of Eliz. where such Plea is tendred the Court cannot grant a Restitution tho' they would in this Case if by Law they might for the party that made this Entry had lost the Land just before by Verdict in an Ejectment and by this means the effect of it should be disappointed Note The Indictment wanted Vi armis for it was pacifice intravit sine Judicio disseisivit à possessione expulit amovit But on the other side it was said First That the Entry being pacifice it was not the course to lay it Vi armis Secondly That 37 H. 8. cap. 8. supplied the defect of Vi armis in an Indictment But as to the latter the Court were of Opinion that the Statute supplied only the lack of the words gladiis baculis cultellis as are mentioned in the Statute Vid. the Stat. Anonymus A Suit for a Pension may be in Ecclesiastical Court tho' by Prescription but if it be denied to be time out of mind then a Prohibition is to go so that the Prescription may be tried at Law as in a Modus decimandi mutatis mutandis It was said by the Court that two might joyn in a Prohibition tho' the Gravamen was several but they must sever in their Declarations upon the Attachment Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 26 27 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Error the Writ was Teste the 30th of November last and Retornable in Parliament the 13th of April next the Day to which the Parliament was Prorogued The Defendants Counsel desired the Rule of the Court for the taking out of Execution supposing this Writ of Error was no Supersedeas and alledged that the late Rule made in the House of Lords did not extend to their Case for that was That all Causes there depending should not be discontinued by the intervening of a Prorogation but this Case will not be there depending before the Return of the Writ In 3 H. 7. 19. the Court of Kings-Bench would not allow a Writ of Error into the Parliament until some Error was shewn to them in the Record lest it should be brought on purpose to delay Execution In Bulstrode's Reports a Writ of Error Returnable the second Return of the Term was held to be no Supersedeas because it seemed an affected delay that it was not made Returnable the first Return Hale It has been taken that a Prorogation determined a Cause depending in Parliament by a Writ of Error but the Lords have lately Declared otherwise But that comes not to this Case the Writ not being Returned A Writ of Error Returnable ad proximum Parliamentum is not good but otherwise if they are summoned or prorogued to a Day certain If the Day of the Session had been a Year hence it would be hard a Writ of Error should stay Execution and the same Reason where the whole Term intervenes A Writ of Error did bear Teste 10 Nov. and was Returnable 1 Nov. proximè futur ' and the Record was sent into the Exchequer Chambet and a Mittimus Endorsed upon the Roll here And it was Resolved that Execution might be taken out because of the long Return Secondly That tho' there were Mittimus upon the Roll yet the Record remained here until the Return of the Writ to all purposes And the Opinion of the Court was that the Writ of Error was no Supersedeas But they would make no Rule in it because they said it was not Iudicially before them but the party might take out Execution if he thought fit And then if the other Side moved for a Supersedeas they should then Resolve the Point Note Hale said in an Assumpsit for Money upon the Sale of Goods upon non Assumpsit the Defendant might give in Evidence an Eviction of the Goods to mitigate the Damage and in all Assumpsits tho' upon certain Contracts the Jury may give less Damages than the Debt amounts unto as he said was done in a Case where a man promised to give a Straw for every Nail in every Horses Shoe doubling every time and they gave in Damage but the Value of the Horse tho' as the Bargain was made it would have come to above 100 l Lomax versus Armorer A Writ of Error was brought to Reverse a Judgment in Dower given in the Court of Newcastle The Error assigned was because the Proceeding was by Plaint and no Special Custom certified to maintain it As in London and Oxford they have Assizes of Fresh Force by Plaint The Court held it to be Erroneous for this Cause but would not determine whether it might not be good upon a Special Custom 1 Rolls 793. Pl. 11. Anonymus A Mandamus was granted to the Archdeacon of Norwich to Swear a Churchwarden upon surmize of a Custom That the Parishioners are to choose the Churchwardens and that the Archdeacon refused him notwithstanding that he was Elected according to the Custom The Archdeacon Return'd that non sibi constat that there is any such Custom which Form is not allowable for it ought to be positive whereupon an Action might be grounded and that by the Canon the Parson is to choose one c. The Court said that Custom would prevail against the Canon and a Churchwarden is a Lay Officer and his Power enlarged by sundry Acts of Parliament and that it has been Resolved that he may Execute his Office before he is Sworn tho' it is convenient he should be Sworn and if the Plaintiff here were Sworn by a Mandate from this Court they advised him to take heed of disturbing him Noy Rep. 139. Anonymus AN Assumpsit was brought against an Executor for that the Testator being Indebted to the Plaintiff he did ad requisitionem of the Defendant come to Account with him upon which there appeared to be so much due to the Plaintiff which he promised to pay After Verdict the Judgment was de bonis propriis and it was moved that it ought to have been de bonis testatoris For the Accounting with him is little more than telling him what is due and this might make an Executor afraid of Reckoning with any of his Testators Creditors The Court said that the Accounting upon the Defendants Request which was more than the Plaintiff was bound to have done was a Consideration and after a Verdict they must intend an express Promise But Hale said If upon the Evidence it had appeared that there was no Intention to alter the Nature of the Debt as in case an Executor should say stay a while until the Testators Estate was come in and I will pay you he should direct the Jury to find against the Plaintiff that would in such case charge an Executor in his own Right Termino Paschae Anno 27 Car. II. In Banco Regis NOte In an Indebitat ' Assumpsit a man Promises in Consideration that
of Wood he hath the effect of his Grant But Trees differ in value exceedingly from each other Bolton versus Cannon IN Debt against an Executor for Rent Arrere in his own time in the debet detinet The Defendant pleads that the Rent is more worth than the Land and that he tendred a Surrender before the time for which the Rent is demanded and that the Plaintiff refused to accept the Surrender and that he had fully administred and so demands Iudgment of the Action The Plaintiff replies that there was Rent Arrear to him and that therefore he was not bound to accept of the Surrender and to this the Defendant Demurrs The Court said First That an Executor that does intermeddle cannot wave a Lease or any other part of the Testators Estate for he cannot assume the Executorship for part and refuse for part Secondly That in case the Land be not more worth than the Rent it is a good Plea to an Action of Debt in the debet and detinet for he is to be charged in the detinet only tho' where the Rent is of less value he may be charged in the debet detinet for that which is accrued in his own time according to Hargraves Case 5 Co. Thirdly The doubt here is that the Defendant having waved the material part of his Plea viz. That the Rent exceeded the value of the Land and relied upon his tender of a Surrender which is nothing to the purpose whether Judgment can be here for him and that otherwise his Plea is double but because the Plaintiff hath not demurred to that but answered only to one part of it the Defendant might well Demurr upon the Replication because it does not answer all contained in the Plea for unless the party Demurrs for doubleness he is bound to answer all the matters alledged Et Adjornatur But being this Term moved again Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because the Defendant relinquished the material part of his Bar and offered matter meerly frivolous Cartwright versus Pinkney TEnant for years Surrenders to the Lessor reserving a Rent the question was Whether it was a good Reservation And held that it was upon the Contract and that Debt lay after the first day was incurred wherein it was reserved to be paid for it was in the nature of a Rent and not of a Sum in Gross Ante Wilson and Pinckney Anonymus IN Trespass for Fishing in his several Fishery pisces cepit After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff ought to have alledged what kind of Fishes and the number of them as in Playters Case 5 Co. is But for that it was said on the other side that at that time they were more strict in the certainty of pleading than since for now and indebitat ' Assumpsit for Work done or Goods sold is allowed without further certainty And that however the Oxford Act 15 Car. 2. here helped it for tho' this be none of the defects there enumerated yet the words of the Act being That Judgment shall not be arrested for any other exception that doth not alter the nature of the Action or Tryal of the Issue shall extend to this Case But the Court were of Opinion that none of the Acts had aided this Case in regard that there was not so much as the number of the Fishes expressed as if a Man should bring Trespass for taking of his Beasts and not say what But Hale said Trover for a Ship cum velis had been allowed because all made but one aggregate Body both the Ship and Sails But Trover pro velis would not be good Vid. 2 Cro. 435. Trespass quare clausum fregit Spinas cepit and 3 Cro. 553. Child and Greenhills Case Dr. Webb versus Batchelour al' IN Trespass for taking so many Cowes upon Not guilty a Special Verdict was found That an Act of this King for repairing of the High-ways appoints that such persons as keep Carts and Horses c. should send them at certain times to assist in the repairing of the Ways not having a reasonable excuse and that warning was given to the Parishioners of the Parish whereof the Plaintiff was Parson to send in their Carts and that the Plaintiff omitting to do it a Justice of Peace made a Warrant to the Defendant to distrain him according to the Authority given by the Act c. It was alledged for the Plaintiff First That Clergymen were not obliged by this Act for Ecclesiastical Persons have always had immunities from such charges as Pontage Murage c. and shall not be comprehended in the general words Parishioners Secondly That in regard the Act allows an excuse the Justice of the Peace ought to have caused the Plaintiff to have appeared before him to have seen whether he had an excuse before he could have made his Warrant and tho' the Officer that executes the Process of a Court of Record be indemnified where the proceeding is Erroneous yet 't is not so where the proceeding is not of Record as the 10 Co. in the case of the Marshalsey 3 Cro. 394. Nicholls versus Walker and Carter Where a Warrant was made by a Justice of the Peace to distrain for a Poors Rate Trespass was maintained against the Officer that executed the VVarrant because the Plaintiff was not chargeable as an Inhabitant of the Parish for whose Poor the Rate was made Curia contra 1. The Clergy are liable to all publick charges imposed by Act of Parliament and that hath been resolved as Hale said upon debate before all the Judges 2. The Officer that executes the VVarrant though unduely made for the cause alledged is not answerable for he is not to judge but to execute the matter it being within the Jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace and 't is not like the Case in the 3 Cro. for there the Churchwardens And Overseers of one Parish distrained in another Parish which was out of the limits of their Authority but in 14 H. 8. 16. where a Justice of the Peace made a VVarrant to Arrest a Man for Felony which in those times was held beyond his power tho' otherwise since unless there had been some Indictment of Record yet 't is there held the Officer that executes such VVarrant is not punishable Wherefore Judgment was given here for the Defendants Termino Sanctae Michaelis Anno 27 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Judgment was removed by Error into this Court and affirmed the Capias that is Awarded thereupon must mention it and not be general as upon a Judgment originally in this Court and if such a Writ issues out the Court will upon motion grant a Supersedeas and there needs no Writ of Error in Adjudicatione Executionis tho' it was taken out in a former Term. Anonymus LIbel was by the Churchwardens of c. in the Ecclesiastical Court for 1 l 6 s 8 d upon a Custom
for payment of so much for being Buried in the Body of the Church and a Prohibition was prayed suggesting that there was no such Custom The Court held such a Custom must be good because the Parish is to be at the charge to make up the Church Floor but if the Custom be denied it must be tried at Law And therefore inclined that a Prohibition was to go tho' it was objected that this duty belongs properly to the Ecclesiastical Court and no remedy for it elsewhere for so is the Case of a modus decimandi which may be demanded in the Spiritual Court but if the Custom be denied there shall be a Prohibition and so the case of a Mortuary since the Statute of H. 8. And it afterwards being moved again Hale Chief Justice being present the Prohibition was granted Which Hale said was sometimes granted pro defectu Jurisdictionis and sometimes pro defectu Triationis as in this case and others where the ground of the Suit is Prescription for in their Law they have sometimes allowed Prescriptions of 20 years sometimes of 40 years but we admit none but what are de temps dont c. St. John versus Moody IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That he was possessed of a Wood and that he had a way leading from such a place to the said Wood and that the Defendant had obstructed it Vpon not Not guilty it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had not set forth his Title to the way whether by Prescription or otherwise and this ought to be that the Defendant might be ascertained what to make defence unto Also 't is proper to the nature of an Action upon the Case to set forth the Case at large Curia contra The Action here is grounded upon the Possession indeed if Trespass were brought by the owner of the Soil in a justification for a way 't is necessary to express by what right 't is claimed but this for ought appears may be against a Stranger In Assize for a Rent against the Terre-tenant he may demand Judgment whether he ought to answer before Title made otherwise of an Assize brought against the Pernor of a Mans Rent Where 't is pleaded that the Party ought to keep the Fence it sufficeth to say occupatores reparare consueverunt for in Truth the greatest part of the Enclosures in England have been within time of Memory The Writ of Curia claudenda is only quod debet solet 't is true before 7 Jacobi the usage has been in Actions of this nature to prescribe but not since Vid. 2 Cro. 43 123 3 Cro. 499 575. Sands and Trefuses Case and 325 Symonds and Seabourn Whereupon Iudgment was given for Plaintiff Note This Case was afterwards affirmed upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber Drue versus Baily THe Case was an Executor had a Term and let part of it reserving a Rent and made his Executor and died The question was Whether the Executor should have the Rent or the Administrator de bonis non And it was held that the Executor should have it Bell versus Thatcher IN Error upon a Judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas where the Plaintiff in an Action upon the Case declared That he had been retained by the under Postmaster to carry about post Letters of which he made a profit and had behaved himself honestly in that Employment And that the Defendant to defame him said He had broken up Letters and taken out Bills of Exchange which brought him to such discredit that he lost the said Employment And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and Error assigned upon the matter for that the words do not import but that he might break open the Letters by the direction of those to whom they were directed neither do they express that they were Post Letters and the innuendo will not help it unless there had been such a signification in the words Neither is it such an Employment that an Action should lie for Scandalizing Also the Plaintiff does not declare that he was retained for above a year and seems to be little more then a Common Porter And for these reasons by the Opinion of the Court the Iudgment was reversed and Hale principally from the quality of the Employment for he said a Man should not speak disparagingly of a mans Cook or Groom but an Action would be brought if such Actions as these should be maintained Anonymus IN an Action for words the case was that the Defendant speaking to the Plaintiff said thus I know my self and I know you I never buggered a Mare And the Opinion of the Court was that the words were Actionable or else there might be sly ways to defame any Man and evade an Action Hodgkins versus Robson and Thornborow IN Debt for Rent The Defendants pleaded in Bar to the Action that the Plaintiff had entred into a Back-yard part of the Land demised by Force and Arms c. The Plaintiff replied that he ought not to be foreclosed of his Action for that the Defendant had let that Back-yard to J.S. for a lesser Term reserving no Rent and that J. S. entred and after assigned unto the Plaintiff c. which is the same Entry in the Bar. The Defendants rejoyns that J. S. did not enter to which it was demurred And after it was several times spoken to at the Bar Iudgment was given this Term by the whole Court for the Plaintiff viz. Hale Chief Justice Twisden Rainsford and Wild. And First They all held that as the pleading was in this case there could be no Apportionment of the Rent for when there is to be an Apportionment either the Jury shall do it upon nil debet pleaded or the Defendant may in his pleading set forth the value of the Land and to what the Apportionment shall be Hale said if the Lessee redemise part to the Lessor reserving a Rent there shall be no Apportionment for the parties by the Reservation have ascertained what Rent shall be allowed for that part but where there is no Rent reserved upon the Redemise there shall be an Apportionment but if part be assigned by the Lessee to a Stranger who Assigns it to the Lessor and the Lessee had reserved no Rent in that case there shall be no Apportionment for the Lessor comes under the benefit of the Strangers Contract And Hale resembled it to the Case of Lord and Tenant by an entire Service if such Tenant aliens part the Service is multiplied and after it be conveyed to the Lord the entire Service still remains upon the Tenant that holds the residue A Rent upon a Lease is not within the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum yet in many Cases there shall be an apportionment at Common Law If the Lessor enters into part by Wrong this shall suspend the whole Rent for in such case he shall not so apportion his
own Wrong as to enforce the Lessee to pay any thing for the residue Otherwise of a Rightful Entry into part as in the Case at Bar. 'T is true in Ascough's Case in the 9 Co. 't is said a Rent cannot be suspended in part and in esse for part And so in the 4 Co. Rawlin's Case it is held That the whole Rent is suspended where part is Redemised to the Lessor But the Court observed that the Resolution of that Point was not necessary to the Judgment given in that Case which was upon the Extinguishment of the Condition which is entire and not to be apportioned But as to the Rent no Book was found to warrant such an Opinion but Brook tit Extinguishment 48. where 't is said If there be Lord and Tenant by three Acres and the Tenant lets one to the Lord for years the whole Rent is suspended This Case is not found in the Book at large An in 7 Ed. 3. 56 57. where a Formedon was brought of a Rent-Service issuing out of three Acres and as to one Acre it was pleaded that the Demandant himself was Sole seised and concluded Judgment of the Writ But it was Ruled to be a Plea to the Action for so much and to the rest the Tenant must answer which is a full Authority that in such case the Rent is to be apportioned And the Case of Dorrell and Andrews Rolls tit Extinguishment 938. is full in the Point That where Lessee for years let ts at Will which Lessee Licenses the Lessor to enter that the Entry of the Lessor thereupon shall not suspend his Rent For Hale said Tho' it might be Objected that in regard the Lessee at Will cannot lett the Entry of the Lessor thereupon might be a Disseisin but that is ever at the Election of the Lessor And if that were now the Question perhaps the Lessor cannot take such an Entry for a Desseisin It is the Common Experience that where it comes to be tryed upon Nil debet if it be shewn that the Lessor entred into part to Answer this by proving it was the Lease of the Lessee and if the Law should not go upon this difference it would shake abundance of Rents it being a frequent thing for a Lessor to Hire a Room or other part of the thing demised for his Conveniency Hale said That a Case of a Lease for years was stronger than a Lease for Life where the remedy is by Assize and the Tenants of the Land out of which the Rent issues are to be named And for a Condition that must be extinct where part of the thing Demised comes to the Lessor because 't is annexed to such a Rent in quantity For if the Rent be diminished the Condition must fail Holland versus Ellis IN Trespass Quare clausum fregit herbas conculc ' diversas carectat ' tritici ibid ' asportavit After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Declaration did not mention whose the Loads of Wheat were for it was not ibid. crescent ' Adjornatur Resolved per Cur ' That an Inquisition before the Coroner taken super visum corporis that finds that the Person was Felo de se non compos mentis may be traversed But the fugam fecit in an Inquisition before the Coroner cannot be traversed Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 27 28 Car. II. In Banco Regis The Earl of Leicesters Case IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was to this effect Robert Earl of Leicester in the .. of Eliz. levied a Fine of the Lands in question to the use of the Earl of Pembrook and his Heirs for payment of his Debts reserving a Power to himself to Revoke by any Writing Indented or by his last Will subscribed with his Hand and sealed with his Seal And sometime after he Covenants by a Writing Sealed and Subscribed as aforesaid to Levy a Fine to other uses and after the Covenant a Fine was levied accordingly And whether this should be taken as a Revocation and so an execution of the Power and the extinguishment of it was the Question It was Argued by Jones Attorney General that this should not be taken as a Revocation In Powers of Revocation there is to be considered the Substance and the Circumstance and that which Revokes must be defective in neither The Deed alone in this Case cannot revoke for tho' it has the Circumstance limited viz. Indenting Writing Sealing Subscribing yet it wants Substance for it doth nothing in praesenti but refers to a future Act viz. the Fine If a man has made his Will a Covenant after that he will levy a Fine or a Charter of Feoffment made will not be a Revocation of the Will 1 Roll. 615. yet there appeared an intention to Revoke and less matter will Revoke a Will than a Deed. Again the Fine alone cannot Revoke because it is defective in the Circumstances contained in the Power but then to consider them both together how can it be conceived that the Fine should communicate Substance to the Deed or the Deed give Circumstances to the Fine But 't is Objected That they make but one Conveyance I Answer If so then the words of the Power here are to Revoke by Deed and not by Deed and Fine Again This Construction is repugnant to the words of the Power which are That it shall be lawful for him to Revoke by his Deed And yet it is agreed here that the Deed of it self is not sufficient to revoke but only in respect of another Act done which as it must be observed is executed at another time The Books agree that a Condition or Power c. may be annexed to an Estate by a distinct Deed from that which conveys the Estate but not unless both are Sealed and Delivered at the same time and so they are but as one Deed But in the present Case the Deed was made in one year and the Fine levied in another Suppose the Power to be with such Circumstances as in our Case and a Deed is made which contains some of them at one time and another Deed comprehending the rest of another time Should both these make a Revocation is one Deed Surely not Again Suppose the Fine had been Levied first and then afterwards such Deed had declared the Uses surely the Power had been extinguished by the Fine tho' there the Fine and Deed might be taken as one Conveyance as well as here Again the different natures of these Instruments makes that they cannot be taken as one entire Act within the Power for the Covenant is the Act of the party and the Fine the Act or Iudgment of the Court. But it has been Objected That this ought to have a favourable Construction I Answer But not so as to dispence with that Form the Execution of the Power is limited to be done by In the 6 Co. 33. Powers that are to divest an Estate out of another person are
taken strictly and here upon the first Fine the Earl of Leicester had no Estate left in him Mich. 6 Car. 1. in Communi Banco the Case of Ingram and Parker which tho' it may not be a clear Authority for me yet I am sure it does not make against me The Case was Catesby levied a Fine to the use of himself in Tail with Remainders over reserving a Power to himself and his Son to Revoke by Deed c. as in our Case and his Son after his decease by Deed intended to be Enrolled conveyed to one and his Heirs and after levied a Fine and it was held no Revocation First Because he having an Estate Tail in him the Deed might operate upon his Interest Secondly Because it was but an inchoation of a Conveyance and not perfected and they held it no Revocation and that the Fine levied after tho' intended to be to the Vses of the Deed yet should extinguish the Power Hale Chief Justice Vpon the close and nice putting of the Case this may seem to be no Revocation for 't is clear that neither the Deed nor Fine by it self can revoke but quae non valent singula juncta prosunt The Case of Kibbett and Lee in Hob. 312. treads close upon this Case where the Power was to Revoke by Writing under his Hand and Seal and delivered in the presence of three Witnesses and that then and from thenceforth the Uses should cease It was there Resolved that a Devise of the Lands by Will with all the Circumstances limited in the Power should Revoke yet the Delivery was one of the Circumstances and the Uses were to cease then and from thenceforth Whereas a Will which could have not effect while his Death did strongly import that the meaning was to do it by Deed and yet there the Will alone could be no Revocation for clearly he might have made another Will after and so required other Matter viz. his Death to compleat it And in that Case there is another put That if a Deed of Revocation had been made and the party had declared it should not take place until 100 l paid there the operation of it would have been in suspence until the 100 l paid and then it would have been sufficient yet there it had been done by several Acts and of several Natures the Intention in things of this nature mainly governs the Construction In Terries Case it was Ruled That if A. makes a Lease for years to B. and then Levies a Fine to him to the end that he might be Tenant to the Praecipe for the suffering of a Recovery that after the Recovery suffered his Lease should revive 'T is true in the Case at Bar if the Fine had been levied first and then the Deed of Uses made afterwards the Power had been extinguished by the Fine and so no Revocation of that which had no being could have been by the Deed. Twisden What if before the Fine levied the Intent had been declared to that purpose Hale I doubt whether that would have helped it I cannot submit to the Opinion in Parker and Ingrams Case cited viz. That the Deed not being Enrolled should make no Revocation For in case of a Power to make Leases for life it has been always held by the best Advice that the better way is to do it by Deed without Livery tho' Livery by the Common Law is incident to a Lease for life and so Adjudged in Rogers's Case for Lands in Blandford forum in Moor's Rep. where Tenant for life hath power to make Leases for life and makes a Lease by Livery 't is there held a Forfeiture tho' I conceived not because by the Deed the Lease takes effect and so the Livery comes too late Therefore the omission of Enrolling the Deed in that case does not seem to be material but if that Opinion be to be maintained it is because the party had such an Interest upon which the Deed might enure without Execution of his Power and so rather construed to work upon his Interest But that Reason does not satisfie because such an Estate as was intended to be conveyed could not be derived out of his Interest therefore it should take effect by his Power according to Clere's Case in the 6 Co. So by the whole Court here the Deed and Fine taken together were Resolved to be a good Execution of the Power and Judgment given accordingly Richardson versus Disborow A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court where the Suit was for a Legacy and the Defendant pleaded That there was nothing remaining in his hands to pay it and that he had fully Administred And producing but one Witness to prove it Sentence was given against him and after he Appealed and because their Court gave no regard to a single Testimony he prays a Prohibition But it was urged on the other Side That it being a Matter within their Cognizance they might follow the Course of their own Law And tho' there are diversities of Opinions in the Books about this Matter yet since 8 Car. 1. Prohibitions have been been denied upon such a Surmize Hale Where the Matter to be proved which falls in incidently in a Cause before them is Temporal they ought not to deny such Proof as our Law allows and it would be a great Mischief to Executors if they should be forced to take two Witnesses for the payment of every petit Sum And if they should after their Death there would be the same Inconvenience In Yelv. 92. a Prohibition was granted upon the not admitting of One Witness to prove the Revocation of a Will Which is a stronger Case because that entirely is of Ecclesiastical Cognizance Wherefore let there go a Prohibition and let the party if he please Demur upon the Declaration upon the Attachment Hob. 188. 1 Cro. 88. Popham 59. Latch 117. Pigot versus Bridge IN Debt upon a Bond Conditioned for performance of Covenants and the Breach assigned was in the not quietly enjoying the Land demised unto him The Defendant pleads that the Lease was made to hold from Michaelmas 1661 to Michaelmas 1668 and that paying so much Rent Half yearly he was to Enjoy quietly and shews that he did not pay the last half years Rent ending at Michaelmas 1668. To which the Plaintiff Demurred supposing that the words being to Michaelmas 1668. there was not an entire Half year the Day being to be excluded and that it was so held in the Case of Umble and Fisher in the 1 Cro. 702. Cur ' contra 'T is true in pleading usque tale Festum will exclude that Day but in case of a Reservation the Construction is to be governed by the Intent Anonymus NOte per Hale Debt doth not lye against the Executor of an Executor upon a Surmize of a Devastavit by the first Executor For First 'T is a Personal Tort for which his Executor cannot be charged Secondly 'T is such an Action of Debt as would
have admitted Wager of Law and therefore lies not against the Executor It was difficultly brought in that Debt should lye against the Executor upon a Surmize of a Devastavit by himself But that Point is now setled but no Reason to extend it further And he cited a Case where Debt was brought against A. Executor of B. Executor of C. who pleaded that he had not of the Goods of C. in his hands To which the Plaintiff Replied That B. had Wasted the Goods of C. to the value of the Debt demanded Vpon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff and he had Judgment to recover de bonis B. in the hands of A. But that Judgment was Reversed Anonymus IF A. Engages that B. shall pay for certain Goods that B. buys of C. this is good to charge him upon a Collateral Promise but not upon an Indebitat ' Assumpsit for it doth not create a Debt Anonymus IN an Information for a Riot it was doubted by the Court whether it were Local being a Criminal Cause And it was observed that divers Statutes in Queen Elizabeth and King James's time provided that Prosecutions upon Penal Laws should be in their proper Counties Which was an Argument that at the Common Law they might have been elsewhere Taylor 's Case AN Information Exhibited against him in the Crown Office for uttering of divers Blasphemous Expressions horrible to hear viz. That Jesus Christ was a Bastard a Whoremaster Religion was a Cheat and that he neither feared God the Devil or Man Being upon this Trial he acknowledged the speaking of the Words except the word Bastard and for the rest he pretended to mean them in another Sense than they ordinarily hear viz. Whoremaster i. e. That Christ was Master of the Whore of Babylon and such kind of Evasions for the rest But all the Words being proved by several Witnesses he was found Guilty And Hale said That such kind of wicked Blasphemous words were not only an Offence to God and Religion but a Crime against the Laws State and Government and therefore punishable able in this Court. For to say Religion is a Cheat is to dissolve all those Obligations whereby Civil Societies are preserved and that Christianity is parcel of the Laws of England and therefore to reproach the Christian Religion is to speak in Subversion of the Law Wherefore they gave Judgment upon him viz. To stand in the Pillory in Three several places and to pay One thousand Marks Fine and to find Sureties for his Good Behaviour during Life Walker versus Wakeman THe Case was An Estate which consisted of Land a Rectory c. was conveyed to the use of one for Life c. with a Power to Lett the Premisses or any part of them so as 50 l Rent was reserved for every Acre of Land The Tenant for Life Demised the Rectory reserving a Rent which Rectory consisted of Tythes only and whether this was within the Power was the Question Serjeant Pemberton Argued That this Lease is not warranted by the Power for a Construction is to be made upon the whole Clause and the latter Words that appoint the Reservation of the Rent shall explain the former and restrain the general Word Premisses to Land only for if it shall be extended further the Settlement which was in Consideration of a Marriage Portion is of no effect for the Rectory As in case it should de Demised reserving no Rent which it might be if not restrained to the latter words and they applied only to the Land But it was Resolved by the Court that the Lease of the Rectory was good for the last Clause being Affirmative shall not restrain the Generality of the former And this Resolution was chiefly grounded upon Cumberford's Case in the 2 Rolls 263. where a Conveyance was made to Vses of divers Mannors and Lands with a Power to the Cestuy que use for Life to make Leases of the Premisses or any part of them so that such Rent or more were reserved upon every Lease which was reserved before within the space of Two years and a Lease was made of part of the Lands which had not been Demised within Two years before And Resolved it was a good Lease and that thereupon any Rent might be reserved because the Power was General To Lease all and the restrictive Clause should only be applied to such Lands as had been demised within Two years before Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 28 Car. II. In Banco Regis MEmorandum The last Term Sir Richard Rainsford was made Chief Justice Hale Chief Justice quitting it for infirmity of Body and Sir Thomas Jones was made one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench. Anonymus IN an Action upon the Case brought against the Defendant for that he did Ride an Horse into a place called Lincolns in Fields a place much frequented by the Kings Subjects and unapt for such purposes for the breaking and taming of him and that the Horse was so unruly that he broke from the Defendant and ran over the Plaintiff and grievously hurt him to his damage c. Vpon Not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved by Sympson in Arrest of Judgment that here is no cause of Action for it appears by the Declaration that the mischief which happened was against the Defendants Will and so Damnum absque injuria and then not shewn what right the Kings Subjects had to walk there and if a man diggs a Pit in a Common into which one that has no right to come there falls in no Action lies in such Case Curia contra It was the Defendants fault to bring a Wild Horse into such a place where mischief might probably be done by reason of the Concourse of People Lately in this Court an Action was brought against a Butcher who had made an Ox run from his Stall and gored the Plaintiff and this was alledged in the Declaration to be in default of penning of him Wild said if a Man hath an unruly Horse in his Stable and leaves open the Stable Door whereby the Horse goes forth and does mischief an Action lies against the Master Twisden If one hath kept a tame Fox which getts loose and grows wild he that kept him before shall not answer for the damage the Fox doth after he hath lost him and he hath resumed his wild nature Vid. Hobarts Reports 134. The Case of Weaver and Ward Anonymus IN Trespass in an inferiour Court if the Defendant plead son frank Tenement to oust the Court of Jurisdiction It was said by Wild that they may enforce the Defendant to swear his Plea as in case of Foreign Plea negat Twisden and as in this Court where a Local justification in Trespass c. is pleaded the Defendant must swear it But the Court held no Indictment will lie for Perjury in such Oath no more than upon a Wager of Law Anonymus IN Trover the Hab. corpora
Ejectment the Case upon a Special Verdict was to this effect Sir John Danvers being seized of the Lands c. in Tail with the Fee expectant Anno 1646 and in 1647 levied a Fine to the same uses as he was before seized save that a power was reserved to make Leases for any number of years and without reserving any Rent Sir John Danvers did after become Guilty of Treason in Murdring of King Charles the first in 1648 and died in 1655. In 13 Car. 2. cap. 15. the Statute commonly called the Statute of Pains and Penalties Enacts That sundry of the Offenders in that execrable Treason of which Sir J. D. was one should amongst other Penalties there inflicted forfeit all their Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases for years Chattels real and interest of what nature or quality soever See the Act of 14 of this King The Lands were by Patent granted to the Duke of York who let them to the Defendant And John Danvers Heir of Sir John Danvers entred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff It had been several times argued at the Bar and this Term Iudgment was given by the Court for the Defendant And Rainsford Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court and the Reasons for himself Twisden Wild and Jones as followeth The question being Whether an Estate Tail were forfeited by the words of the Act of 13 Car. 2. It was observed that all Estates were Fee simple at the Common Law and forfeitable W. the 2. de donis was the first Statute that protected Estates Tail from Alienations and from all Forfeitures of all kinds and so continued until the 12 E. 4. Taltarums Case from which time common Recoveries have been held not to be restrained by the Statute de donis and by the way it must be considered that Perpetuities were never favoured Then came the Statute of 4. H. 7. of Fines which with the explanation of the 32 H. 8. have been always resolved to bar the Issues in Tail so as to Alienations Estates Tail were set free but were not forfeitable no not for Treason until the 26 H. 8. by which they became subjected to Forfeitures in case of Treason and so by 5 E. 6. But 't is true these Statutes extend only to Attainders and 33 H. 8. Vests the Lands c. in the Kings possession without Office Thus having considered the History and Progress of Estates Tail the reasons why such an Estate should be construed to be forfeited upon this Act of 13 Car. 2. are these First The Crime mentioned is of the same nature and with the same aggravations as in 12 Car. 2. by which the Offenders are attainted of Treason c. for they are called Perpetrators of that execrable Treason with many Expressions to the like effect which was looked upon as an offence of that hainous nature that the same Parliament Enacted An Anniversary Humiliation throughout the whole Kingdom to be perpetually observed upon the account of it as if not only they that acted it but the whole Kingdom and their Posterity like to another Original sin were involved in the Guilt of it Nati natorum qui nascuntur ab illis And therefore the Punishment shall not be mitigated in any other manner than is expresly provided by that Act. Secondly It is proved by the generally and comprehensions of the words which are made use of viz. Possessions Rights Hereditaments of what nature soever Interests which does as well signifie the Estate in the ting as that wherein the Estate is which can have no effect if not extended to Estates Tail We must observe also that at the making of this Act entailed Lands were not protected from Forfeitures and tho' 26 H. 8. extends only to Cases where the Offender is attainted yet 't is of good direction to the Judges in Cases of like nature and 't is plain that by this Act of 13 Car. 2. the Offenders were looked upon in pari gradu with these attainted for when the Proviso comes to save the Estates of Strangers c. in trust for whom the Offenders were seized It is said notwithstanding any of the Convictions or Attainders aforesaid Thirdly It is to be observed that the Act takes notice that divers of the Offenders included in this Act were dead now in regard most Lands are known to be entailed if the Act had not intended such Estates to be forfeited it would signifie nothing indeed if the Offenders had been alive it might have been somewhat satisfied with the Forfeiture during their Lives But as the case was it should be of no effect at all after making a great noise of Forfeitures and Confiscations the Act would have been but a Gun charged only with Powder or as in the Fable Parturiunt Montes c. Fourthly It is manifest that the Parliament did not intend that the Children or Heirs of the Persons within the Penalties of the Act should have any benefit of their Estates for in the saving which is made for Purchasers upon valuable Considerations the Wives Children and Heirs of the Offenders are excepted then surely if they would bar them of the benefit of their Purchases à fortiori from inheriting to an Estate Tail especially of a voluntary Entail that seems to be made with a prospect of this Treason which was perpetrated a year after and such an Entail as scarce the like was ever seen before that a power should be reserved to make Leases for any number of years and without Reservation of any Rent By which it is manifest that Sir John Danvers that committed the Treason was fully Master of the Estate Again all Conveyances are avoided by the Act unless such as were upon valuable Consideration which this Fine was not The great case which has been insisted upon by way of objection is Trudgeons Case Co. Litt. 130. Estates Tail were not forfeited upon the Statute of Praemunire but during the Offenders Life For answer to that it must be observed that that Forfeiture is upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. at which times Estates Tail were under thè protection of the Statute de donis but since that time the Judges have not been so strict in expounding Statutes concerning Estates Tail as appears by Adams and Lamberts Case 4 Co. That an Estate Tail given for a superstitious use was within the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 4. where the words are generally and not so large as in our case nor so much to demonstrate the intent as is in our Act to extend to Estates Tail wherefore Iudgment was given for the Defendant Note They that argued for the Defendant endeavoured to maintain that if it should be admitted that Entails were not forfeited by the Act yet the Estate of Sir John Danvers in those Lands would be forfeited in regard he levied a Fine in 1647 and the Act of 13 Car. 2. extends to all Lands c. whereof the Persons therein mentioned were seized c. since 1646 and he being
should be informed what their course is and has been and therefore let us hear the Civilians as to this point Post The King and Marlow THe Defendant being a Printer was indicted for his second Offence for Printing of a Seditious Book contrary to the Act of 14 Car. 2. cap. 33. and being found Guilty at the Sessions of the Old Baily the Iudgment was given That he should be for ever disabled to exercise the Art or Mistery of Printing and pay 20 l Fine and to stand in the Pillory And a Writ of Error was brought and Errors were assigned in the Judgment as varying from the words of the Act. For First The Act is That he should be disabled to exercise the Art and Mistery of Printing or Founding of Letters And the Judgment is only to disable him from Printing Secondly The Act is That he shall receive such further punishment by Fine Imprisonment or other Corporal Punishment And the Judgment is both for a Fine and Corporal Punishment when it ought not to be for both Curia The first is as it should be for Printing and Founding of Letters are two distinct Trades and the words are to be taken respectively to such Trade as the Defendant is of Again 't is a Rule that a Man shall not Assign an Error in that which is for his advantage But the second was held an Error for that the Act did not intend a Fine and Corporal Punishment both and therefore the Judgment was reversed Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 29 Car. II. In Banco Regis Davis versus Price IN Error upon a Judgment in the Common Bench in an Action of Trover where Iudgment was given by default The Error was assigned in the Declaration which was de decem Juvencis Anglice Bullocks and Heifers and not said how many of one and of the other But it was answered that the Latin word being proper and of known signification the Anglice was void according to Osborns Case 10 Co. But the Court reversed the Judgment and cited the Case before in this Court Trover de viginti ovibus matricibus agnis And it was resolved to be naught for not ascertaining the number of each But Twisden said there was a Trover brought de Viginti averiis ivz. Bobus agnis c. and Viginti was applied to each Species and held well It was offered in this case to distinguish it from the case de Ovibus matricibus agnis that there the Latin was of two sorts Sed non allocatur for the words here being Equivocal it was all one Dutton versus Pool AN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That his Wives Father being seized of certain Lands now descended to the Defendant and about to cut a Thousand pounds worth of Timber off from the said Lands to raise a Portion for his said Daughter the Defendant promised to the Father in Consideration that he would forbear to fell the Timber that he would pay the said Daughter 1000 l After Verdict upon Non Assumpsit for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Father ought to have brought this Action and not the Husband and Wife and there was a case shewn to be adjudged in the Common Bench Hillary 23 and 24 Car. 2. Rot. 1538. between Pine and Norris where the Son promised the Father that in Consideration that he would Surrender a Copyhold to him that he would pay a certain Sum to his Sister for which she brought the Action and then held that it would lie for none but the Father for where the Party to whom the Promise is to be performed is not concerned in the meritorious cause of it he cannot bring the Action But if a Promise were to a Man that if his Daughter should Marry his Son he would give her 1000 l there because the Daughter does the Act which is the Consideration she may bring the Action On the contrary the Case was cited 1 Rolls 32. Starkey and Miln where in Consideration of certain Goods sold the Promise was to pay part of the Money to another there that other might bring the Action And it differs from the case where Money is delivered to A. to pay over to B. B. may bring Debt Yelv. 24. If the Father had in the Case at Bar cut the Trees And the Son had said Let me have the Trees and I will pay the Daughter so much that had been the same with the Case before cited 1 Roll. and it doth not seem to differ as it is 1 Cro. 163. Rookwook Case where the Father being about to charge the Land with a Rent of 4 l per Annum to his Younger Sons the Eldest promised that if he would forbear to charge the Land he would pay the 4 l per Annum and the Sons upon this brought the Assumpsit and recovered Sed vide librum that Promise is said expresly to be made to the Sons who were present Vid. 1 Cro. 619.652 Levett and Haws Case where the Promise was made to a Man in Consideration that he had agreed that his Son should Mary his Daughter and to settle such a Joynture upon her that he would give the Son 200 l with her and for this the Father brought the Action and held well brought tho' the Court seemed to incline that the Son might also have brought it And the Court here inclined for the Plaintiffs Sed Adjornatur Post Saunders versus Williams IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff Declared that he was seised in Fee of one Acre and possessed for a certain number of years in another Acre and had a Common in Black-acre for Beasts levant and couchant thereupon and that the Defendant put his Beasts in the place and disturbed him The Defendant pleaded a Title of Common to himself also there Vpon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff and it was now moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had made no Title to the Common by Prescription or otherwise Sed non allocatur The Defendant being a Wrong-doer And the same Matter was Adjudged in the Court between St. John and Moody St. Mich. 27 Car. 2. quod vide ante and in the 2 Cro. 43.122 3 Cro. 500. Robinson versus Woolly THe Case was this Term Argued again And Holt Argued That the Induction tho' executed by the Archdeacon after the New Bishop was Consecrated was sufficient The Bishop is only to Admit and Institute and to send a Mandate to the Archdeacon to Induct who is to do it de communi Jure and therefore if the Bishop hath Admitted and Instituted and made a Mandate for Induction 't is a sufficient Excuse for him in a Quare impedit 11 H. 4. 9. for the Bishop is meerly a Spiritual Officer A Prebendary is to be Inducted by the Dean and Chapter Pl. Com. 529. But 't is Objected That the Archdeacon does not Induct ex Officio â—ut a Mandate from the Bishop is requisite scilicet First The
is very clear For tho' in M. Portington's Case in 10 Co. 't is said that the word Condition shall not in a Will be taken as a Limitation yet the Current of the Authorities since are otherwise But here the Court held the Condition void for a man cannot be restrained from an Attempt to Alien For non constat what shall be judged an Attempt and how can it be tryed And when the express words are so there shall not be made another sort of Condition than the Will imports And so the Judgment was affirmed Osborn versus Beversham DEbt for Rent incurred at two Half years As to one of them the Defendant pleaded non debet And as to the other Actio non because he says He was ready to pay it at the Day and Place and has been ever since profert in Cur ' the Rent ideo petit Judicium de damnis To which the Plaintiff Demurred For that he did not say quod obtulit for where the Time and Place of Payment is certain Semper paratus is no Plea without an Obtulit For the Defendant it was said That the Plaintiff ought to reply to a Demand 1 Inst 34. 'T is a good Plea for the Heir in Dower to save his Damages to say That he was always ready Rastal's Entries 159. Semper paratus is pleaded without an Obtulit So 1 Rolls 573. no mention made of a Tender But then another Fault was found that it was pleaded in Bar whereas it ought to have been only in Bar of Damages and not to the Action and this was agreed to be fatal But the Court held the Plea to be naught for the other Cause also Anonymus IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was A man Devised his Land to J. S. after the death of his Wife And after Argument the whole Court were of Opinion that J.S. not being Heir to the Devisor there should go no implied Estate to the Wife for an Heir shall not be defeated but by a necessary Implication Anonymus AN Action for Words for that the Defendant said of the Plaintiff He would have given Dean Money to have Robbed Golding's House and he did Rob the House After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the first part of the words import only an Inclination and not that he did give any Money And the words He did Rob the House shall be referred to Dean as the last antecedent and not the Plaintiff But the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff as was Adjudged where the words were He lay in wait to Rob. Vid. Cockain's Case in the 1 Cro. and in the 4 Co. And the Court said the Words might be construed That the Plaintiff offered Dean Money and he refusing it that the Plaintiff robbed the House himself Smith versus Tracy THe Case being moved again the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Half-Blood should come in for Distribution upon the new Act For as to the granting of Administration the being of Guardian c. the Half-Blood may be taken nearer of Kin than a more remote Kinsman of the Whole Blood Mo. 635 Ro. Rep. 114. Ante. J 's Case J. Brings his Habeas Corpus The Return was that he was Committed by J. S. J. N. T. K. to whom and others a Commission of Bankrupt was awarded for refusing to answer a Question put to him concerning the Bankrupt's Estate c. and so Commissus fuit in custodia by a Warrant to the Officer Virtute Commissionis praedictae haec est causa captionis seu detentionis c. The Counsel for the Prisoner took three Exceptions to the Return First For that there did not appear a sufficient Authority For the Commission is said to be granted to them and others and then they could not act without the rest for the Return does not express any Quorum c. in the Commission Secondly Instead of Commissus in custodia it ought to be Captus for that is the usual Form For this is as if the Commitment were by the Officer that makes the Return Thirdly Haec est causa captionis seu detentionis is uncertain for it ought to be detentionis And upon the first and last Exception the Prisoner was Discharged by the Court but at the same time was told by the Court That he must answer directly to such Questions as were put to him in order to the discovery of the Bankrupts Estate or else he was liable to be Committed Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 29 30 Car. II. In Banco Regis Harrington's Case AN Information was preferred against him for that he maliciously and traiterously intending to stir up Sedition and to create a Disturbance between the King and his People upon Discourse of the late Rebellion and those Persons which were Executed at Charing-Cross for the Murder of the late King in praesentia audita quamplurium utteravit propalavit haec verba pernitiosa sequentia viz. Gubernatio nostra consistebat de tribus statibus si eveniret Rebellio in Regno nisi foret Rebellio contra omnes Status non est Rebellio Vpon Not Guilty pleaded he was found Guilty of speaking the precedent Words and Not guilty as to other Words contained in the Information It was moved in Arrest of Judment that Gubernatio signified the Exercise and Administration of the Government and not the State of it which Regimen doth Again That it was Consistebat and so might relate to the Britons or Saxons Time or to the late mutations of the Form of Government amongst us and that to put the words in Latin without an Anglicè was not to be allowed for the Translation might either aggravate or mitigate the Sense And that such a President might be prejudicial as well to the King as the Defendant But those Exceptions finding little weight with the Court his Counsel proceeded to justifie or at least to extenuate the Words alledging That the Relation was so great between the King and People that to raise a Rebellion against the King must also affect the other States and this whether the King be taken as some would have it as one of the Three Estates or as others that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal make two of the Estates and the Commons the third and the King as Chief and Head of all as is the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords and Commons call themselves the Queens Obedient Subjects Representing the Three Estates of the Realm of England and so is the 4 Inst 1. But the Court supposing that the Words did tend to set on Foot that Position upon which the War Levied in 1641. by the Two Houses against the King was grounded were much displeased that the Counsel would pretend to defend them or put any tolerable Sense upon them It was also insisted upon by the King's Counsel and agreed by the Court that the Ancient Presidents and many latter also were to express the
words in Latin and this pursuant to the Statute of E. 3. which requires that their legal Proceedings should be in Latin and if the words were not so Elegant yet they would serve in an Information c. where 't is rather chosen to put in words agreeable to the phrase of the Law than to Tully's Orations And so the Court Wild being absent delivered their Opinions for the King but took time to set the Fine and immediately Committed the Defendant who before was upon Bail as the course is when Judgment is given altho' no Fine was set Anonymus IT was said by the Court upon an Indictment against one for Refusing to take an Apprentice bound by the Churchwardens and a Justice of Peace according to 43 Eliz. that in such case a man cannot be Compelled to accept an Apprentice Pagett versus Dr. Vossius TRin. 26 Car. 2. Rot. 583. In an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be thus Dr. Brown by Will Devised certain Lands to Dr. Vossius the Defendant a Dutchman during his Exile from his Country and if it should please God to restore him to his Country or that he should dye that then the Lands should go to the Lady Mary Heveningham in Fee who was the Lessor of the Plaintiff It was found that at the time of making the Will and the Death of Dr. Brown there was War between England and the States General and that the Doctor was fallen into Displeasure with the States and that they had taken a Pension from him of 140 l per annum and that by reason thereof he came over But did not find that he was Exiled by any Act of State and that the War was now ceased and that the Doctor might Return if he pleased but it did not find that they had restored him to his Pension c. After divers Arguments on both Sides this Term Judgment was given for the Defendant by the whole Court For they said there was a Voluntary and Compulsary Exile and in regard he was not Exiled by any Publick Edict the Will must be understood of a voluntary absence from his Country And the Jury found that those Matters which drove him away did still continue viz. The depriving him of his Pension Nota Exilium is a word known in our Law viz. When Villains by hard Usage are constrained to depart from the Mannor And if it be Objected That this durante Exilio is a void Limitation as being of unknown sense in our Law 't is still against the Lessor of the Plaintiff and then she cannot claim until the Doctor 's death and in the mean time the Discent must be to the Heir at Law Exilium quasi ex solo that is as if it had been said During his absence from his Country The King versus Plume HE was Indicted upon the Statute of the 5th of the Queen for that he had set up used and exercised Artem Mysterium sive Manual occupationem Pomarii Anglicè of a Fruiterer being a Trade Mystery or Manual occupation used in this Kingdom the 12th day of January Anno Eliz. 5. in which Trade the said Plume was not brought up by the space of Seven years c. And to this the Defendant Demurred For that it hath been held that the Statute extends not to every Trade but to such an one as requires Art and Skill and therefore not to a Hemp-dresser as in the 1 Cro. so in 2 Bulstrode 188. nor to a Pippinmonger as in 1 Roll's Rep. 10. And so a Gardiner hath been Resolved not to be within the Act in the 14th of this King The Indictment was for the Trade of a Barber but no Judgment given but others said That in that Case Judgment was for the King On the other side it was said That the Question here is not of those which sell Apples in Stalls but the Trade of a Fruiterer is well known and they are Incorporated in London and there requires much Skill in Sorting of Fruit and in judging the durableness thereof But the Court inclined for the Defendant But being informed by the Counsel for the King that there were many Presidents it was adjourned Postea Harrington's Case HArrington was again brought up and the Court fined him a Thousand pounds and awarded that he should recant the words in such words as the Court should direct and to find Sureties for his Good behaviour for seven years after which he produced a Writ of Error returnable before the Lords then Sitting in Parliament and prayed that it might be allowed and that he might be admitted to Bayl. The Court said that they allowed the Writ but would advise whether they should Bayl him or no and so remanded him to Prison Anonymus IN an Assault Battery and Wounding the Plaintiff after Verdict moved the Court for an encrease of Damages the Court said they could not do it if the word Maihemavit was not in the Declaration Clarkes Case UPon an Habeas Corpus to the Mayor c. of London a Custom was returned to Disfranchise and commit a Freeman for speaking opprobrions words of an Alderman The Court said they might Fine in such Case but the other Custom would not hold notwithstanding the Act of Confirmation of their Customs Termino Paschae Anno 30 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Trespass of Battery by Baron and Feme for beating of them both Vpon Not guilty the Verdict was for so much Damage for beating the Husband and so much for beating of the Wife The Court said upon a motion to Arrest the Judgment that the Plaintiff might release the Damages for beating of himself and take Judgment for the other The King versus Mead. AN Information was brought against him upon the Statute of 17 Car. 2. which restrains Non conformist Ministers from Inhabiting within five miles of any City Town Corporate or Burrough that sends Burgesses to Parliament c. After Verdict for the King it was moved in Arrest of Judgment First That the place of his Habitation was alledged to be within five miles of London but it was said that London sent Burgesses to Parliament which not being in the Record the Judges were not to take knowledg of Sed non allocatur For the last words of sending Burgesses to Parliament shall be referred only to Burroughs and therefore the Act restrains them from dwelling in Corporations c. tho' such Corporations as send no Burgesses Secondly It is alledged that the Town where the Defendant dwells is within five miles but not that the place of his Habitation in that Town was so and therefore may he intended to be more remote Thirdly There wants vi Armis Sed non allocatur Sed Judicium pro Rege Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 30 Car. II. In Banco Regis MEmorandum This Term Sir Richard Rainsford was removed and Sir William Scroggs one of the Justices of the Common Pleas was made Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench.
it will be agreed he might have released it or by cutting of the Wood might have taken away all the right of Action Again it does not appear by the Record that the Defendant was here and so no benefit by the forbearing to cut the Wood. Rookwoods Case cited on the other side 1 Cro. 163. 1 Leonard 192. is that the Promise was made to the younger Brothers and the Consideration that they would consent but here the Plaintiff who was to have the Money had no share in the Consideration or Meritorious Act as where the Father promises J. S. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will give him 1000 l the Son may bring the Action because the Consideration moves from him Hetlys Rep. 20. the Case was to this effect A Man promises a Woman whom he was to Marry upon a certain Consideration that if he had a Son by her he should have a Term whereof the Woman was then possessed and if it were a Daughter she should have the Moiety of the Goods c. they Intermarry and after the death of the Husband the Daughter born between them brings an Action against the Executor of the Husband and resolved that it would not lie tho' they did not think the Agreement made with the Wife to be discharged by the Intermarriage but only suspended which is a Quaere in my Lord Hobart Yet the Daughter being no Party to the Promise or to the Consideration could not bring an Action The Case of Norris and Pine before cited is stronger for there he that made the Promise had a benefit for it was in Consideration of Marriage On the other side it was said that tho' it doth not appear that the Defendant was Heir yet it may be intended after Verdict however 't is not nudum pactum for if the Defendant had no benefit yet there was a restraint upon the other and that is Consideration enough And for the objection of releasing that holds where J. S. promises J.N. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will pay him 1000 l J.N. may Release but 't is doubtful whether he can after Marriage because then 't is vested in the Son as Scroggs Chief Justice said 1 Roll. 31. The Uncle of an Infant delivered J.S. 12 l who promised to pay the Infant when he came of Age and the Action was well brought by him after his Age. So Goods sold to A. to pay 10 l to B. B. may Sue Vid. 1. Roll. 32 Starkey and Mills The Court said it might be another Case if the Money had béen to have been paid to a Stranger but there is such a nearness of Relation between the Father and Child and 't is a kind of Debt to the Child to be provided for that the Plaintiff is plainly concerned And so by the Opinion of them all viz. Scroggs Wild Jones and Dolben Judicium pro Querente Ante. Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Sheriffs Court of London for that an Action was there Commenced to which the Defendant pleaded That the cause of Action did not arise within the Jurisdiction and offered to swear his Plea but it was refused The Counsel for the Plaintiff objected against the Prohibition that the Plea came too late for it was after an Imparlance But it being proved by Affidavit that the Plea was tendred within two days after the Declaration was delivered and that immediately upon delivering the Declaration there is an Imparlance of course The Court granted the Prohibition and said that the other side might Demurr if they thought fit for the liberty of the Subject was infringed by bringing him within a private Jurisdiction when the Matter arises out of it and Attorney's in such places are sworn to advise no Plea to the Jurisdiction nor that none shall be put in by them And whereas 't was said that the Party had not prejudice for he might remove his Case by Habeas Corpus The that the Court answered coming by Habeas Corpus Bail must be put in above tho' the Cause otherwise did not require it Note It appeared here that there was no defence made in this to the Jurisdiction and Co. Inst was quoted that defence should be made tho' not full defence But the Court said it was not necessary and that Presidents were otherwise especially where the Court have no Jurisdiction of the matter otherwise where not of the person James versus Richardson IN Ejectment the Case upon a Special Verdict was thus A. devised the Lands to B. and his Heirs during the Life of J. S. and after to the Heirs of the Body of R. D. now living and to such other Heirs was should after be Born the Devisee for Life levied a Fine in the Life of him to whose Heirs the Remainder was limited but he had a Son at the time of the death of the Testator The question was Whether it was a Contingent Remainder the consequence whereof was to be destroyed by the Fine and that it was vested in the Son Scroggs Chief Justice Wild and Jones held it a Remainder vested by reason of the words now living which was a sufficient Designation of the person that was to take in a Will tho' improper to call him Heir But Dolben Contra for by this Construction the Heirs Born after are excluded and the Son would take but an Estate for Life tho' it were devised to the Heirs in the Plural Number Note Vpon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber this Iudgment was reversed Hillary 31 32. Car. 2. Termino Paschae Anno 31 Car. II. In Banco Regis A Mandamus was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court to grant the Probat of a Will under Seal c. The Case was the Executor named in the Will had taken the usual Oath but after a Caveat entred and then Refused and another endeavoured to obtain Letters of Administration the Executor came after to desire the Will under Probat and contested the granting of Administration Which was Adjudged against him supposing that he was bound by his Refusal And after an Appeal to the Delegates this Mandamus was prayed and granted by the Court for having taken the Oath he could not be admitted to Refuse and the Ecclesiastical Court had no further Authority and the Caveat did not alter the Case Note The Oath was taken before a Surrogate yet it was all one Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit for Tythes upon the Suggestion that the Lands out of which they were demanded say out of the Parish and the Bounds of Parishes are tryable at the Common Law But the Court denied the Prohibition because it did not appear that a Plea thereof had been offered in the Ecclesiastical Court Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit against J. S. Lessee of a Rectory out of which a Pension was demanded It was suggested that the Lord Biron had three parts in four of this Rectory upon which the Pension was chargeable and that
the Suit against one alone ought not to be as in an Assize for a Rent-charge all the Ter-Tenants are to be named and here the party has an Election to Sue a Writ of Annuity and if so be must have named all that had been chargeable Curia 'T is true in our Law it were a good Plea in Abatement but perhaps their Law and Course is otherwise And here they have Jurisdiction and may proceed according to their own Rules or if not you may have an Appeal Whereupon a Prohibition was denied Anonymus IN an Habeas Corpus and Certiorari for the Body of J. S. who had been Imprisoned for not paying of a Fine of 20 l set at the Quarter Sessions The Return was that he being Constable and demanded by the Court to Present an High-way which was sworn before him by Two Witnesses to be out of Repair said in Contempt of the Court That he would not Present it For which and certain other contemptuous words the Fine was set The Counsel for the Prisoner moved that it might be Filed Which was done The Court were of Opinion that the Fine was not well set for Constables are to Present upon their own Knowledge and the Two Witnesses should have been carried to the Grand Jury for the Constable was not obliged to Present upon their Testimony This Court is to judge of their Fines whether without Cause or to mitigate them when excessively imposed and for the Contemptuous Words the Return is ill because not expressed what On the other side it was prayed that the Return might be amended for he had spoken Opprobious Words but that could not be admitted after the Filing And so the party was discharged Anonymus IT was moved to quash an Order of Sessions for the Keeping of a Bastard Child First That it doth not appear that the Child was born within the Parish Secondly 'T is to allow so much Weekly until the Child is Eight years of Age whereas the Statute gives power to make a Weekly allowance while the Child shall be chargeable Thirdly The Order was at Eight years old to pay 5 l for the Binding of it out But the Court would not quash it for they said it was implied by saying it would be chargeable to the Parish that it was born there and 't was apparent it would continue Chargeable for so long as they appointed the Allowance and they might Order 5 l to be paid in the end Sed Quaere For a Sum in gross ought not to be set but a Weekly allowance And the Court said they must shew that respect to Justices of the Peace who served the Country at their own charge as not too nicely to examine their Orders Anonymus ERror upon a Judgment by Nihil dicit given in the Common Pleas where the Action was for Words which in the Declaration were laid thus That the Defendant said Quidam J. S. which was the Plaintiffs Name innuendo the Plaintiff was c. The Error assigned was that there was no Averment that these Words were spoke of the Plaintiff for there might be more of the name But Holt for the Defendant said the Innuendo would help that fault and he cited the Case of Rebotham and Venlecke in the 3 Cro. 378. where the Plaintiff Declared that he had made an Oath before a Judge upon certain Articles exhibited for the Good Behaviour and the Defendant to Scandalize him said He made a false Oath Innuendo the said Oath before the Judge where it was held that the Innuendo was sufficient to ascertain what Oath was meant But the Court Reversed the Judgment in this Case and said that not saying in the Declaration that the Words were spoken of the Plaintiff it was not sufficient to bring that in by an Innuendo which ought to have been Averred and it is the worse because 't is said quidam J.S. which imports another person than the Plaintiff Anonymus ERror to Reverse a Judgment given in the Kings-Bench in Ireland in a Prohibition where the Issue was Whether he had Prosecuted in the Court Christian after the Prohibition and it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages assessed to 100 l and 6 d pro misis custagiis And now the Error was assigned in the Judgment given which was That the Plaintiff should recover damna praedicta per Juratores assess ad 100 l nec non pro misis custagiis de incremento per Cur ' adjudicat ' 20 l omitting the 6 d Costs given by the Jury On the other side it was said That damna praedicta in the Judgment included all and the saying 100 l was but a Miscomputation Et Adjornatur Postea Hill 33 34 Car. 2. How versus Whitfield A Fine of certain Lands to the use of J. S. for Life and after to his Executors and Assigns for 80 years with Power to the Lessee and his Assigns to lett Leases for 21 years reserving the ancient Rent After several mean Assignments the Assignee of an Executor of an Assignee made a Lease for 21 years which in the Special Verdict was found to be made of the said Lands inter alia reserving proinde six shillings per annum and found that six shillings was the ancient yearly Rent for the Land The Court seemed to be of opinion that an Assignee after so many Removes might execute this Power for it was coupled with an Interest and annexed to the Estate tho' to be construed strictly but in regard the Lease was made of the Land inter alia reserving proinde c. in case the Reservation should be taken to be for the whole Land then it was not the ancient Rent reserved for this and upon that they doubted Et Adjornatur Postea Anonymus AN Indictment was quashed for want of Addition For the Court said no Process ought to go out thereupon because the party cannot be Outlawed Anonymus IN an Habeas Corpus the Return was that the party was taken upon an Excom ' Cap ' It was moved that the party might be discharged because upon Search it appeared that the Writ had not been Enrolled in this Court for so it ought to be by the Statute of the 5th of the Queen tho' the Writ issues out of Chancery The Court doubted whether they could Discharge him upon a Motion or that he should be driven to plead this Matter And it was said the Course had been both ways Vid. Parker's Case 3 Cro. 553. But the party was afterwards Discharged ut opinor Herne versus Brown A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court The Libel sets out That a Tax had been made for the Repairs of a Church where the Defendant inhabited and was to make him pay his proportion To which they required his Answer viz. Whether he had paid c. The Suggestion was that the party had tendred his Answer but the Court had refused it because it was not upon Oath and that the Ecclesiastical Court
cannot tender an Oath to the party sued nisi in causis Matrimonialibus Testamentariis But the Court after hearing divers Arguments denied the Prohibition for they said It was no more than the Chancery did to make Defendants answer upon Oath in such like Cases Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 31 Car. II. In Banco Regis How versus Whitfield ante in ult ' Term. IN Repl the Plaintiff declares of the taking of his Cattle in a Close containing five Acres The Defendant avows and sets forth a Fine to the use of A. in Tail which discended to him Virtute cujus he was seised in Dominico ut de feodo talliato c. The Plaintiff Replies that the Fine was first to the use of J. S. for Life the Remainder to his Executors Administrators and Assigns for 80 years with Power to him and his Assigns to lett the five Acres in Possession or Reversion for 21 years determinable upon three Lives reserving the ancient Rent and that J. S. Devised this Term to J. N. and died his Executors assented and after it came to the Executors of J. N. who assigned it and that the Assignee made a Lease of the said five Acres inter alia reserving proinde the Rent of 6 s per annum and avers that the ancient Rent was 6 s per annum The Avowant Rejoyns setting forth his former Title And the Plaintiff Demurrs It was Objected First That the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Seisin in Tail alledged by the Avowant seeing in his Replication he sets forth and intitles himself under an Estate inconsistent with it To this it was Answered and the Court agreed that there ought to be no Traverse for the Avowant doth not say it was his Freehold or that he was Seised in Tail but only under a Virtute cujus c. And the Plaintiff in his Replication sets forth a Title consistent with all that the Avowant alledges and so confesses and avoids and all depends upon the execution of the Power And for that Secondly It was Objected That he which made this Lease was not Assignee of J. S. for Executors were not within the Power and consequently not their Assignee This is a Power collateral to the Estate and shall not run with the Land for then Assignees of Commissioners of Bankrupcy the Vendee of the Term by the Sheriff upon an Execution c. should execute this Power It is like Covenants annexed to Leases which the Assignee could not take advantage of till 32 H. 8. Again Here appears to be no good Reservation for the Lease is of the five Acres inter al' reserving proinde so that the Rent issues out of other Lands as well as the five Acres and therefore cannot be said to be the ancient Rent reserved upon that The Court were all of Opinion that the Assignee in this case might execute the Power and conceived that Assignees might include Assignees in Law Vid. Mo. 855. as well as Fact but however the Tenant for Life devising this Term the Devisee was an Assignee and the Power in the greatest strictness of acceptation was in him and consequently must go to his Executors and by the same Reason to their Assignee As to the Reserving the Rent proinde the Court said it might be intended that the inter al' might comprehend nothing but such things out of which a Rent could not be reserved and then the six Shillings was reserved only for the five Acres However the proinde might reasonably be referred only to the five Acres and not to the inter al and that a distinct Reservation of Six shillings might be for five Acres And so Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Ante. Steed versus Berrier ERror upon a Judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas upon a Special Verdict the Case was to this effect J.S. made his Will in Writing and devised Lands to his Son J.S. and his Heirs and in the same Will gave a Legacy of 100 l to his Grandson The Son died afterwards in his Life time after whose decease J. S. the Grandfather made a Codicil wherein he gave away part of the Lands devised as aforesaid to a Stranger and afterwards declared by Parol that his Intention was that his Grandson J. S. should have the Lands which his Son J. S. should have had The Question upon this Special Verdict was Whether this were sufficient to carry the Lands to the Grandson And Judgment was given in the Common Pleas by three Judges against one that it was Whereupon a Writ of Error was brought in this Court Finch Solicitor Argued that this Will was sufficient to carry it to the Grandson He agreed Brett and Ridgen's Case in Pl. Com. that a Devise to a man and his Heirs who dies in the Life of the Devisor a new Publication will not be enough to make the Heir take by the Will because named in the Will by way of Limitation of the Estate and not Designation of the Person that should take But in Fuller's Case in the 1 Cro. 423. and in Mo. 2. where the Devise was to his Son Richard and the Heirs of his Body which Richard afterwards died in his Life time and then the Devisor said My Will is That the Sons of Richard my Son deceased shall have the Land devised to their Father as they should have had if their Father had lived and died after me There Popham and Fenner held that this new Publication would carry the Land to Richard's Son Gawdy and Clench contra But our Case is much stronger for there Heirs of the Body were used only for Limitation but in the Will here where the words are I Devise to my Son J. with this new Publication the Grandson J. may take because a Grandson is a Son and when a Will is new Published it is all one as if it were wrote at the time of such Publication Beckford and Parncot's Case in the 1 Cro. 493. Mo. 404. Devise of all his Lands and after the Will the Devisor purchaseth other Lands and then publishes it again it will carry the new purchased Lands Dyer 149. Trevanian's Case Cestuy que use before the 27th of H. 8. Devised the Lands a new Publication will pass the Lands executed in him by the Statute The Opinion of the Court inclined to Reverse the Judgment they held it to be the same with Fuller's Case in the 1 Cro. that no Parol averment can carry Lands to one person when the words of the Will plainly intended them to another They agreed If a man having no Son but a Grandson deviseth his Lands to his Son the Grandson may take But here is an opposition contained in the new Publication viz. Those Lands which my Son J. should have had my meaning is my Grandson J. shall have And in the Will it self there is a Legacy devised to the Grandson by that Name so where they are so distinguished 't is impossible to take the Grandson to be
meant by the name of Son As to Beckford's Case the Words are full to carry all and therefore it had been impertinent to have wrote over the Will again So where a man has two Sons named John it may be well averred that he meant the younger Son for nothing in the Will is inconsistent with such meaning The Court took time to deliver their Opinions And afterwards the Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court That neither the Republication nor Parol Declaration could operate as a Devise to R. c. the Grandson Pepis's Case A Mandamus to restore him to his Place of Recorder of the Town of Cambridge The Return was That they were Incorporated by the Name of Mayor Aldermen c. with a Power to chuse a Recorder Habend ' pro termino vitae aut ad voluntat ' eligentium That Mr. Pepis was Chosen Recorder ad voluntat ' eligentium and that afterwards by the Votes of the greater number of the Electors he was removed and the Lord Allington constituted a Recorder under their Common Seal c. Vpon this Return it was moved for Mr. Pepis that altho' they had alledged a Power to Chuse a Recorder at Will yet they should have shewn Cause for his Removal being a Judicial Office which the Court takes notice of and that none had such a Power but the King to remove Judges ad libitum Again A Corporation aggregate cannot determine their Will but under their Common Seal and that is not shewn here Curia Where a Recorder is at Will they may remove him at pleasure as it is in Blagrave's Case and several other Cases As to the other Point it does not appear that he was Constituted under their Common Seal perhaps then they must have determined their Will under their Common Seal but now 't is well enough my Lord Allington is Constituted under their Common Seal which Act removes the other so it was adjudged against Mr. Pepis Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 31 Car. II. In Banco Regis A Prohibition was prayed to the Court of Admiralty upon a Suggestion that the Suit was there upon a Contract made upon the Land The Case was thus A Bargain was made upon the Land with severl Seamen to bring up a Ship from a Port in England to London for a certain Sum to them to be paid And for the Prohibiton 't was alledged that this being upon the Land and a Contract with divers joyntly for a Sum in Gross it could not be within the ordinary Rule of Mariners Wages which is permitted to be Sued for in the Court of Admiralty in favour of the Mariners because they may all joyn in that Court and not be put to the inconvenience of Suing severally as they must at Law but as this Contract is they are to sue joyntly at Common Law But the Prohibition was denied for this must be taken as Mariners Wages And therefore tho' the Contract were upon the Land yet they have Jurisdiction Besides the Party comes after Sentence and therefore in the Courts discretion whether they will then grant a Prohibition Note A Rump Act was made to enable Mariners to Sue for Wages in the Admiralty but yet the Law was taken to be so before Vid. 3 Cro. Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court where the Libel was for these words You are a Whore and Ply in Moorfields And the Suggestion was that the words were spoken in London where an Action lies for such words and for that Cause a Prohibition was granted otherwise Suits might have been in the Court Christian for such words tho' not singly for the word Whore being a common word of brabling otherwise where joyned with words which shew the intent to Defame in that kind Anonymus AN Indebitat ' Assumpsit was brought for Goods sold and delivered The Action was laid in London and a Motion was made to change the Venue upon an Affidavit that the Sale was in Kent But on the other side it was said the delivery was in London and that were the Matter consists of two parts in several Counties the Plaintiff shall have his Election to which the Court agreed Anonymus A Man Covenants with his intended Wife to give her leave to dispose of so much by her Will and then they Intermarry the Husband having given Bond to a third person for the performance of these Covenants after the death of the Wife the Husband is Sued upon the Bond for not permitting her Will to be performed And upon Oyer of the Condition it was insisted on for the Defendant that these Covenants were discharged by the Marriage and so the Bond likewise loseth its force Vid. Hob. 216. Et Adjornatur Anonymus A Motion was made to quash an Inquisition of forcible Entry it was Inquisitio capta per Juratores super Sacramentum suum coram T. S. J. N. Justiciariis c. qui dicunt super Sacramentum praed ' And it was objected That qui dicunt c. referring to the last antecedent it was that the Justices say Sed non allocatur for super Sacramentum praedict ' makes it certain Note The Caption of an Indictment may be amended the same Term it comes into Court Anonymus AN Indictment for not taking upon him and executing the Office of a Constable to which he was chosen by the Leer The question was Whether a Tenant in antient Demesne were obliged to that Office And the Court held that he was Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 31 32 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the case was thus A Lease was made A. and B. for their Lives Remainder to the first Son of A. c. Remainder to the Heirs of A. B. conveys his part to A. The question was Whether the Contingent Remainder to the first Son were destroyed Holt argued that it was For a Contingent Remainder must have some particular Estate of Freehold to support it and by the Release of B. his Estate was gone and there became an intire Fee in A. For by whotsoever means a Joynt tenant for Life conveys his Moiety to his Companion it does not enure by Grant of the Estate but by Release as Eustace and Scawens Case 2 Cro. 696. A. and B. Joynt tenants for Life A. Levy's a Fine to B. B. dies there shall be no Occupancy of the Moiety of A. during the Life of A. Jones 55. and the Case of Lewis Bowels 11 Co. is not to be objected where an Estate for Life was made to B. and F. the Remainder to their first Son that they should have in Tail Remainder to B. and F. in Tail here tho' an Estate in Tail is executed in B. and F. until a Son Born yet after upon the Birth of the Son the Contingent Remainder shall vest and split and divide the former Estate 2 Co. 60.61 but here the Fee becomes executed by several Conveyances but there the Estate
could not be digged up there might be an Indictment Exhibited to the Grand Jury who might Enquire thereupon Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 32 33 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Motion was made against a Judge of an Inferiour Court of Record for increasing upon a View the Damages in an Action of Trespass and Battery to so much more than was given by the Jury Curia The proper way is to Reform it by a Writ of Error for none but the Courts at Westminster can increase Damages upon View Anonymus IF a Writ of Error in Ejectment c. abates by the Act of God a second Writ will be a Supersedeas Otherwise where it abates by the Act of the Party Anonymus IN a Writ of Error to Reverse a Fine the Proclamations were pleaded in the same Fine and Five â—ears quiet possession and this in barr of a Writ of Error The Court Inclined that the Error being in the Fine Five years possession could not be pleaded Sed Adjornatur Mo. Rep. 8. Termino Paschae Anno 33 Car. II. In Banco Regis NOte This Term Sir Francis Pemberton was made Lord Chief Justice of the Kings-Bench in the room of Sir William Scroggs who was displaced Page versus Denton HIll 32 33. Car. 2. Rot. 45. In Debt upon a Bond against an Executor who pleads that the Testator was Indebted to him by an Obligation the Condition whereof was to pay Rent and that at the time of his Decease there was 300 l due for Rent and that he had not more than 60 l Assets to pay it c. The Plaintiff Replied That there was but 30 l due for Rent at the time of the Testator's death Which the Court held to be a good Replication altho' the Penalty of the Bond was forfeited at the time of the Testator's death For if a Bond due to a Stranger be forfeited and this be pleaded by an Executor and that he hath not Assets ultra 't is a good Replication to say That the Obligee would have taken part of his Money in full and it shall be a Bar for no more and here the Defendant ought to take but his due Debt And the Court said that if men would plead their Case Specially it would save many a Suit in Chancery Fitzharris's Case EDward Fitzharris was Indicted of High Treason upon which being Arâ—aigned and demanded to plead he delivered in a Paper containing a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court which could not be received as the Court said not being under Counsel's Hand Whereupon he prayed to have Counsel assigned and Named divers whereof the Court assigned Four And he was taken from the Bar three of four days being given him to advise with his Counsel to prepare his Plea as they would stand by him The Counsel prayed that they might have a Copy of the Indictment But the Court denied it and said that it was not permitted in Treason or any other Capital Crimes But Justice Dolben said that sometimes it had been allowed to take Notes out of the Indictment Vid. Mirror 304. Abusion est que Justices ne monstre l'Indictment à les Indictes s'ils demandront Sect. 115. Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 33 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN an Action of Debt against an Executor in the Debet and Detinet upon a Surmize of a Devastavit the Defendant was held to Special Bail And so Ruled upon Motion Anonymus IT was said by the Court That if a Corporation that hath been by Prescription accept a New Charter wherein some alteration is of their Name and likewise of the Method in the Governing part yet their Power to remove and other Franchises which they had de temps d'ont c. do continue And if the Power to Remove be at their Will and Pleasure this Will must be expressed under their Common Seal but in Return to a Mandamus debito modo amotus may suffice Note No Writ of Error lies upon an Indictment of Recusancy and Conviction by Proclamation Note In an Ejectment where there are divers Defendants which are to Confess Lease Entry and Ouster if one does not appear at the Trial the Plaintiff cannot proceed against the rest but must be Nonsuit Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 33 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Covenant the Plaintiff Declared upon several Breaches one whereof was for not paying of 7 l according to the Covenant It was moved for the Defendant that he might be admitted to bring 7 l into Court to pay to the Plaintiff together with his Costs hitherto c. as is usual in Cases of Debt or Assumpsit for Money and that the Plaintiff might proceed for the rest if he thought fit But the Motion was denied because the Plaintiff had Declared of other Breaches and the Matter lay in Damages Anonymus ERror upon a Judgment in the Common Pleas where the Plaintiff Declared in an Action upon the Case that he had Common in the Defendants Lands habere debuit c. The Defendant Demurred because not set out how the Plaintiff was Intituled to the Common whether by Prescription or otherwise Notwithstanding which Judgment in the Common Bench was for the Plaintiff and now the same Matter insisted on for Error here and the Court doubted To make the Declaration good there was quoted the Case of Sands and Trefuses in the 3 Cro. in an Action for Stopping of a Watercourse to his Mill which was held good without saying an Ancient Mill or that he was Intituled to the Watercourse by Prescription or otherwise 2 Cro. 43.122 Dent and Oliver an Action for disturbing of him to take Toll and no Title set forth Sed Adjornatur Vid. Co. Entr. 9. 11. Day versus Copleston IN an Assumpsit for Money the Defendant pleaded the Statute for the Discharge of poor Prisoners and that he had been Discharged by that Act which provides that there shall be no after Prosecution by a Creditor in such case so as to subject the Body to Execution and says that he can say nothing further in Bar of the Action Vpon which the Plaintiff Demurred and the Defendant joyned in the Demurrer and Judgment was Entred up for the Plaintiff but with a Cesset executio quoad Corpus c. And the Court approved of this way of pleading the Statute for otherwise they said if the Matter had not been disclosed in pleading they doubted whether the could have given the Defendant the benefit of the Act but he would be driven to his Audita Querela Anonymus ERror of a Judgment in the King's Bench in Ireland it was suggested that the Plaintiff was in Execution upon the Judgment in Ireland And the Court seemed to be of Opinion that a Habeas Corpus might be sent thither to remove him as Writs Mandatory had been awarded to Calais and now to Jersey Guernsey c. Anonymus THe Case was A. Tenant in Tail Remainder to B. in Tail c. A.
makes a Lease for the Life of the Lessee not warranted by the Statute and dies leaving B. in Remainder his Heir B. let ts for 99 years to commence after the death of the Tenant for Life reserving Rent and then the Tenant for Life surrenders to B. upon Condition and dies B. suffers a Recovery with single Voucher and dies the Lessee for years enters the Heir of B. distrains for the Rent and the Lessee brings a Replevin and upon an Avowry and Pleadings thereupon this Case was disclosed to the Court of Common Bench and Judgment given there for the Avowant and Error thereupon brought in this Court For the Plaintiff in the Error it was Argued That the Lease being derived out of a Reversion in Fee which was Created in A. upon the Discontinuance for Life and the New Fee vanishing by the Surrender of the Tenant for Life for it was urged he was in his Remitter altho' the taking of the Surrender was his own Act that the Lease for years by consequence was become void Again It was Objected against the Common Recovery that the Tenant in Tail and a Stranger which had nothing in the Estate were made Tenants to the Praecipe and therefore no good Recovery Again In case B. were not remitted after acceptance of the Surrender then he was Seised by force of the Tail and so no good Recovery being with single Voucher On the other side it was Argued to be no Remitter because the acceptance of the Surrender was his own Act and the Entry was taken away But admitting it were a Remitter because by the Surrender the Estate for Life which was the Discontinuance was gone and it was no more than a Discontinuance for Life For if Tenant in Tail letts for Life and after grants the Reversion in Fee if the Lessee for Life dies after the Death of the Tenant in Tail so that the Estate was not executed in the Grantee during the Life of the Tenant in Tail the Heir shall immediately Enter upon the Grantee of the Reversion Co. Litt. It seems also to be stronger against the Remitter in this case because 't is not Absolute but only Conditional However the Lease may be good by Estoppel for it appears to have been by Indenture and if the Lessor cannot avoid the Lease the Lessee shall without question be subject to the Rent But it was Objected against the Estoppel that here an Interest passes and the Lease was good for a time As if the Lessee for Ten years makes a Lease for Twenty years and afterwards purchaseth the Reversion it shall bind him for no more than Ten. To which Pemberton Chief Justice said The difference is where the party that makes the Estate has a legal Estate and where a Defeasible Estate only for in the latter a Lease may work by Estoppel tho' an Interest passed so long as the Estate out of which the Lease was derived remained undefeated As to the Recovery it was held clearly good altho' a Stranger that had nothing in the Land was made Tenant to the Praecipe with the Tenant in Tail for the Recompence in Value shall go to him that lost the Estate and being a Common Assurance 't is to be favourably Expounded Et Adjornatur Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 33 34 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Error upon a Judgment in Ejectione Firmae in the Common Pleas where the Case was That the Bishop of London was seized injure Episcopatus of a Mannor of which the Lands in question were held and time out of mind were demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll for Life in Possession and Reversion and J.S. being Copyholder for Life in Reversion after an Estate for Life in Ann Pitt and J.N. being seized of the Mannor by Disseisin J.S. at a Court holden for the Mannor in the name of J. N. surrendred into the Hands of the said J.N. the Disseisor Lord to the used of the said Lord. Afterwards the Bishop of London entred and avoided the Disseisin Ann Pitt died and an Ejectment was brought by J. S. And it was adjudged in the Common Bench that he had a good Title and now upon a Writ of Error in this Court the Matter in Law was insisted upon by Pollexfen for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error That this Surrender to the Disseisor Lord to the Lords own use was good for all the Books agree a Copyholder may Surrender to a Disseisor of the Mannor to the use of a Stranger and why not to the Lords own use As if Lessee for years be ousted and he in Reversion disseised and the Lessee Releases to the Disseisor this extinguishes his Term. Here is a compleat Disseisin of the Mannor by Attornment of the Freeholders without which the Services cannot be gained and the Copyholders comeing to the Disseisors Court and by making Surrenders c. owning him for their Lords tantamounts Serjeant Maynard contra And he insisted that this Surrender was not good for the Disseisor had no Estate in this Land capable of a Surrender for the Copyholder for Life continuing in Possession and never having been ousted there could be no Disssesin of that And he endeavoured to distinguish it from a Surrender to a Disseisor Lord to the use of another for in such Surrenders the Lord is only an Instrument and does but as it were assent and until admittance the Estate is in the Surrenderer And he resembled it to the Attornment of a Tenant when è converso a Seigniory is granted and he put Cases upon Surrenders of Leases that they must be to one that hath the immediate Reversion as an under Lessee for part of the Term cannot Surrender to the first Lessor and he cited a Case of Lessee for years Remainder for Life Remainder in Fee to a Stranger he that had the Fee enfeoffed the Tenant for years by Deed and made Livery and the Conveyance held void for it could not work by Livery to the Tenant for years who was in Possession before and a Surrender it could not be because of the intermediate Estate for Life and it could not work as a Grant for want of Attornment He said it had been commonly received that a Common Recovery cannot be suffered where the Tail is expectant upon an Estate for Life not made Tenant to the Praecipe which he said was true in a Writ of Entry in the Post which are commonly used And the true reason is because such Writ supposes a Disseisin which cannot be when there is a Tenant for Life in Possession But as he said a Common Recovery in such case in a Writ of Right would be good Pemberton Chief Justice said his reason of Desseisin would overthrow Surrenders to the use of a Stranger for if the Possession of the Copyholder would preserve it from a Disseisin then was it pro tempore lopped off or severed from the Mannor and then no Surrender could be at all Et Adjornatur Berry
versus Bowes IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be this Commissioners of Bankrupt had assigned by Indenture the Lands in question to the Lessor of the Plaintiff which Indenture was afterwards Enrolled But the Declaration was upon a Demise made after the Indenture and before the Enrolment and whether that Demise were sufficient to Entile the Lessor of the Plaintiff was the general question It was first insisted on that Enrollment of the Deed of Assignment tho' to pass Lands was not necessary 2 Co. 26. But that the Court overruled saying that Enrolment is not requisite upon an Assignment of Goods but of Lands it is But then it was said that after the Deed was Enrolled it shall relate to the Delivery and it was compared to a Bargain and Sale where by the Statute of H. 8. of Enrolments nothing passeth till the Deed be Enrolled but then it relates 2 Instit 675 Bargainee sells before Enrolment the subsequent Enrolment makes it good so if the Bargainee suffers a Recovery before Enrolment he is a good Tenant to the Praecipe by relation ibidem And this is confirmed by the common practice So if at Common Law a Recognizance be acknowledged before a Judge as any Judge of the Courts at Westminster may take a Recognizance and afterwards he causeth it to be Recorded it binds the Land from the time of the Caption Hob. 196. If Land be conveyed to the King by Deed Enrolled it binds from the time of the executing of the Deed altho' the Enrolment be sometime after Sanders contra Here the Commissioners are under a Power given to them by the Statute of Bankrupts and they must execute that Power in all Circumstances before it become effectual In the case of Enrolment of a Bargain and Sale the Deed it self passeth the use and the Statute of Enrolments obstructs the operation of it till Enrolment but when that is done it passeth by the Deed. Again here needs no relation to avoid the mischeif of mean Assignments from the Bankrupt because he is restrained from the time of his first Act of Bankruptcy And on the other side the mischeif would be very great if there should be a relation from the Enrolment in regard the Statute limits no time for the doing of it so that it may be seaven years after and if this should relate to punish Mesne Trespasses the inconvenience would be very great for such Trespassers are until the Enrolment exposed to the Actions of the Bankrupt As to the Case of the Recognizance the Caption is a judicial Act and the principal and so binds from the time And in the case of granting to the King by Deed enrolled the reason is because the King shall not receive any prejudice by the Laches of his Officer in neglecting to Enrol the Deed. But generally in Cases at Common Law there is no relation as in Case of Feoffment and Livery but stronger in Case of a Grant of Reversion where the Attornment is but the assent of the Tenant yet it shall not relate to the Grant It would be hard if a Relation should be admitted to make a Man liable to Trespass It has been much doubted whether a Bargainee before an actual Entry can maintain an Action of Trespass Curia The Case of Bellingham and Alsop altho' it was said to be reversed and the authority is stirred in Iseham and Morrices Case 3 Cro. Yet it has been since taken for good Law in the main point where Executors sell by an authority given by Will the Vendee is in the per from the Devisor but here in Post the and by the Statute It were very inconvenient to admit of Relation because no time prefixed for the Enrolment Sed Adjornatur Afterwards Judgment was given for the Defendant Anonymus UPon a Writ of Error out of an inferiour Court in an Action upon the Case upon an Agreement to Assign over a Term which the Defendant had in him for four years Vpon Non Assumpsit a Special Verdict was found that the Agreement was made but not put into Writing and they found the Clause in the Act of 29 Car. 2. of Frauds and Perjuries viz. No Action to be brought upon any Contract or Sale of Lands c. or any Interest in or concerning them c. Vpon which Special Verdict found it was adjudged for the Plaintiff and now Error was assigned in the Matin Law that this Contract was within the Act to be put in Writing But it was objected that the Statute extended only to Interests created de novo out of an Estate and not to an Assignment Curia contra And held the Case to be plain within the words of the Act and so the Judgment was reversed Anonymus IN Error to Reverse a Judgment given in an inferiour Court First Because 't is said Cur ' tent ' apud Guildhalld ' Burgi c. and not said that the Guildhal was within the Jurisdiction of the Court Sed non allocatur for that shall be intended Secondly The Damages given by the Jury were 3 l 19 s and Costs 6 d and so much for Costs de incremento adjud ' and nothing said of the 6 d Sed non allocatur because damna per Jurator ' assess ' includes all and the other is but miscomputation and the Costs awarded de incremento necessarily implies the 6 d Costs before included Vid. Ante Paschae 31 Car. 2. Anonymus IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant did take out a Latitat 21 Januarij 32 Regni ac etiam Billae c. whereas he owed him nothing Vpon Not guilty pleaded a Special Verdict was found that the Latitat was Teste 28 Novembris 32 Car. Regis but was really taken out 21 Januarij 32 Regis Et si pro Quaere c. Holt argued upon this that by Law it must be said to be taken out the 28 of November when the Teste is Yelv. 130. Debt upon a Bond bearing date the 30 of December The Defendant demands Oyer of the Condition which was to perform Covenants and says tho' it were dated the 30 of December yet it was deliberat ' primo die Feb ' and no breach since If the Plaintiff replies and agrees with the Defendant 't is a Departure because he had declared of a precedent Date which implies the Delivery But it is objected That the Jury are not estopped to find the Truth I answer Where the Parties impleading have agreed a Point certain the Jury is estopped to find the contrary Pemberton Chief Justice we know the course of the Court is to Teste Latitats taken out in Vacation of the Term preceding and the course of a Court is the Law of the Court He might have declared That the Defendant Sued out a Latitat the 21 of January Teste the 28 of November preceding and if he be not estopped to declare fo surely the Jury may find the whole matter And so Judgment was
because the Intent of the parties appears that it should be so There 's no great difference between the Construction of a Deed of Uses and a Will 13 H. 7. The Wife takes an Estate for Life by Implication where the Land is devised to the eldest Son after her decease Manning and Andrew's Case in 1 Leon. 259. The Reason of these Cases is the fulfilling of the Intention of the Parties and here this Limitation cannot be made good by way of a Future Use nor by any other way but only by creating of an Estate for Life in Michael the Father by Implication and this is according to the nature of a Covenant to stand seiz'd For the Use is not to pass out of the Covenantor till the proper time for the subsequent Estate to commence As to my Lord Paget's Case 't was his Intention to have the Use during his Life And my Lord Coke was certainly very well satisfied with the Resolution in Fenwick and Mitford's Case when he wrote his Institutes for he Argued before to the contrary as appears by the Report of that Case in Moor. Rainsford Justice to the same Intent If no Use rises immediately to Ralph yet if a Use rises by the Deed so that he has the Land any way be it by discent from his Father 't is within the Conclusion of the Verdict By the scope of the Conveyance it appears that it was intended that Robert should never have his Land till Twelve hundred Pound was paid for the provision of younger Children so that if Robert should have it it would be against the Intention of Michael There are two Reasons and Grounds in Law by which we may make this Deed agree with the Intention of the Parties First Because it is in the Case of an Estate Tail ubi voluntas donatoris observari debet Secondly It is in a Conveyance setled by way of Use and in Cases of Uses the Intention of the parties ought to be pursued And this is in Case of a Use that rises by Covenant to stand seiz'd which makes the Case the stronger And I conceive this is not a void Limitation but such an one as gives an Estate to Ralph In speaking to which I shall observe what my Lord Coke in the 1 Inst 23. says viz. That so much of the Use as the Owner of the Land does not dispose of remains in him c. and so in Cownden and Clark's Case in Hob. 30. And this is the Reason of Bingham's Case 1 Co. 91. Now here when Michael Covenanted to stand seiz'd to the Vse of his Heirs Male on the Body of his second Wife begotten I conceive he shall retain the Land as parcel of his ancient Vse during his Life for non est Haeres viventis according to Archer's Case 1 Co. And that Michael shall retain an Estate for Life is prov'd by my Lord Paget's Case 1 Co. 154. Dyer 310. N. 79. 1 Co. Chudleigh's Case 129. 2 Rolls 788. 21 H. 7. 18. From my Lord Paget's Case upon which I shall rely and the other Cases it appears that were there 's a Limitation to one after the death of another the Covenantor shall retain the Land during the Life of the other and here in our Case this Estate not taking effect till after the Death of Michael he shall retain the Estate and shall be Tenant for Life of the old Vse Now the Question is Whether Ralph shall take by Discent or Purchase And I conceive this Estate for Life with the Remainder in Tail makes but one Estate Tail in Michael and that he becomes Tenant in Tail and so Ralph shall take as Heir in Tail I shall not trouble my self whether Ralph may take here as a Purchaser because in Cownden and Clark's Case in Hob. it is Resolved that he cannot take as Heir Male of the Body by Purchase because all the words are not verified in him for he is not Heir I shall rely upon the First Point That here is an Estate Tail executed in Michael For when an Estate for Life is in the Auncestor by way of Retainer and an Estate is afterwards limited to his Heirs this is within the Rule put in Shelley's Case in 1 Co. where the Auncestor takes an Estate of Freehold and by the same Conveyance an Estate is limited to his Heirs Mediately or Immediately they are Words of Limitation and not of Purchase because the Heir is part of his Father Our Case is stronger that Fenwick and Mitfords Case It s true the same Reason for that Case is not given by Anderson and More which is given by my Lord Coke More 437. There the Reason is because the Limitation to the right Heirs is merely void here Michael hath an Estate in Tail of the ancient Use therefore 't is not necessary for the Law to create an Estate for Life Obj. That this cannot be an Estate Tail executed in Michael because the Estate for Life is not by the same Limitation but by Construction of Law But my Lord Coke says in Fenwick and Mitfords Case 1 Inst 22. b. that there is no difference where the Estate is created by Law and where by the Deed. 1 Anderson 259. and the Law retaining an Estate in Michael for Life our Case is the same as if the Estate had been limited to him with the Remainder to his Heirs Male begotten on his second Wife which would be an Estate Tail executed in Michael and would have discended to Ralph Twisden Justice for the Plaintiff I hold there 's no Use raised to Ralph by this Deed. We are here in the construction of a Deed and not of a Will It may be an Estate should be raised in such a case by a Will altho' my Lord Hobart is of a contrary Opinion I agree the Case of Hodgkinson and Wood Cro. Car. 23. but it cannot be argued from thence that it shall be so in a Deed for a Devise is not to take effect till after the Death of the Devisor and then 't is apparent that he is Heir Male of his Body It hath been agreed that Heirs Male of the Body are words of purchase It is plain that Ralph cannot take as Special Heir unless by Purchase and that he cannot do because he who shall take by virtue of such a Limitation ought to be Heir as well as Issue Male and Ralph here cannot take by vertue of the Statute de Donis Conditionalibis because none can take as Special Heir but where his Ancestor took before and therefore this Limitation is utterly void To make this Limitation good divers ways have been urged First That this Deed has an operation by way of returning of the Use and it has been compared to my Lord Pagets Case which differs from it here cannot be any part of the old Use in Michael for if he hath an Estate for Life it ought to be a new Use It cannot be a returning Use for the Limitation to the Heirs Male of the Body
Circumstance that Special Matter or Circumstance must be shewn to the Court by him that would have the advantage of the Prescription for the Negative cannot be averred on the other side And it cannot be helped by supposing there may be Trees Mines or Park but it ought to be shewn for every thing that depends upon supposition may as well not be as be and to allow a Prescription upon such a supposal would be to bind up a party by it tho' the thing be not and Pasturage may well be supposed the whole profit of Pasture Ground for it is so in fact in many places and has its name because it is fed all the year But Where it is fed but part of the year and mowed or plowed the rest it is called Arable or Meadow The main Objection that I conceive they can make to this is That the Sole Pasturage or Vesture lies in Grant and the Owner may exclude himself wholly by Grant and so he may be excluded by Prescription or Custom and this they ground upon Co. Litt. 4 b. where it is said if a Man Grants to another and his Heirs vesturam terrae and makes Livery secundum formam Chartae yet the Freehold of the Soil shall not pass by which it is implied that the Vesture shall If this Book be to be understood of the Vesture at all times of the year where no other profits remain to the Lord I shall crave leave to object against it from the same Page where it is agréed that if it were profits the Soil would pass Methinks it should be the same in reason where the Vesture is all the profits and Vesture shall be intended all the profits I shall cite some Authorities which are not inconsiderable to Warrant this Opinion I have in a Manuscript Report of Cases in King James's time a Case betwixt Collins and the Bishop of Oxford It was Paschae 19. Jacobi upon a Tryal at Bar in the Kings Bench. The Case was that 1 Ed. 6. the King erects the Bishoprick of Oxford and gave to the Bishop and his Successors in t ' al' primam vesturam of a Meadow called Horse Meadow John Bridge Bishop of Oxford leased it for three Lives rendring Rent and dies his Successors before restitution of the Temporalties accepted the Rent of the Lessee and afterwards entred upon him Vpon this Case the first question was what passed by the Grant of prima vestura My Report says That it was agreed by all the Justices that by a Grant of Vestura Terrae by a common Person the Soil will pass and then there must be a Livery of consequence but they held a Grant of prima vestura was but like a Grant of prima tonsura and being for no certain time is but an Interest in the first cutting or taking of the Grass But they all agreed that if a Man Grants primam vesturam from such a day to such a day certain the Grantee shall have the Soil and Mow it or Feed it as he pleases Kelway 118. If a Man Grants vesturam Terrae for term of Life to another it is a Grant of the Land for Life for saith the Book the vesture is the profit of the Land and it is all one to have the profit as to have the Land it self Littleton puts the Case if a Man Grants the Vesture of Land to another and his Heirs without Livery no Estate passeth But the Book of my Lord Cokes difference betwixt the Vesture of the Land and the profits of the Land seems to be mistaken and in reason they are the same for I take it generally speaking Vesture shall be intended all the profits and if there be special profits as Mines opened or Waters c. which may qualifie the word and retain the Soil to the Owner it must be shewn And as it is for Vesture of Land so I conceive where it appears in Pleading that the Ground is Pasture Pasturage or Sole Feeding will signifie all the profits for Pasture is properly that which is wholly for Feeding and where the Sole Pasture is claimed the Owner cannot claim or take any other profit Temps E. 1. tit Partition 21. Two Men agree to make partition of Pasture Ground in this manner That one shall have totam pasturam from such a time to such a time and the other for the residue of the year this is a partition of the Soil it self which shews Pasture is to be intended the whole profits of Pasture Ground in that case the quo jure could not be maintained for the party had not barely a Liberty but the Soil it self If several Men have Profits upon the same Land alternis vicibus the Law most commonly determines the right of the Soil to be in him that has the most considerable Profits As for Example If one has the Summer Feeding of Pasture or the first Tonsure of Meadow or the Sowing and Reaping of Corn upon Arable and an other Man has the Feeding separately at other times of the year the Law saith that the Soil is in him that has the Summer profits and Corn because it is the greater Profits and the other hath but a Profit a prender Now suppose that two Men have interchangeably the sole Feeding of Pasture at such times that the interest of one is in all respects equal to that of the other there nothing can determin the Soil to be in one more than the other and therefore it shall be in one for his time and in the other for his time But where one has the sole feeding of Pasture at all times in the year and it has been so time out of mind and there is nothing but Pasture what can the other have to shew the Soil to be in him and why should it not be said to be in him that has the Feeding or whole Profits It seems very absurd that a Man should be allowed to be Owner of the Soil and yet it may be has no badge of Ownership by Perception of Profits If the Mans Estate be displaced so as to be put to a Writ of Right how should he lay the Esplees And as to this Consideration there may be difference betwixt a Grand and Vsage for a Grant beginning within time of Memory the Ownership of the Soil was once fully manifested until he had divested himself of all but that but upon Vsage time out of mind nothing can be said why one Man should have the Soil more than another if it be not in him that hath all the Profits I must end this Point also with this Observation That if there is no Case in all the Books of a Sole Pasture at all times of the year but in F. N. tit Prescription 51 and 55 and Hutton 45. It is made a Profit a prender and the most considerable Proâ—â—ts are left to the Owner My fourth Reason upon which I hold this Prescription is void is because it is a new invention framed to overthrow
a Maxim in Law and is of mischievous consequence New inventions that are agreeable to Rules of Law I know have been always received and sometimes have proved of excellent use But New inventions that are framed to supplant Principles of Law have been always baffled and rejected The Maxim and Principle of Law that is overturned by this way of Pleading is That a Commoner cannot prescribe to exclude his Lord. This Maxim is one of the foundations of Law and depends upon the reason of the thing and not upon the sound of the word It will be objected that the reason is because ex vi termini the word Common implies that they are to Common with the Lord which they cannot do if the Lord does not feed But I conceive it is not so for it may be as well called a Common without a Solecism where the Tenants feed in common together and the Lord never feeds with them as where he does the true reason is from the nature of the thing for it is supposed the Lord has no need of his Waste and to make non-usage in such a case turn to a Prescription or Custom against him would be most unreasonable Vpon the creation of Mannors the Lords took as much as was for their own Use into their Demesns they distributed as much as was convenient amongst their Tenants what was left was called the Lords Waste which was neglected by the Lord because he had before taken into his Demesns what he had need of It were very hard that non-usage should turn to a Prescription against the Lord because he doth not feed his Wastes when he left them waste before because he had taken as much before as he had occasion to feed It is upon the same reason that the Law will not allow any Prescription for Commoners to exclude and not upon any Argument from the word Common Maxims in Law do not depend upon words but upon foundations of reason it is not for the honour of the Law that it should have its Maxims depend upon sounds and words and not upon solid reason That Commoners cannot prescribe to exclude their Lords if they call their Right by the term of Common but if they call it by another name tho' they claim the same kind of interest they may exclude them If you prescribe to have Communiam excludendo Dom ' that is not good but if you prescribe to have solam separalem Pastur ' in common amongst your selves for Beasts Levant and Couchant you may exclude him Vnder favour to have such a Maxim turned out of Doors and made Vseless there ought to be very good Authority for it such an Invention ought to be examined by strict Rules And the consequence of this Innovation will be great and general for there is no Common in England but this Plea will serve for if the Iury will find it and it is found by experience that many times though the Lord of the Mannor gives very good Evidence a Iury will find against him and if a Lord cannot prove an actual feeding a Iury will certainly incline to find it let the Court direct what they please The King and great Lords that have large Wastes that lie remote from their care seldom made any benefit by feeding and they must not expect hereafter to make any improvements if this pleading be allowed which will be very mischievous whereas if that Maxim of Law were observed and such an unreasonable Claim disallowed in Pleading it will not be in the power of Iuries to exclude Lords out of their own Wastes I conceive in this Case upon the matter disclosed in pleading the Court may discern judicially that this is but an Innovation and an Artifice to disguise a Common and to call it a Sole-pasture to enable the Commoners to prescribe to exclude the Lord which they cannot directly do by the Rules of Law Here first The Soil is the Lords of the Mannor and a parcel of the Mannor and a large quantity in truth 10000 Acres tho' the place assigned is but 100 Acres All the Free-holders and Copy-holders of ancient Houses or parcel of the Mannor are to feed and not to be excluded and in truth of 3 or 4 Messuages in the Town 'T is for Beasts Levant and Couchant 't is with an exception of Hoggs Sheep and Northern Steers which is like the regulation of Common if it were a Sole-pasture they might have put in what Cattle they pleased for it is all one to the Lord who is to be wholly excluded The Court may discern by all these Badges that it is in its nature but a Common by Art put into other words to oust the Lord. I shall now crave leave to offer to the view of the Court the Consequences and Inconveniences of this Prescription 1. If there be a Surplusage at any time the Lord cannot improve nor feed but it must be lost which is against the Publick Good 2. If a Stranger feeds and does a Petit Trespass as it is called in Robert Maries Case 9 Co. the Lord can have no Action for the feeding but the Tenants must and then they must either joyn or sever if they joyn what a number of Plaintiffs will there be and how shall the same recovered be divided in Equity or the Contribution for the Costs If they sever and be non-suit then there will be as many several Actions which will be vexatious according to Robert Maries Case 3. If a Freehold be purchased by the Lord or Escheat or a Copyhold Estate be determined what is become then of the share of the Sole feeding The Lord cannot joyn with them in the Prescription shall he have not benefit of the Soil If so what if all but one fail shall that one have all If on the contrary the Lord shall feed must he do it as the Owner of the Soil and have the Surplusage for the Levancy and Couchancy is not material among themselves And then they would become as Commoners again and this would be a strange Prescription that cannot be maintained if ever there were any Escheat of any Tenancy into the Lords hands 4. But the greatest mischief of all will be that this will be a ready way to enable Tenants to withstand all Improvements In Gatewards Case 6 Co. 60. it was a great reason against a Prescription that it was inconsistent with any improvement it would be a great mischief to this Kingdom where there are large Wastes and Commons Forrests and Fenns to take away all power of improving them for the same Land by improvement becomes able to support a great number of people which are the strength of the Kingdom And as there are great inconveniences on this side so the other way there will be none at all for they may enjoy the same Usages as Commoners if they prescribe the ordinary way and the Lord cannot do them any prejudice at all he can only take the Surplusage leaving them sufficient if he
George because being descended from an Alien the Law takes no notice of them as to this purpose otherwise 't is if the said Nicholas had been a Denizen born and Attainted because in such a case though he could not take himself by Discent he could obstruct the Discent to the younger Brother so the Land would Escheat Thirdly That the Case of George the Son naturalized and the Case of John his Son as in reterence to John the Earl and the Discent from him will be all one if George had survived him John the Earl might have inherited so will John his Son who jure Representationis is the same with his Father Et è Converso These things being unquestionably to be admitted before I come to the Argument of the Case I shall premise certain General Observations First Touching Discents Secondly Touching the Capacities of Incapacities of an Alien Thirdly Touching Naturalizations Touching Discents I shall consider First The Rule whereby they are to be Governed Secondly The various kinds of Discents or hereditary Successions Concerning the Rule of Discents we must not govern our selves therein by the General Notions of Law or Proximity of Nature but by the Principal Laws of the Country where the Question ariseth for the various Countries have variously disposed the manner of Discents even in the same Law or Degree of Proximity For Instance The Father is certainly as near of Kin to the Son as the Son is to the Father and is nearer in Proximity than a Brother and therefore shall be preferred as next of Kin in an Administration 3 Rep. Ratcliffs Case Yet touching the Succession of the Father to the purchase of his Son the Laws of several Countries variously provide First According to the Jews for want of Issue of the Son the Father succeeds excluding the Brother and that hath been the Vse and Construction of the Jewish Doctors upon Number 27. Selden de Successionibus Hebr. Cap. 12. But the Mother was wholly excluded Secondly According to the Greeks the Provision for the Succession of the Father is left doubtful Petit Leges 1 6. fol. 6. According to the Romans or Civil Law by the Construction of the Law of the Twelve Tables the Father succeeds in the purchase of the Son for want of Issue of the Son under the Title of Proximus Agnatus and accordingly was their Vsage tho' my Lord Coke supposed the contrary Co. Lit. 5. But to settle all the Institutes of Justinian Lib. 3. Tit. 3. in an Authentick Collection 8. Tit. de Haered ' ab intestato venientibus the Son dying without Issue his Brothers and Sisters Father and Mother do succeed him in a kind of Coparcenary as well to Lands as Goods According to the Customs of Normandy which in some things have a Cognition with the Laws of England the Son dying without Issue his Brothers are preferred before the Father but the Father is preferred before the Vncles Terrien lib. 6. c. 6. la Customier de Normandie cap. Descheants 5. According to the Laws of England the Son dying without Issue or Brother or Sister the Father cannot succeed but it descends to the Vncle. And it is a Maxim of the English Law An Inheritance cannot Lineally ascend Consequently the Question being in this Case touching a Discent of Lands in England it must be Ruled and Disputed according to the Grounds and Reasons of the Laws of England Secondly Touching the Second the Division of Discents are of two kinds First Lineal as from the Father or Grandfather to the Son or Grandson Secondly Collateral or Transversal as from Brother to Brother Vncle to Nephew or è converso And both these are again of two sorts First Immediate as in Lineals from Father to Son Secondly Mediate as in Lineals from Grandfather to Grandson the Father dying in the Life of the Grandfather when the Father is the medium differens of the Discent Thirdly In Collaterals from the Vncle to the Nephew or from the Nephew to the Vncle where the Father is likewise the medium differens And I call this a Mediate Discent tho' as to many purposes it be Immediate for the Father dying in the Life of the Grandfather the Son succeeds in point of Discent of the Laws immediately to the Grandfather and in a Writ of Entry shall be supposed in the Per to the Grandfather and not in the Per and Cui But I call it a Mediate Discent because the Father is the medium through or by whom the Son derives his Title to the Grandfather Therefore if any man thinks the term of Mediate Discent not properly used he may if he please use the words of Mediate or Immediate Ancestors Words are imposed to signifie Things and therefore the Terms being explained what I mean by them I shall retain the Terms of Mediate or Immediate Discents This distinction of Discents or Relations between Ancestor and Heir and Hereditary Succession will be of use throughout this whole Debate In Immediate Discents there can be no Impediment but what arises in the parties themselves For Instance The Father seised of Lands the Impediment that hinders the Discent must be either in the Father or the Son as if the Father or the Son be Attaint or an Alien In Immediate Discents a Disability of being an Alien or Attaint in him that I call a medius Ancestor will disable a person to take by Discent tho' he himself hath no such Disability For Instance In Lineal Discents If the Father be Attaint or an Alien and hath Issue a Denizen born and dies in the life of the Grandfather the Grandfather dies seised the Son shall not take but the Land shall Escheat In Collateral Discents A. and B. Brothers A. is an Alien or Attainted and hath Issue C. a Denizen born B. purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue C. shall not inherit for A. which was the Medius Ancestor or medium differens of this Discent was incapable Dyer 274. Gray's Case And this is apparent in this very Case for by this means Patrick tho' a Denizen and the Son of an Elder Brother is disabled to inherit the Earl A. and B. Brothers A. is an Alien or person Attainted and hath Issue C. and dies and C. purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue B. his Vncle shall not inherit for the Reason before-going for A. is a Medius which was disabled This is Courtney's Case And if in our Case Patrick the Son of Nicholas altho' a Denizen born had purchased Lands and died without Issue John his Vncle should not have Inherited him by reason of the Disability of Nicholas and yet Nicholas himself had he not been an Alien could not immediately have Inherited to his Son but yet he is a Block in the way to John See the Reason 17 E. 4. cap. 1. But this must be intended of such as are absolute Impediments as Attainder or Alien not Temporary suspensions As in the Lord Delaware's Case in 10 Co. But in any Discents the Impediment of
inherit If the Father a Natural Subject hath Issue a Son an Alien who is Naturalized the Father dies the Son shall inherit Co. Lit. 129. Touching the retrospect of a Naturalization and whether the Son being an Alien Naturalized after the death of the Father shall direct the Discent to the youngest depends upon the words of the Naturalization which being by Act of Parliament may by a strange retrospect direct it But as the Naturalization in the Case in question is Penned it would not do it the Naturalization hath only respect to what shall be hereafter The Clause of taking by Discent after the Commencement of the Session of Parliament is sufficient to check that Retrospect And this brings me to the Consideration of the Naturalization in the Case in question and the Effect thereof which I shall not Argue as a Point because I take the Point of the Case to be single But I shall deliver my Opinion of it by way of Conveyance to the Case Read the Naturalization First In this Naturalization I shall set down what Effect it hath And Secondly What Effect it hath not First What Effect it hath It doth doubtless remove that Inability and Incapacity that is in John the Earl and George in respect of themselves being Aliens and so put them in the Condition as if they had been Born in England But if there be a Consequential Impediment or Incapacity derived upon them by Robert their Fathers being an Alien which might hinder their Successions one to another which at the present I suppose or admit I say if there be any such Consequential Impediment this I take is not removed by this Naturalization My Reasons are briefly these First Because this Act of Naturalization hath a proper Subject upon which it may work and with which it is satisfied viz. the Personal defects of the Parties Naturalized because this Defect arising from the Incapacity of the Father is not in any measure taken notice of by the Act nor so much as mentioned that the Father was an Alien By the whole scope of the Act and every Clause of it and those Relative Terms As if Born in England is only to supply the Personal defect of the Parties Naturalized arising from their Birth out of England and therefore shall never be carried to a Collateral purpose Touching the Objection Tho' this Remedy will not Cure a Disease of another nature as Illegitimation Half-Blood c. yet it Cures all the defects of Foreign Births whether in the Parties themselves or resulting from the Ancestors And the Act might have been so Penned as it might have done it but it is not The Plaister is applied only to defects in the arising from their own Birth not defects arising from the Father or that Consequential disability arising thereby Second Objection But we find in Curteen's Case Placita Coronae 241. that where the Father was Attainted the Restitution in Blood granted by the Act to the Son cures that disability that results from the Fathers Attainder and this not only to the Son but also to the Collateral Heirs of the Father And I have before observed the Corruption of the Blood by Attainder is only of the Blood of the Father for the Son's Blood was not at all Corrupted By this Act of Restitution 1. Notice is taken of the Father's Attainder 2. It doth Intentionally provide against it and it was the only business of that Act to remove it 3. Had it not removed that Corruption of Blood it had been useless for there had been nothing else for it to provide against and so the Restitution had been idle had it not had that Effect But in our Case the Naturalization as it takes no notice of the defect in the Father nor provides against it so it hath another business to satisfie it doth remedy the Foreign Birth of the Son And let us examine the several Clauses in this Act of Naturalization we shall find the whole scope of it was no other than to put them in the same and no better Condition than as if they were Born in England This is the Governing Clause both in the first and last Sentence and hath an influence upon all the Clauses that intervene It hath been endeavoured to break the Context and to make the Clause As if Born in England to be cumulative and superabundant But this were by a Nicety to alter the scope and intent of the Act. If it were omitted yet the first Clause making him but a Natural Born Subject to all intents and purposes surely makes him no more and meddles not with the disability of his Father or the Consequence thereof There hath been some stress laid upon the Clause which enables him to make his resort and Pedigree to Ancestors Lineal or Collateral as if that should Entitle George at least to some more advantage by Naturalization than if he had been Born here But to this I say First That is a General Clause and cannot make a Legal Ancestor Secondly Vpon the same Reason it may make John or George inheritable to Patrick and not adjudge the disability of Nicholas his Father which no man pretends It makes him as much inheritable to Ancestors Lineal as well as Collateral and yet it makes no Ancestors Lineal The Words are General and create no new Ancestor that the Law doth not enable It is true that in the Argument of Godfrey and Dixon's Case especially Mountague laid some stress upon these Ancillary Clauses but the rest rather rested upon the very Matter that the party Naturalized was become thereby a Natural born Subject And thus I have done with the Naturalization which doth not Cure any disability of Transmission Hereditary between the Brothers resulting from the disability of the Father if any such be But it doth cure the Personal disability in John and George and makes them to all intents as Natural Subjects as if they had been born in England So that now the Case made is no more than this An Alien hath Issue two Sons born in England and one purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue whether the other shall inherit For as I have before observed the Case of John the Son of George is all one with the Case of George himself whom he represents as to the Point of the Discent from John the Earl Before I come to the Argument of the Question the Verdict had need be delivered from a Question which possibly would make an end of the Dispute It hath been said that if the Wife of Robert were an English Woman there would be no question but the Land might discend between the Brothers John and George tho' Robert the Father were an Alien and that it shall be so intended because nothing appears to the contrary To this I say It is true that if the Mother were an English Woman the Discent from John to George his Son would be unquestionable For notwithstanding the Incapacity of Robert the Father by being an
Alien they might inherit their Mother and consequently they might inherit one the other It hath been endeavoured to be Answered that it is not possible the Mother could be an English Woman because the Sons are found to be Aliens But that will not be so altho' an English Man marry an Alien beyond the Seas and having there Issue the Issue will be Denizens as hath been often Resolved Yet it is without question that if an English Woman go beyond the Seas and marry an Alien and have Issue born beyond the Seas the Issue are Aliens for the Wife was sub potestate viri and yet the Issue born in England should inherit tho' the Husband be an Alien But the true Answer is That in this Case Robert the Husband being an Alien born out of the Allegiance of the Crown of England and marrying and having all his Issues born there She shall not be presumed an English Woman but shall be presumed a Native in Scotland where her Husband lived and had Issue unless the contrary had been expresly found Now touching the Point in question it is true that Sir Edw. Coke in his Littl. fo 8. is of another Opinion He says That if an Alien have two Sons born in England and one dye without Issue the other shall not inherit him But I take the Law to be the contrary First I will shew what Reasons do not move me Secondly What Reasons do convince and satisfie me It doth not move me thus to conclude because there is no defectus Parriae or Nationis or Ligeantiae of either of the Brothers for tho' there be no personal defect in either of the Extreams yet it may be possible that a consequential Impediment arising from another Ancestor may hinder the Discent and this is apparent in the Case in question for Patrick the Son of Nicholas the Elder Brother of John the Earl hath no Defectus Ligeantiae for he was naturalized yet the Land shall not Discend from John the Earl to Patrick by reason of the defect of Nicholas his Father neither doth it move me that George or John his Son do not claim the Land from Robert the Father but from John the Earl for if the Grandfather be seized the Father is an Alien The Son of Denizen born the Father dies in the Life of the Grandfather the Son shall not inherit by reason of the defect of the Father tho' he claim nothing from him but from the Grandfather But the Reasons that satisfie me are these three in order as they are propounded My first Reason is because the Discent from a Brother to a Brother tho' it be a Collateral Discent yet it is an Immediate Discent and consequently upon what hath been premised at first unless we can find a disability or impediment in them no impediment in another Ancestor will hinder the Discent between them Now to prove this Discent immediate I shall use these three ensuing Instances or Evidences First In point of Pleading one Brother shall derive himself as Heir to another without mentioning another Ancestor this hath been at large insisted on by others and therefore I shall pass it over Secondly According to the computation of Degrees according to the Laws of England Brother and Brother make one Degree and the Brother is distant from his Brother and Sister in the first degree of Consanguinity According to the Civil Law the Brother is in the second Degre from the Brother for they make one Degree from the Brother to the Father and from the Father a second Degree to the other Brother but yet they say in Collaterals Nullus est proximior Fratre ideoque in Collateralibus nullus est primus Gradus sed secundus Gradus obtinet vocem primi Inst lib. 3. Tit. B. de Gradibus Consaguinitatis According to the Cannon Law Frater Frater Soror Soror sunt in primo Gradu Decret ' gratian Laus 35. quest 5. ad sedem and therefore their Laws prohibiting Marriage in the fourth Degree take Brother and Sister to be the first Degree of the fourth The Laws of England in computation of the Degrees of Consanguinity agree with the Common Law and reckon the Brother and Brother to be the first Degree and this is apparent by Littl ' sect 20. and the Objection of Lord Coke thereupon and the Book of 31 E. 3. Hollands Case cited by Littleton And with this likewise agrees the Laws and Custome of Normandy which tho' in some things they differ from the Law of England as is before observed yet in this particular and divers other touching Discents they agree with it Vid. Glov Com. super Customeir de Normandy in Cap. de Escheat Et doir un ' Scavoir que tonque le Custome de paijs de Normandy pur compter les Degrees en Line Collateral solonque les Cannoists deux freres ont le primier Degree eont que en Degree My third Evidence that the Discent between Brothers is immediate this viz. the Discent between Brothers differs from all others Collateral Discents whatsoever for in other Discents Collateral the half Blood doth inherit but in a Discent between Brothers the half Blood doth impede the Discent which argues that the Discent is immediate The Vncle of the part of the Father hath no more of the Blood of the Mother than the Brother of the Second Venter The Brother by the second Venter hath the immediate Blood of the Father which the Vncle viz the Fathers Brother hath not but only as they meet in the Grandfather The Brother of the half Blood is nearer of Blood than the Vncle and therefore shall be preferred in the Administration And so it hath been resolved in 5 E. 6. in Browns Case and tho' the Book of 5 E. 6. B. Administration 47. mistakes the Law in preferring the Brother of the half Blood before the Mother yet it had been right in the case of a Competition between him and the Vncle. And yet the Vncle is preferred in the Discent before the Brother of the half Blood and the reason is because that is a mediate Discent mediante Patre but the Discent to the Brother must be immediate if at all and therefore the half Blood impedes it Again it is apparent that if in the Line between Brother and Brother the Law took notice of the Father as the Medium thereof the Brother by the second Venter should rather succeed the other Brother because he is Heir to his Father therefore in a Discent between Brothers the Law respects only the mediate relation of the Brothers as Brothers and not in respect of their Father tho' it is true the Bosom or Foundation of their Consanguinity is in the Father and Mother My second principal Reason is to prove that the disability of the Father doth not at all hinder the Discent between the Brothers immediate is this If the Father in case of a Discent between Brothers were such an Ancestor as the Law
looks upon as the Medium that derives the one Discent from the other then the Attainder of the Father would hinder the Discent between the Brothers But the Attainder of the Father doth not hinder the Discent between the Brothers Therefore the Father is not such a Medium or Nexus as is look'd upon by Law as the means deriving such Discent between the two Brothers Both the former Propositions and indeed the Illustration and Enforcement of the whole reason will be evidenced by the comparison of three Cases the two former of the Cases evincing the truth of the first Proposition and the later proving the second Proposition The First is Gravers's Case 10 Eliz. Dyer 274. The younger Brother hath Issue and is attaint of Treason and dies the elder Brother having a Title to a Petition of Right dies without Issue without a Restitution the other Brothers Son hath lost that Title for though that Title were in an Ancestor that was not attainted yet his Father that is the Medium whereby he must convey that Title was Attainted and so the Discent is obstructed On the other side the Case of Courtney in Cro. Car. 241. Henry Courtney had Issue Edward and is attaint of Treason and dies Edward purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue the Sisters and Sisters Children of Henry are disabled to inherit Edward yet neither Edward nor his Aunts were attainted nor their Blood corrupted as is before manifested but only Henry tho' the Land could not discend immediately from Edward yet because he who nevertheless was the Medium whereby the Aunts must derive their Pedigree and Consanguinity to Edward was attainted the Discent was obstructed till a restitution in Blood But suppose that the Grandfather of Edward was attainted and not Henry this could not have hindred the Discent from Edward to his Aunts because the Attainder had been paramount that Consanguinity which was between Henry and his Sisters as Brothers and Sisters and that is proved by the third Case In 40 41 Eliz. in the Exchequer Hobbies Case William Hobby had Issue Philip and Mary and is attainted of Treason and dies Philip purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue Ruled that notwithstanding the Attainder Mary shall inherit because the Discent between Philip and Mary was immediate and the Law regards not the disability of the Father and in that Case all the Reasons that have been objected against the Discent in the Case at Bar were objected If it be objected that in that Case the Mother was not attainted which might preserve the Legal Blood between Philip and Mary I Answer That that would not serve admitting the disability of the Parents were not at all considerable for if it disable the Blood of the Father which is derived to the Son it would infallibly destroy the Discent to Mary the Sister for she could not inherit her Brother in the capacity of Heir to the part of the Mother if by the Attainder she had been disabled to take as Heir by the Fathers Blood 49 E. 3. 12. If the Heir on the part of the Father be attainted the Land shall escheat and shall never discend to the Heir of the Mother because notwithstanding the Attainder the Law looks upon it as in esse but otherwise it is in case of an Alien as hath been before shewn for if the Son purchase Land and have no Kindred on the part of his Father but an Alien it shall discend to the Heir of the part of the Mother And altho' the Blood both of the Father and the Mother were in Mary yet if she were disabled in the Blood of her Father by his Attainder she could never intitle her self by the Blood of her Mother I have done with this Reason there remain two Principal Objections to be answered Object 1. The Father in the Case at Bar is the Fountain from whence the Blood of John and George is derived and their Consanguinity ariseth not from one to another but from their Father which is the common vinculum to them both and therefore this disability in the Parents destroys the Civil Relation of Hereditary Blood between the two Brothers I Answer First The very same Objection might be and indeed was made in Hobbies Case but prevailed not Secondly But further no man will say but that the Blood of the Father and Mother are necessary to derive Consanguinity in the Son for the Blood of the Father without the Mother is impossible to be derived to the Children and yet no man will deny that if the one or the other were Denizen born their Children should inherit one the other Thirdly But the truth is the Father and the Mother are the Blood Natural to both the Sons but it is the Law into which by their Birth or Naturalization they are translated that is the Fountain of the Civil or Hereditary Blood the Parents are the common Vinculum the Fonntain of their Blood that aliquod tertium in quo conveniunt in regno naturali but it is the Law of the Land into which by their birth or naturalization they are transplanted the Commune Vinculum that aliquod tertium in quo conveniunt in Regno Civili Object 2. But all their blood that they have is derived from their Parents and they can take no other blood but what they have from them and if that blood which the Parents transmit be stained and void of Hereditary Quality no hereditary blood can intervene between them I Answer It is true that their natural blood is derived from their Parents and as it is that that makes them Brothers Sons so it is that that makes them their blood but yet the civil qualification of their blood which makes them inheritable one to the other is from another Fountain viz. the Law of the Land and this Law finding them Legitimate untrinque conjunctos sanguine parentali naturali and so natural Brothers and finding them transplanted into the civil rights of this Kingdom by their birth here or Naturalization which is all one doth superinduce and close the natural Consanguinity with a civil hereditary Quality whereby they may inherit one the other For Instance A. Grandfather and B. his Wife both Aliens have Issue C. a Son born here who hath Issue D. a Son also born here No body can deny that C. hath all his natural blood from A. and B. and no where else nor is that blood that he hath so from them an inheritable blood yet is it unquestionable that D. shall inherit C. and D. hath no natural blood but what he hath from C. nor C. no natural blood but what he hath from A. and B. But true it is the Law doth superinduce that civil hereditary Quality upon the blood of C. by his birth in England tho' as he took it from his Father and Mother it was void of that Quality the Law of Nature made him indeed Son but it was the Law of England that gave him a capacity to be an
Place assigned from whence the Venue should have come 348 350 No likelyhood of an Indifferent Tryal cause to change the Venue 365 Verdict See Assumpsit What Errors and Omissions are ayded after Verdict 34 100 108 109 114 126 Where a Special Verdict refers one Special Point to the Judgment of the Court all other matters shall be intended 118 After Verdict the Court shall admit any Intendment to make the Case good 123 Want of an averment of Levancy and Couchancy aided by a Verdict 165 Vse See Trust What Words and Considerations shall raise a Use 138 140 141 The use of a Fine or Recovery may be declared by a subsequent Deed 368 In Cases of Uses the Intention of the Parties ought to be pursued 373 374 378 Vsury The Statute against Usury expounded strictly in regard of Broakers 38 No Action of Debt lies for the Interest of Mony but it is to be recovered by Assumpsit in Damages 198 W. Wager of Law WHere admitted and where not 261 Indictment of Perjury will not lie upon an Oath in waging Law 296 Way High way and Private-way the Diversity and who shall repair 189 256 Whether an Indictment lies for stopping a Common Foot-way to a Church 208 Action on the Case for obstructing his way to his Wood 274 Wills A man cannot release a Debt by Will 39 Wills concerning the Guardianship of a Child and not to be proved in the Ecclesiastical Court but they may there prove a Will of Lands 207 Where Suits for Legacies given by Wills ought to be 233 The Effect of a Republication and Paroll Declaration 341 342 Witness See Evidence Statutes A Council Attorney or Sollicitor ought not to be examined against his Clyent because obliged to keep his Secrets 197 A Pardon of Felony though after burning in the Hand restores a man to be a Witness not so of Perjury 349 Whether a Freeman of a City may be a VVitness for that City 351 Writs A Fault in a Mean Process is aided by Appearance but if an Original should bear date on a Sunday the Appearance of the Party would not help it 7 Sr Peyton Ventris Kn t. Late one of the Justices of the Court of Com̄on Pleas. I Royly pinx H White sculp THE SECOND PART OF THE REPORTS OF Sir Peyton Ventris Kt. LATE One of the Iustices OF THE COMMON-PLEAS CONTAINING Select CASES Adjudged in the COURT of Common-Pleas in the Reigns of K. CHARLES II. and K. JAMES II. and in the Three first years of the Reign of His now Majesty K. WILLIAM and the late Q. MARY while he was a JUDGE in the said COURT With the Special PLEADINGS to the same ALSO Several CASES and PLEADINGS thereupon in the Exchequer-Chamber upon Writs of ERROR from the Kings-Bench Together with many remarkable and curious Cases in the Court of Chancery Whereto are added Three exact TABLES One of the Cases the other of the Principal Matters and the third of the Pleadings With the Allowance and Approbation of the LORD KEEPER and all the JUDGES LONDON Printed by the Assigns of Richard and Edward Atkyns Esquires for Charles Harper at the Flower-de-Luce and Iacob Tonson at the Judges-Head both over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCXCVI MVNIFICENTIA REGIA 1715 GEORGIVS D. G. MAG BR FR. ET HIB REX F. D. I. P. Sc. THE NAMES OF THE CASES IN THE SECOND PART A ADAMS v. Cross 181 Alleson v. Marsh ibid. Anonymus's 35 39 45 46 47 48 58 73 117 154 171 172 173 174 180 194 195 196 214 215 216 218 262 346 347 349 351 353 358 359 361 362 363 365 B BAiles v. Wenman 74 Barney v. Tyson 359 Bathurst 's Case 40 Baynton v. Bobbet 67 Bealy v. Sampson 90 93 Beaumont v. Weldon 155 Beversham 's Sir William Case 345 Biddulph v. Dashwood 261 Bird v. Blosse 361 Blake v. Clattie 73 Bland v. Haselrig al' 151 Blisse v. Frost 63 67 Blois Charles al' v. Dame Jane Blois and Jane Blois Infants 347 Bockenham v. Thacker 69 71 74 Bond v. Moyle 106 Bonham v. Newcomb 364 Bowyer v. Milner 57 Bracton v. Lister 84 Bright v. Addy 195 Broadhurst v. Richardson al' 349 Brown v. Rands 156 Buckler v. Millerd 107 Burchet v. Durdant 311 Bush v. Buckingham 80 83 Butler 's Sir Oliver Case 344 C CAge v. Russel 352 Carr v. Donne 189 193 Chamberlain v. Cooke 75 78 Chapman v. Flexman 286 291 Chase v. Sir James Etheridge 130 Clarke v. Peppin 97 99 Clarke v. Tucket 182 Clobberie 's Case 342 Coghill v. Freelove 209 Collet v. Collet 355 Colley v. Helyar 135 Cornwallis 's the Lord Case 38 Cooke v. Romney 173 Cramlington v. Evans and Percival 296 307 Craw v. Ramsey 1 D DAwney v. Vesey 249 Dawson v. The Sheriffs of London 84 89 Dennis v. Mazey 210 212 Dickman v. Allen 136 138 Dighton Christopher v. Bernard Greenvil 321 Dod v. Dawson 143 Dodwell the Case of and The University of Oxford 33 Dowse v. Cale 117 126 Draper Sir Thomas v. Dr. Crowther 362 E ELlis v. Yates 153 Every v. Carter 254 259 F FAgg v. Roberts al' 195 Fleet 's The Warden of the Case 154 Fowkes v. Joyce 50 G GAwden v. Draper 217 George v. Butcher 140 Godfrey v. Ward 185 Gower 's Sir Thomas Case 90 Goylmer v. Paddiston 353 Grove v. Dr. Elliot Chancellor of Sarum 41 Guldeford Major probi homines de v. Clarke 243 247 H HAnson Judith v. Liversedge 239 242 Harding 's Patrick Case 315 Harris v. Parker 249 253 270 Harrison Tho. Ux ' v. Dr. Barwell 9 Haslewood v. Mansfield 196 Haymer Vid. v. Haymer 343 Highway v. Derby 174 Hocket Ux ' v. Stegold ux ' 29 Hodges v. Waddington 360 Holland v. Lancaster 131 134 Hollis 's my Lord Case 345 Humphreys v. Bethily 198 222 K KEmp v. Cory al' 224 227 283 Killigrew v. Sawyer 79 King of Grays-Inn v. Sir Edw. Lake 28 L LAde v. Baker and Marsh 145 149 Lade v. Barker 260 266 Lawson v. Haddock 234 237 Lechmere al' v. Toplady al' 156 169 Leigh v. Ward 72 Lexington the Lord v. Clarke and his Wife 223 Littleton 's Sir Thomas Case 351 Lundy 's Colonel Case 314 M. MArks v. Nottingham 196 Marsh v. Lee 337 Mason v. Watkins 109 Massingham v. Durrant 49 Morgan v. Hunt 213 Morley v. Polhill al' 51 56 Mountague the Earl of v. The Lord Preston 170 N NEwport v. Godfrey 184 Noell v. Robinson 358 Norwood v. Woodly 193 O ONslowe 's Case 37 Otwaie 's Sir John Case 31 Oxford 's the City of Case 106 P PAge v. Kirke 36 Pawlet 's the Lord Case 366 Perrot 's Herbert Case 30 Pheasant Peter v. Anne Pheasant The Lord Mayor of London and Sir Thomas Player Chamberlain of London c. 340 Pinager v. Gale 100 Pretious v. Robinson 173 Prynne v. Sloughter 101 104 Pyne v. Woolland 176 179 R RAgget William Vx ' v. William Clarke 364 Rashly v. Williams 59 61 Reeve 's Sir Robert Case 363
1 W. M. After which Judgment for the Defendants 166 That the said Defendants shall go sine die and have their Costs 167 Averment that the said Judgment remains in full force That the Goods in the said Action of Trespass and this of Trover are the same That the Conversion in this Action and the Taking in the other is the same That the Cause of Action was the same in both And that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are the same Et hoc parati sunt verificare unde petunt Judicium si praedicti the Plaintiffs Actionem suam versus eos habere debeant c. Not guilty to the residue of the Goods The Plaintiffs demur The Defendants joyn 168 Vsury Pleaded Vid. Debt 7. Way Action for stopping it Vid. Action on the Case 5. WE all knowing the Great Learning and Judgment of the Author do for the Benefit of the Public approve of and allow the Printing and Publishing of this Book Intituled The Reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt. Late One of the Justices of the Court of Common-Pleas J. Som̄ers C.S. J. Holt Geo Treby Ed Nevill Joh. Powell W. Gregory N. Lechmere Tho. Rokeby G Eyre Jo Turton John Powell Sam. Eyre April the 20 th 1965. The Second Volume TERMINO SANCTI HILLARII Anno Vicesimo primo secundo Caroli Secundi IN COMMUNI BANCO Craw versus Ramsey IN an Ejectment of Lands and the Rectory of Kingston upon Thames in Surrey Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Jury found a Special Verdict to this effect viz. That Robert Ramsey Born in Scotland before the Accession thereof to the Crown of England had Issue four Sons Robert Nicholas John and George Antenati Robert died they do not find when leaving Issue three Daughters Margaret Isabel and Jane who were also Aliens and alive 1 Octob. 14 Car. 1. Nicholas had Issue Patrick born in England 1 May 1618. They also find that at the Parliament holden 10 Car. 1. in Ireland it was Enacted That all Persons of the Scottish Nation should be reputed the Kings Natural Subjects to all intents constructions and purposes of that his Realm of Ireland as if Born there And they find the Act of Parliament at large Nicholas Ramsey was alive at the making of that Act. John the third Son afterwards Earl of Holderness was Naturalized by Act of Parliament in England 1 Jacobi and purchased the Lands and Rectory in question and being seised 22 Jac by Indenture Tripartite between him of the First part Sir William Cocke and Martha his Daughter of the Second part and Charles Lord Effingham of the Third part In Consideration of a Marriage to be had between him and Martha did Covenant to levy a Fine to the use of himself for Life and afterwards to Martha for Life the Remainder to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to his own right Heirs And 29 Septemb. 22 Jac. the Marriage was had and the Michaelmas Term after a Fine was Levied accordingly The 24 of Jan. 1 Car. 1. the Earl died without Issue Martha Entred and was seised for her Life and died 17 Car. Et eodem anno it was found by Office that the Earl of Holderness died seised of the Rectory as before and without an Heir and that King Charles anno decimo granted this Rectory to one Murray George the fourth Son of Robert was Naturalized by the Parliament here 7 Jac. He had Issue John the Defendant Nicholas died Patrick his Heir in 1651. bargained and sold to the Earl of Elgin and one Sydenham virtute cujus vigore Statuti c. they were seised prout Lex postulat and in 1662. bargained and sold for years to Amabel Countess of Kent and Jane Hart and afterwards Released to them and their Heirs in 1665. They being seised bargained and sold by Lease and Release also to Pullen and Neale who Entred and bargained and sold to Sir Lionel Talmash and West the Lessors of the Plaintiff upon whom John the Defendant Entred Vpon which the Action is brought and the great Question in the Case was Whether Patrick the Son of Nicholas might claim these Lands as Heir to the Earl of Holderness by virtue of the Act of Parliament in Ireland 10 Car. or that they should descend to the Defendant the Son of George Naturalized the 7 of Jac. in England Wyld and Archer who Argued first were of Opinion That however the Point was adjudged the Plaintiff could not have Judgment upon this Verdict for they do not find that Patrick entred or was seised but that he in 1651. did bargain and sell c. Virtute cujus the Bargainees were seised prout Lex postulat and then bargained and sold in 1662 and do not so much as find their Bargainees seised prout Lex postulat But they find the Defendant Entred and so the primer Possession is in him which is a good Title against the Plaintiff for whom none is found it not being found that Patrick Entred Again If the Naturalization in Ireland will serve in England the Title appears for the Daughters the Heirs of Robert the eldest Son for 't is found that he died but not when so it might be after the Act of 10 Car. But Tyrrell and Vaughan Chief Justice differed in these two Points As to the First They said it would be intended Patrick entred for a Verdict that leaves all the Matter at large to the Iudgment of the Court will be taken sometimes by Intendment as well as where the Jury Conclude upon a Special Point 2 Cro. 64. find an Incumbent Resigned the Resignation shall be intended accepted So in 4 Co. Fullwood's Case it was found that one came before the Recorder of London and Mayor of the Staple recognovit se debere c. and did not say per scriptum suum Obligatorium nec per formam Statuti yet intended so Vid. Hob. 262. And where they find the Bargainees seised prout lex postulat that doth not leave it doubtful whether seised or no but whether by right or wrong for Seisin must be taken as found expresly Neither do they find any other in possession nor that the Defendant made any Claim in Twelve years after which enforces the Intendment as before And it is found expresly that Pullen and Neale Entred in 1665. so that the Defendant had not the primer Possession however or if he had he should not have Judgment if no other Title were found for him as is Resolved in 1 Cro. 42. Hern and Allen's Case As to the Second It shall be intended Robert died before 10 Car. For he is found an Alien and shall be presumed to have continued so during his Life unless found to the contrary then the Discent to the Daughters is obstructed by the Incapacity of their Father And tho' when the Title is found for the King the Court shall adjudge for him because the Kings Courts are intrusted with his Rights 't is not so of any other person but they shall take no
this Law by which this matter is to be decided Answ This Objection hath some speciousness in it but no weight First The Law viz. the Levitical Law is generally understood to be that which is publickly received as the Translation all Laws that are made concerning any such thing are to be understood of that kind of the thing which is vulgarly and generally known and received Secondly And 't is not long since the Clergy came to be so learned they were content heretofore with the Vulgar Translation and 't is not necessary for a Dean for that purpose or other Dignitary or Clergyman quasi such that he should understand the Languages But Thirdly We have no Cognizance of this Matter there was a time when they had no cognizance of Wills and Testaments but now they have they must study them and determine concerning them Since we have a Cognizance we may as well prohibit in this Case of Land Freehold c. For since this is made of the same nature we must go the same way If an Act were made that in matter of Theft c. we should judge after the Law of Moses we must study it and judge by it 'T is no new thing that Laws be thus transferred from one Nation to another thus was the Law of the Twelve Tables from Athens to Rome thus the Law of Rhodes to other parts of the World and so our Law was made the Law of Ireland and this is the Answer I give to the two Statutes that since we have Cognizance we must take notice of Gods Law If Churchmen in this case encroach Iurisdiction they must be prohibited because they have no Cognizance and we have tho' their accidental Learning may be more than ours Object 'T is hard that this should be a Prohibiting Law any more than those two other Statutes which 't is agreed were directive only to the Spiritual Courts and gave the Temporal Courts no Jurisdiction Answ There is a full and flat answer to this this Statute makes it not at all cognisable by them for where any Court has Cognizance the party must have Process c. But now here in the close of this Statute 't is enacted That no Person c. shall be admitted to any of the Spiritual Courts c. to any Process Plea or Allegation contrary to this foresaid Act And therefore all Cognizance of that nature is taken away from them They have Cognizance of all Marriages within the Levitical Degrees we allow and agree to disturb and punish the Parties but they have no Cognizance nor Power to determine what is within the Levitical Degrees and what not I conclude It is the Opinion of this Court and of all the Iudges that the Prohibition do stand and no Consultation be granted In this Case Dr. Stern the Archbishop of York was very zealous and industrious to set aside the Prohibition He made several and distinct applications to the Iudges about it he earnestly and particularly debated the matter with them and gave them Papers of his Arguments and Reasons to prove this Marriage incestuous and unlawful Thomas Rudyards Case THomas Rudyard an Attorney of this Court came into this Court upon the retorn of an Habeas Corpus directed to the Keeper of Newgate who retorned that he was taken and detained by virtue of a Warrant to him directed from Sir Samuel Sterling Lord Mayor and Sir J. Robinson two of the Kings Iustices of the Peace the tenour of which Warrant follows in these words Whereas T. R. Gent. hath been brought before Us and examined touching several Misdemeanours by him committed within the City of London since the Month of April and before the 4th of this instant June and to Us complained of and more particularly for inciting and stirring up of His Majesties Subjects then and there to the disobedience of his Laws and for abetting and encouraging of such as do meet in unlawful and seditious Conventicles contrary to the form of the late Statute made in the 22th Year of our Sovereign Lord the King that now is upon whose Examination we find just cause to suspect him to be guilty of the said Misdemeanours and thereupon did require him to find Sureties to be of the good Behaviour which he refused These are therefore to require you to take into your Custody the Body of the said T. R. and him safely to keep till he be from thence delivered by due Course of Law Given under our Hands and Seals this 11th day of June 1670. The Retorn being filed and spoken to by the Counsel upon two several days the Court delivered their Opinion Seriatim Wyld held that he ought to be remanded for if the Warrant had been that he appeared to be guilty or that they had found him guilty then the Commitment had been good as hath been agreed on all Hands and here the words in a favourable construction amount to as much The proceedings of the Magistrates against such Seditious Persons are to be encouraged especially in such a time as this when 't is known they are grown to such a head Archer contra For 't is altogether uncertain 't is said he was complained of c. but not that he did any thing and that they find just cause to suspect but shew not the Cause in particular If it had been said sundry Misdemeanours and not expressed what all would agree it insufficient as Chambers Case 1 Cro. and Wolnoths Case ibid. Mr. Selden 3 Car. was required to find Sureties for the good Behaviour for which the Iudges were severely reprehended in full Parliament because no sufficient Cause appeared Tho' the Iustices here had sufficient Cause to induce their suspicion they ought upon the Retorn to have signified it to the Court for their satisfaction also it should have been expressed also in what sum they required him to find Sureties that it might have appeared to be reasonable so that we cannot remand him but I think 't is fit to oblige him to Bail to appear the first day of the next Term that he may answer such things as shall be objected against him Tyrrell It is the Statute of 34 E. 3. c. 1. that enables Iustices of the Peace to require Sureties for the good Behaviour and that upon Suspition and seems to refer it to their Discretion but that must be exercised according to Law and whether it be or no the Iudges in this Hall must judge and therefore the matters ought to be certainly certified to them The present Retorn is altogether uncertain wherefore I think it ought to be discharged but I would advise him to consider the Statute of 35 Eliz. c. 1. against impugners of the Kings Authority in Ecclesiastical Causes Vaughan Chief Iustice This Case is one of the nicest that ever I met with on the one side is the consideration of discouraging Sectaries and preserving of the Publick Peace and Quiet of the Government On the other side the Legal Right which every
tit ' Act ' Case 120. So 9 H. 6. 60. Action against an Escheator who had taken an Office whereby the Party was found to hold of J.S. and he retorned one whereby he was said to hold the Moiety in Capite Where an Officer does any thing against the Duty of his Place and Office and a Damage thereby accrues to the Party an Action lies 'T is positively affirmed here he had the greater Number Archer of the same Opinion This is a wilful dental of the duty of the Defendants Place and for the particular Damage an Action lies 'T was said there might be many Competitors and all might bring Actions No for 't is averred that the Plaintiff had the greatest Number An Action lies against an Arch-Deacon for not inducting F. N. B. 94. So if a Sheriff will not execute a Writ of Seisin an Action lies against him An Action lies against an Ordinary for admitting a wrong Patrons Clerk against a Verdict in a jure patronatus Hob. 318. I agree to the Case put at the Bar that upon a Writ de Coronatore eligendo if the Sheriff will not retorn him Coroner who was chosen by the major part an Action upon the Case lies tho' I know no Authority for it in point Vid. 6 E. 4. 9. b. Pl. 21. A man that has a Title to an Office before he has possession shall have an Action upon the Case after an Assize 21 E. 4. 23. is as memorable a Case for the purpose as any I know there Fairfax gives good advice to Pleaders to mind Actions upon the Case and then he said the use of the Subpoena would not be so frequent Hob. 205. Action for suing double Execution I think Actions upon the Case should be according to Justice Fairfax's his advice favoured in Courts of Justice Tyrrell Perhaps there never was such an Action which is an Argument against it Litt. 107. but I think it lies Action lies not against a Lord for not admitting a Copy-holder nor against Feoffees in trust for refusing to make a Feofment or a Tenant for refusing to Attorn or against a Foeffor for refusing to make Livery according to the Charter but it lies against an Officer or against a Clerk for refusing to enroll This Action is for Damages for being prevented of having the Office and not for the Office it self The Cases of the Copy-holders c. are not to be compared to this for there are proper Remedies for them as Subpoena's and other Writs at the Common Law but here is none De cetero non recedunt Partes a Curia nostra sine Remedio ne Curia deficeret in Justitia exhibenda says the Statute And my Lord Coke says 't is a Maxim in Law that no Action lies for the Ward against the Lord which disparages him but the next of Kin may enter Co. Lit. 107. An Action lies as much for injurious preventing him of having the Office as for hindring in of him the executing of it after that he is in For Actions of the Case are not of any certain Form but vary according to the Circumstances It was objected That every Action upon the Case supposes dammens injuriam now here was no Election 't is impossible to know whether he should be an Officer Answ The Custom is alledged positive that he which hath the greater Number is elected ipso facto again qui destruit medium destruit finem 't is as bad as if he had turned him out of his Office It may be tried whether he were duly elected and 't is in effect tried here there cannot be multiplicity of Actions brought by this this Mayor will make himself sole Iudge and Arbiter and dispose of Elections which should be Popular and as my Brother hath said an Action of the Case lies for a possibility of Damage Vaughan Chief Justice contra That wherein I am satisfied is that no Damage appears suppose none had been elected he should not have an Action more than any person in the Town If a Mayor will not elect a Burgess or a Sheriff a Knight no Action lies because there is no Election If an Officer will not elect at all 't is against his Duty and so 't is if he do it unduly but he is punishable in a publick way by Information or it may be by Indictment If 20 had stood must each have recovered the value of the Place Object But there is an Averment that he was chosen by the greater Number Answ That can't be put in Issue or known or tried suppose the Election were by Ballots c. should he have an Action for not opening the Box. In the Case of the Coroner there is apparent Damage and 't is against the Statute and in the Case of Induction there is a certain loss I take it that 't is not Actionable to call a man Bastard while his Father is alive the Books are cross in it nay if Land had Discended I doubt it without a Special Damage no more than to say one had no Title to his Land The Case of the Market is close but there the Person damnified is certain and the thing leads to deprive him of the benefit of the Kings Grant But my Brothers have given the Rule take Iudgment King of Grayes Inn versus Sir Edward Lake ACtion for that whereas he was bred up to the Law and practised it and had many Persons of Honour and others his Clients and thereby got Money and maintained his Family c. The Defendant falso malitiose wrote a Letter to Ann Countess of Lincoln who was the Plaintiffs Client containing that the Plaintiff would give vexatious and ill Councel and stir up a Suit and that he would milk her Purse and fill his own large Pockets c. per quod he lost the said Countess and other Clients Vpon not Guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff It being moved in Arrest of Iudgment Wyld Archer and Tyrrell held that the Action lay 't is a Scandalous Letter concerning his Profession and here is a Special Damage He does give bad Counsel spoken of a Lawyer judged Actionable so Dunce stirring up Suits is taken in malam partem Vaughan Chief Justice I must submit to the Rule given but am of another Opinion In ancient Books we do not read of an Action for Words unless the Slander concerned Life 'T was held not actionable to call Villain unless 't were added he was lain in wait to be seised the growth of these Actions will spoil all communications a man shall not say such an Inn or such Wine is not good Their progress extends to all Professions to say a man was not a good Surveyor has been held actionable The words spoken here have no more relation to the Plaintiffs Profession than to say of a Lawyer he hath a Red Nose or but a little Head to say one had the use of a Womans Body is a slander it being an ideom of speech for lying with
her But Object All these words together to make a Slander Answ No man can assign me such a ratiocination a male divisis ad bene conjuncta I never heard it but in my Lord Straffords Case viz. that many Trespasses should make a Treason 'T is said he stirred up a Vexatious Action so does a Counsell when he Advises an Unsuccessful Action for the party is amerced pro falso clamore He will milk your Purse taken enunciatively signifies no more than Milking a Bull the Phrase is not come to an Idiom So of Filling his Pockets these Words might have been spoken of the Law and indeed they are spoken of the Thing not the Man or his Practice Dunce Corrupt c. concern the Profession but these words are applicable to any If he had said he were not a Good Fidler would that be Actionable Termino Paschae Anno 28 Car. II. In Communi Banco Hockett Uxor versus Stegold Ux ' TRespass for Assault Battery and Wounding of the Baron and Feme Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Verdict was as to the Wife Guilty and quoad residuum Not guilty It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Baron and Feme could not joyn in an Action of Trespass for Beating them both 2 Cro. 355 655. 2. That there is nothing found as to the Beating of the Husband and so an imperfect Verdict for the Quoad residuum shall extend only to the other Trespasses done to the Wife Yelv. 106. Vid. Lib. which goes to both Points But the Whole Court were of Opinion that the Verdict had Cured this Mistake in the Action 9 Ed. 4. 51. 6 Acc ' Vid. Styles 349. Termino Paschae Anno 29 Car. II. In Communi Banco Herbert Perrot's Case HE having married a Wife that had an Inheritance of a considerable Value prevails upon her while she was but of the Age of 20 years to levy a Fine upon which the Use was declared to him and her and the Heirs of their two Bodies This was taken in the Country upon a Dedimus potestatem by Sir Herbert Perrot his Father and Mother After which the Wife died without Issue but had Issue at the time of the Fine It was moved in Court that this Fine might be set aside and a Fine imposed upon the Commissioners for the undue Practice and taking of a Fine of one under Age. But all the Judges agreed they could not meddle with the Fine but if the Wife had been alive and still under Age they might bring her in by Habeas Corpus and inspect her and set aside the Fine upon a Motion for perhaps the Husband would not suffer the bringing or proceeding in a Writ of Error And Justice Atkyns said These Abuses which are so frequent in taking Fines were occasioned by the Alteration of the Common Law made by the Statute of Carlisle 15 Ed. 2. that Fines which before were always to be done in Court may now be taken by Dedimus But the Common Law â—alls much short of the Order the Statute prescribes which requires that two Judges of the Court or one at the least should taking with him an Abbot Prior or Knight of good Fame take such Fines whereas 't is now the Common Practice to name Attorneys and Inconsiderable persons The Court were of Opinion That if a Commissioner to take a Fine do execute it corruptly he may be Fined by the Court for in relation to the Fine which is the proper Business of this Court he is subject to the Censures of it as Attorneys c. But they held that they had no power to Fine the Parties for a Misdemeanour in them North Chief Justice and Wyndham would have Fined Sir Herbert Perrot for taking a Fine of one under Age But Atkyns and Scroggs dissented because it did not appear that Sir Herbert Perrot did know she was under Age and it could not be discerned by the View she being Twenty Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 29 30 Car. II. In Communi Banco Sir John Otwaie's Case IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was to this effect It was found that there was a Parish of Ribton and Vill of Ribton but not Coextensive with the Parish J.S. had Land in Tail in the Parish and out of the Vill and bargained and sold by Indenture with a Covenant to levy a Fine and suffer a Recovery to the Vses of the Deed of the said Land in the Parish of Ribton and the Fine and Recovery were only of Lands in Ribton and whether this would serve for the said Land in the Parish of Ribton was the Question Serjeant Maynard Argued that it would not and said that the Division by Parishes is wholly Ecclesiastical the Limits of which are equal to the Cure of the Parson But that of Towns and Vills is Civil and hath the same Limits with the Power of the Constable and Tythingman Where a Place is named in a Record of the Law and no more said 't is always intended a Vill tho' when a Vill and Parish are both mentioned and of the same Name they are intended Coextensive The later Authorities have admitted Fines to be levied of Land in a place known 1 Cro. 2 Ro. 20. But in a Recovery the Town must be mentioned But 't is Objected That here the Intention appears by the Deed that these Lands should pass But he Answered That cannot carry the Words further than they are contained in the Record Again it is Objected That the Deed Fine and Recovery do all make but one Assurance True but each hath its several effect the Deed serves to declare the Uses but it cannot make the Record larger than it is in the Subject Matter of it If a Formedon had been brought and the Fine and Recovery pleaded in Bar had it not been a good Reply to have said Nient comprise c. In 2 Cro. 120. Storke and Fox the Case was Walton and Street were two Vills in the Parish of Street and a Fine was of Lands in Street and Resolved that no Lands but in the Vill of Street tho' in the Parish did pass And so is Mo. 910. in case of a Grant 2 Ro. 54. If this were permitted it would introduce much Mischief for men would not know what passed by searching the Record but this should be known only by a Pocket Deed and so they in Reversion a Lord of Ancient Demesne c. would not know when to make their Claim and should be barred by reason of a Private Deed when the Record of the Fine or Recovery did not import that they were concerned Fines are to end Controversies and therefore must be certain and in that respect sometimes receive a stricter Construction than Grants A Fine of a Tenement is not good but ought to be reversed but a Grant of a Tenement will bind On the other side it was Argued that since Common Recoveries have been so much in practice and become the Common Assurances of mens Estates
they have been favourably Construed A Mannor in Reputation hath passed by the name of a Mannor in a Recovery Sir M. Finch's Case in Co. and in 5 Co. Dormer's Case Common Recoveries have been admitted of an Advowson All here is to be taken as one Conveyance A Deed expressing the intent may abridge the Recovery in the number of Acres 2 Co. 76. 'T is true in case of the King as that in Mo. 710. there shall be no larger Construction than the express Words import So where the Intent appears as that in Dyer 261. B. North Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkyns Scroggs absent but said by the Chief Justice to be agreed were of the same Opinion and that Common Recoveries were not to be overthrown by nice Constructions and that the Inconvenience objected against the Intent being explained by a Pocket Conveyance was the same where a man had several Lands in the same Vill that of late they have directed the Cursitors to make out Writs of Lands in Parochia They said that there was no Case express against this and that it was the stronger because found in the Verdict that he which suffered the Recovery had no Lands in the Vill and therefore must be void if not extended to the Parish Termino Paschae Anno 32 Car. II. In Communi Banco The Case of Dodwell and the University of Oxford A Prohibition was prayed to the Chancellors Court of the University of Oxford in the behalf of Dodwell who being a Townsman of Oxford was Libelled against in the said Court upon a Statute or By Law of the University made in King James's time that whoever Privilegiatus sive non privilegiatus should be taken Walking in the Streets at Nine of the Clock at Night or after having no reasonable Excuse to be allowed by the Proctor c. should forfeit 40 s c. whereof one Moiety was to go to the University and the other to the Proctor c. that should take him And that Dodwell was taken walking abroad at that Hour and being demanded a Reason thereof he refused to give any Account causa contemptus ad morum reformationem this Libel was Exhibited The Prohibition was moved for the last Term but in regard the Court observed it touched the Jurisdiction of the University on the one hand and concerned the Liberties and Rights of the Townsmen on the other hand they deferred the granting of it until they should hear Counsel on both Sides which was appointed this Term. And now sundry ancient Charters were shewn by which was granted to the University a Iurisdiction tam in Laicos quam in alios and a By-Law made above 200 years since against Night-walking with the penalty of 40 s upon the Offender and Presidents of Proceeding thereupon in the Chancellors Court and that they were as well Guardians of the Peace by Prescription as by Charter And an Act of Parliament of 13 Eliz. was shewn whereby their Jurisdictions and Priviledges and Statutes were Confirmed And altho' the Mayor hath also a Commission of the Peace yet 't is subordinate and he swears Fealty to the Chancellor Curia This Libel is grounded upon a By-Law of 7 Jac. and being subsequent to that Statute of 13 Reginae it is questionable whether warranted by it or no This By-Law and Proceeding cannot be grounded nor derive Authority from their being Guardians of the Peace by Prescription as it seems they are by 9 H 6. 44. For without Act of Parliament or express Prescription a Corporation cannot make a By Law to bind those which are not of the Body Justices of the Peace cannot ordain a Penalty for a Crime without their Jurisdiction and the Proceeding in the Chancellors Court which is according to the Civil Lawâ— cannot be warranted by the Kings Charter For no Court other than such as proceed according to Law can be unless by Prescription or Act of Parliament wherefore in regard if the University should Intitle themselves to this Jurisdiction by Prescription it were properly triable by a Jury And if upon the Act of 13 Eliz. Matter of Law might arise how for the Act might extend North Chief Justice Atkyns and Scroggs thought it was not fit they should determine those Questions upon a Motion but inclined to grant the Prohibition and propounded to the parties to agree that the Libel should be amended wherein it was grounded upon the By-Law made 7 Jacobi which being subsequent to the Act of 13 Eliz. the Merits of the Cause would not be brought before themselves to determine the Grand Points which was agreed And then the Court said that they would grant a Prohibition and let the other Plead c. For North said that they did often deny a Prohibition tho' it were a Writ ex debito Justitae where they saw no Colour for it But if any material Questions were like to arise it was proper to grant it and not to determine them upon Motion but upon pleading to the Prohibition and therein it differed from a Habeas Corpus which was to be inst aly granted because the party is in Prison but there is no such speed requisite in a Prohibition But Wyndham was against the Prohibition in the Case at Bar for he took it that the By-Law 7 Jac. was but in Confirmation of that made before and as a Renewing of it which he took to be confirmed by the Act of 13 Eliz. Nota Scroggs said that Nine of the Clock could not be held such an Hour as it should be a Crime for a Townsman to walk at no more than Three in the Afternoon Tho' for Scholars it might be reasonable to restrain them but no Reason that Townsmen should be subjected to such Rules as were proper for Scholars And upon this he much grounded his Opinion for the Prohibition Anonymus IN an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff was Impropriator of such a Rectory and that he was sued in the Ecclesiastical Court and by Sentence there the Profits were sequestred for the Repair of the Chancel To which the Plaintiff demurred supposing that by 31 H. 8. the Profits of Rectories Impropriate were made Lay Fee and so not subject to be sequestred by the Court Christian and therefore it was supposed that the Lay Impropriator could not sue for Tythes in the Spiritual Court. For which Cause 32 H. 3. was made to empower Lay-men to recover them and 35 H. 8. gives the Ordinary Remedy for Procurations and Synodals which was conceived had been lost by making the Rectories Lay Fee 2 Cro. 518. in Parry and Banks's Case it is Resolved that when the Rectory is in the hands of a Lay Impropriator the Ordinary cannot dissolve the Vicaridge nor in such case cannot augment the Vicaridge 2 Roll. 339. The Form of Pleading was also Objected unto As First 'T is not positively alledged that the Chancel was out of Repair but that he was Libelled against which Libel did mention only it to be
Court for the proceedings are diverso respectu We proceed against Conventicles as being against the Peace and as being against the Laws of the Church and to prevent the broaching of Heterodor Opinions as in one Court we do agere civiliter by Action criminaliter by Information for the same matter Secondly The proceeding in this Case is according to the constant course of proceeding in their Court for when a Presentment is made they form Articles thereupon tibi articulamur objicimus c. but they never recite or mention the Presentment in the Articles and therefore it does not nor need it appear in them in this Case So that it cannot from hence he concluded to be a prosecution ex Officio mero Moreover 25 H. 8. when it was in force concerned Heresie only As to the Presentment made in this Case by the Curate 1. Those Canons are not to be questioned they have been always allowed having been confirmed by the King 2. The Rectors absence shall be intended 3. The Churchwardens themselves whose ancient and unquestioned Office it is to make Presentments don't take a particular Oath upon all the Presentments they make but they do it by vertue of their general Oath of Churchwardens and Ministers do the same as the Bishop of Sarum present in Court had asserted just before in verbo Sacerdotis or rather by vertue of their general Oath of Canonical Obedience 4. They are not bound to specifie the Presentment in their Articles and this is not so liable to the Objection of Mischief and Vnreasonableness as the Informations daily brought in the Kings-Bench in the Name of the Clerk of the Crown which Informations are approved and preserved by the very Statute of 18 Eliz. c. 5. And if there be no due Presentment 't is an Error which consists in not proceeding according to their Rules i. e. the Canon Law and the proper remedy for that is by Appeal and our Courts will not take notice whether they observe their own Laws Prohibitions are only to be granted when the Common Law is invaded and interfered with Thirdly As to the examining of the Party upon Oath here is no cause to mention it and indeed it is not their course for they only ask him ore tenus whether he will confess or deny the Articles if he deny them then there is litis contestatio and they proceed to examine Witnesses to prove it and if it be not proved the Informer is condemned in Costs Justice Wyld I am of Opinion that there should go no Prohibition We must Iudge only upon the Suggestion Here 't is suggested that the Defendant proceeded against the Plaintiff ex Officio but that may be understood two ways either that he proceeded officiose on his own head or that he proceeded out of Duty according to his Duty and nothing appears to the contrary of this last and then he did as he ought If the Plaintiff had suggested that by the Law of the Land there ought to be a Presentment by such persons in such manner c. he might have brought that into question Archer of the same Opinion We must give faith and credit to their proceedings and presume that they are according to their Law 4 Co. 29 The King with the Convocation may make Orders and Constitutions for the Government of the Church Tyrrell of the same Opinion But if the Suggestion were that no Presentment by a Curate were sufficient nor unless it were upon Oath c. I should have been Opinion for a Prohibition I hold that the King and Convocation without the Parliament can't make any Canons which shall bind the Laity though they may the Clergy Vid. 35 H. 8. c. 19. Vaughan of the same Opinion If the Articles were exhibited meerly ex Officio i.e. out of the mind of the Chancellor himself they were not warrantable But there is no colour for this Suggestion for they appear to be the Information of a Publick Notary As to the Presentment which is thought requisite by the preamble of 25 H. 8. c. 14. declaratory of the Common Law or not it is sufficient Answer to say that the Act is repealed and therein the Preamble And for ought any man knows the Preamble was the Cause of the Repeal this has been the only specious Objection As to the Canons 3 Jacobi certainly they are of force tho' never confirmed by Act of Parliament Indeed no Canons of England stand confirmed by Act of Parliament yet they are the Laws which bind and govern in Ecclesiastick Affairs The Convocation with the License and assent of the King under the Great Seal may make Canons for regulation of the Church and that as well concerning Laicks as Ecclesiasticks and so is Linwood Indeed they cannot alter or infringe the Common Law Statute Law or Kings Prerogative but they may make alterations viz. in Eccleastical Matters or else they could make no new Canons All that is required of them in making of new Canons is that they confine themselves to Church Matters As no Human Law can be made which is contrary to the Divine Law and it is binding only in those things which are permissa by the Divine Law So no Canon Law can be made which is repugnant to the Law of the Land The Subject Matter is in the Case The permissa the things of Ecclesiastical Nature which are left indifferent by the Law of the Land in this Case we must presume there was a Presentment according to their Law if not the Remedy is by Appeal We ought not to assume the Iurisdiction of Iudging upon their Law but give way to their course of Proceedings Serjeant Ellis I only intended that Canons cannot be made to alter the Law without Parliament Curia We all agree as to the First Exception that the Spiritual Court may proceed against Conventicles as a Spiritual Offence tho' not as a Civil As to the Second That they have Conusans of all False Worshippers As to the Third That there is nocolour or occasion to make it Note The Course of the Spiritual Court is not to make a Significavit until forty days after the Excommunication General Citation is a cause of Prohibition for it ought to be expressed for what Cause But this is cured by Appearance or Appeal Termino Paschae Anno 1 Willielmi Mariae In Communi Banco Anonymus UPon a Suggestion of Devastavit of a Feme Executrix it was That the Baron and Feme devastaver ' converter ' ad usum ipsorum And upon the Issue it was found accordingly It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That they could not Convert to their own use And so in Trover and Conversion Quod converter ' ad usum ipsorum is not good Sed non allocatur For here the material part of the Issue was the Wasting which the Baron and Feme might do joyntly and the Conversion is nothing to the purpose Vid. 2. Sand. Issue upon a Devastavit Anonymus
illam modo forma praed ' fact ' necesse non habet nec per legem terrae tenentur respondere Et hoc parat ' sunt verificare Unde pro defectu sufficien ' Narration ' ipsius Francisci in hac parte ijdem Edwardus Walterus pet ' Judicium qd ' praed ' Franciscus ab actione sua praedicta versus eos habend ' praecludatur c. Et praedictus Franciscus dic ' qd ' Joynder in Demurrer narratio praedicta materiaque in eadem content ' bon ' sufficien ' in lege existunt ad ipsum Franciscum actionem suam praedictam inde versus praed ' Edwardum Walterum habend ' manutenend ' Quam quidem materiam idem Franciscus parat ' est verficare Unde ex quo praedict ' Edwardus Walterus ad narrationem praed ' non responder ' nec materiam in ead ' content ' aliqualit ' dedixer ' idem Franciscus pet ' judicium dampna sua occasione fractionis conventionis praed ' sibi adjudicari c. Et quia Justic ' c. Morly versus Polhill IN an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff declared as Executor to George Morly late Bishop of Winchester and sets forth that Brian the Predecessor of the said Bishop had demised a Rectory and certain Lands to J. S. for 21 years who had assigned it to the Testator of the Defendant and that the Lessee covenanted with Brian and his Successors to repair the Chappel of the Church and the Barns c. and assigned a breach in the not xepairing by the Testator of the Defendant in the life of George Morly and that the Lease afterwarns expired To this the Defendant demurred for that it was pretended that the Executor of the Bishop could not bring this Action for the Covenant was with the Predecessor Bishop and his Successors and cited the Cases of Real Covenants 1 Inst 384 385. A Parcener after partition Covenants to acquit the other Parcener of a Suit and the Covenantee assigns the Assignee shall not bring Covenant But the whole Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff and that the Executor is here well entituled to the Action for the Breach in the Testators time Wright versus Wyvell IN an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared upon a Demise of Dorothy Hewly and upon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be thus That Christopher Hewly was seised of the Premisses in Fee and made his Will in this manner I make my last Will in manner following As concerning my Personal Estate First I give and bequeath unto Ann Hewly my Wife the sum of Six Hundred Pounds to be paid unto William Weddall of Eastwick Esq and it 's for the full payment of the Lands lately purchased of the said Mr. Weddall by the said Christopher Hewly and is already estated in part of a Joynture to Ann my said Wife during her natural Life being of the value of Sixty Seven Pounds per annum That of Wiskow York and Malton the Lands and Tenements there amounting to the yearly value of Sixty Three Pounds in all One Hundred and Thirty Pounds which being also estated upon my said Wife it is in full of her Joynture And after this he gives several Legacies and the rest of his Personal Estate he gave to his Wife and made her Executrix Then they find that he had made no settlement of the Premisses or of any part of them upon his Wife and that the Lessor of the Plaintiff was Heir at Law to Christopher Hewly and that Ann the Wife is still living So that the sole Question was whether the Lands should pass to the Wife upon these words in the Will and divers Cases were put upon implicit Devises as that his Feoffees should stand seised to the use of J. S. has been held a good Devise to J. S. tho' there were no Feoffees 3 Leon. 167 162. Devise to his eldest Son after the death of his Wife there the Wife takes tho' nothing expresly devised to her After Arguments heard on both sides by the Opinion of Pollexfen Chief Justice Rokeby and Ventris Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff against the Opinion of Powell Here it appears indeed that the Testator took it that she had the Land but it appears he did not intend to devise any thing by the Will for he mentions that she was estated in it before and in the Cases of Implicit Devises there is no reference to any Act that should have conveyed the Land to the Devisee before but the Will there passes the Land by Construction and Implication Again This Devise is introduced with this Clause as to the disposing of my Personal Estate and throughout the Will he giveth only Personal Things Again This recital comes in as part of another Clause of an express Devise of the Six-Hundred Pounds But Powell relied upon the Case in Mo. 31. A man made a Will in this manner I have made a Lease to J. S. paying but 10 s Rent this was held a good Lease by the Will To which it was answered That the Case there was of little authority for it did not appear how that matter came in question or in what Court or in what Action and said only fuit tenus 3 Eliz. And Iudgment here was given for the Plaintiff Bowyer versus Milner IN a Formedon against several Tenants one appeared and was Essoigned and then another appeared and it was moved whether he could be Essoigned by reason of the Statute of W. 1. c. 43. which seems to be that Parceners or Ioyntenants should have but one Essoign and that they should not fourch Cut ' Contra. The Statute is to be understood of Essoigns after appearance and so is the Book of 28 Ed. 3. 18. it is said to have been the Law of the Times for Tenants to fourch before appearance and so is Co. 2. Inst 250. Hob. 8 46. The Case of Essoigns if the Tenant voucheth two one Essoign may be cast for each of them singly Vid. Stat. of Glouc. c. 6. Anonymus IN an Action of Trespass de Uxore abducta cum bonis viri to his damage of 10000 l Upon Not Guilty pleaded and a Trial at the Bar the Return of the Jury was Octab ' Trin. and the Appearance Day was die Mercurij at which day the Jury appeared but it being appointed for the keeping of a solemn Fast by the King's Proclamation the Jury was adjourned to the Day following and then the Jury and Parties being at the Bar a Plea was offered by the Defendants Counsel puis darrein continuance that the Plaintiff was Excommunicated and produced it under the Seal of the Court and begun their Plea thus Ad hunc diem viz. die Jovis prox ' post Octab ' Trin ' c. So that the Plea came too late for it should have been pleaded die Mercurij for tho' the Jury was adjourned to Thursday yet all Matters were entred as upon Wednesday So this Plea did appear upon the
usque diem martis prox ' post tres septiman ' Sanct ' Michael de audiend ' inde Judicio suo quod iidem Justic ' hic inde nondum c. Bockenham versus Thacker IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that J. S. was indebted in a sum of Mony to the Plaintiff not exceeding 12 l and that the Defendant as he the Defendant said was indebted to J. S. in 12 l or there about That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at his request would procure an Order from J. S. in writing to the Defendant for payment of the Mony which the Defendant owed J. S. or any part thereof to the Plaintiff he promised to pay the Mony according to such Order The Plaintiff avers that he procured such Order from J. S for the Defendant to pay him 5 l which he shewed to the Defendant and the Defendant refused to pay c. The Defendant demurs generally to the Declaration Levinz for the Defendant argued that it was no sufficiently set forth that the Defendant was indebted to J. S. and if not there was no consideration Cur ' contra for it must be intended that he was indebted for 't is set forth that the Defendant said so but if not the procuring the Note at the Defendants request by the Plaintiff was a sufficient consideration It was Objected further that the Plaintiff had not alledged that he procured the Note at the request of the Defendant as the agreement was and for that 3 Leon. 91. was cited in consideration that he should repair such part of the House at his request it was held naught for not laying the repairing to be done at request Sed non allocatur for it shall be intended to have been done at request and so is Bretton and Boltons Case 3 Cro. 246. 2 Cro. 404. Berisfords Case and Poynters Case 1 Cro. Sed Nota All those Cases are after Verdict and so is the above cited Case See more of this Case afterwards Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 1 W. M. In Communi Banco SErjeant Trinder moved the Court to set aside a Verdict recovered in an Action for the mesn Profits after a recovery in an Ejectment shewing that the Defendant in the Ejectment had brought another Ejectment since and recovered so that the first recovery was disaffirmed and therefore there ought to have been no recovery for the mesn Profits but the motion was denied by the whole Court Leigh versus Ward DEbt upon a Bond the Condition was to perform an Award and the Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrator made no Award The Plaintiff replied that after the Bond entred into and before the time set in the Condition for making of the Award scilicet tertio die Novembris anno c. per quoddam Scriptum suum arbitr ' adtunc ibidem fact ' c. and so sets forth the Award upon which the Defendant demurred because no place was mentioned where the Award was made Tremain for the Plaintiff said that the adtunc ibidem should refer to the place mentioned in the Declaration where the Bond was made Cur ' contra The adtunc ibidem cannot be referred to the place in the Declaration and there is no place mentioned in the Replication Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Memorandum Mr. Justice Eyres came to this Court at the desire of the Court of Kings Bench who were trying of a Cause at the Bar to know the Opinion of the Court of Common Pleas upon this Question An Infant who was a party to the Ejectment that was upon trial had answered a Bill in Chancery by his Gardian whether that Answer could be read in Evidence against the Infant And the Opinion of the whole Court was that it could not be read for it is not reason that what the Gardian swears in his Answer should affect the Infant Blake versus Clattie TRespass Quare clausum fregir diversa onera equina of Gravel had carried away per quod viam suam amifit After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the diversa onera equina was incertain and then mentioned the loss of his Way and had set forth no Title to the Way nor set forth any certainty of it It was said on the other side that the Incertainty was aided by the Verdict and the other Matter about the Way was only laid in aggravation of Damages But the Court held the Exceptions material and thought it would be very inconvenient to permit such a Form of putting in of a Way to a Declaration in Trespass Anonymus IN an Action of Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared in Michaelmass Term last and laid the Demise to be Anno primo Jacobi Secundi Regis The Defendant pleaded Nil hab ' in Tenementis and the Plaintiffs Attorney delivered a Copy of the Issue where the Demise was laid Anno primo Regis nunc and so the Nisi prius Roll was at first but it was observed that the Plaintiffs Attorney had amended it but gave no Notice thereof to the Defendants Attorney nor delivered him a new Copy of the Issue and so went to Trial which proceeded the Nisi prius Roll being right and a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Serjeant Rotheram that there should be a New Trial granted for the Defendant was surprized to find the Record right when they had a wrong Copy of the Issue But it appearing to the Court that the Defendant notwithstanding proceeded in his Defence and the Verdict was after a long Evidence that the Court would not set it aside but ordered the Plaintiffs Attorney to attend for the undue Practice in making of an Amendment in such manner Bailes versus Wenman IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be thus That Articles of Marriage were made between the eldest Son and Heir apparent of the Defendant and Martha one of the Daughters of one William Nailor whereby the Defendant was to settle the Lands in question upon the Lessor for his Life and after his decease upon Martha for her Ioynture with a Proviso that the Lessor should make a Lease of the Premisses to the Defendant for 99 years if the Defendant and Susan his Wife should so long live and that Susan died before the Lease made to the Plaintiff So the only Question was Whether the Lease for 99 years determined by the Death of said Susan The Court upon the first opening without Argument were all of Opinion that it did determine and Ordered Judgment to be Entred for the Plaintiff 5 Co. 9. in Brudnell's Case Daniel and Waddington 2 Cro. 378. Vide Dyer 67. and 1 Inst 225. a. Trupenny's Case Vide Anderson 151. A Lease made to two for their Lives absque impetitione vasti durant ' vitis of the Lessees and held that this Priviledge would hold to the Survivor for 't is reasonable to give the Priviledge as large a Construction as
redd ' unius anni mediet ' redd ' unius anni per quem talia terrae vel tenementa sic alienat ' tent ' fuer ' in Manerio praed ' nomine finis pro alienatione and lays a Custom to distrain for the said Alienation Fine and then sets forth an alienation of the said Messuage and Premisses by the said Sir John Sabin to one Walter Tyndall in fee and shews that the said Walter Tyndall made another alienation in fee to one Christopher Yates and so sets forth that there were two Fines due upon the said alienations after the rate aforesaid amounting to 18 l 7 s and 7 d ob and that he as Bayliff of the said Dean and Chapter captionem praed ' bene cognoscit in praed ' loco in quo ut in parcell ' tenement ' praed ' To this the Plaintiff demurred and it was spoken to at the Bar the last Term and likewise this Term The main thing was that the Custom as it was laid was not good for the Alienation Fine is set forth to be due upon the Alienation of any parcel of Lands or Tenements held of the said Mannor to have a year and halfs Rent by which the Lands or Tenements so aliened were held so that if the 20th part of an Acre be aliened a Fine is to be paid and that of the whole Rent for every parcel is held at the time of the alienation by the whole Rent and no apportioning thereof can be but subsequent to the Alienation and this the whole Court held an unreasonable Custom and it is set forth it could not be otherwise understood than that a Fine should be due viz. a year and halfs Rent upon the Alienation of any part of the Lands held by such Rent The Court doubted also whether the Custom was good as to the claiming an Alienation Fine upon an Alienation for Life because by that the tenure of the Lands aliened is not altered for the Reversion is still held as before by the same Tenant Judicium pro Quer ' Colley versus Helyar IN an Action of Debt for 34 l the Plaintiff declared against the Defendant an Attorney of this Court praesente hic in Cur. in propria persona sua upon a Bond of 34 l The Defendant pleads in Bar quoad quinque libras sex solid tres denar of the aforesaid 34 l that the Plaintiff post confectionem Scripti Obligat ' praedict ' scilicet vicesimo c. anno c. ê‘ quoddam Scriptum suum acquietantiae cognovisset se accepisse habuisse de praed Defendente 5 l 6 s and 3 d in part solutionis majoris summae and pleaded a frivolous Plea as to the rest of the Mony to which the Plaintiff demurred And it was argued that the Acquittance under the Plaintiffs Hand and Seal for 5 l 6 s and 3 d part of the Mony due might have been pleaded in bar of the whole and that if the Defendant here had relied upon it it would have barred the Plaintiff of the whole Vide for that matter Hollingwoth and Whetston Sty 212. Allen 65. Beaton and Forrest Note there the payment was since the Action brought and pleaded in abatement where it was said that it could not be so pleaded without an Acquittance Vide Kelw. 20. 162. 3 H. 7. 3 B. receipt of parcel pending the Writ 7 Ed. 4. 15. a. But it seems clear by the Book of Edw. 4. 207. Mo. 886. Speak versus Richards That if part be received and an Acquittance given before the Action it is a Bar only of so much but it seems the Action must be brought for the whole Dickman versus Allen. Cantabr ' ss Case brought against the Defendant for not folding his Sheep upon the Plaintiffs Land according to Custom The Colledge of St. Mary and St. Nicholas seized in Fee jâ—re Collegii ABRAHAMUS ALLEN nuê‘ de Grancester in Com' praedicto Yeom ' attach ' fuit ad respondend ' Roberto Dickman Gen ' de placito transgr ' suê‘ Casum c. Et unde idem Robertus per Robertum Drake Attorn ' suum queritur quare cum Praepositus Scholares Collegii Regalis Beatae Mariae Sancti Nicholai in Cantabr ' in Com' praed ' seisit ' fuissent de uno Capitali Messuagio cum pertinen ' in Grancester in Com' praedicto ac de centum sexaginta acris terrae arrabil ' jacen ' in Communibus Campis de Grancester praedicta cum pertinen ' in dominico suo ut de feodo in jure Collegii sui praedicti iidemque Praepositus Scholares omnes ill quorum statum ipsi habuer ' de in tenementis praed ' cum pertinen ' a tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit habuer ' habere consuever ' ê“ se Firmariis Tenentibus suis eorundem A Custom for all the Tenants to sold their Landlords Land Tenementorum cum pertinen ' libertatem Faldagii Anglicê Foldage omnium Ovium Ovibus suis ê“priis Ovibus tenen ' occupatorum ê“ tempore existen ' quorundam Messuagiorum Terrarum in Villa de Coton in Com' praed ' qui a tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit respective usi fuer ' Common of Vicinage intercÌ„oiare causa vicinagii in quibusdam Communibus Campis de Grancester praed ' cum Ovibus suis in super praed ' Messuagiis terris suis in Coton praed ' Levant and Couchant levan ' cuban ' except ' suor ' depascen ' infra Communes Campos territoria de Grancester praedicta a vicesimo quinto die Martii usque primum diem Novembris quolibet anno suê‘ praedictas centum sexaginta acras terras arabil percipiend ' From such a day to such a day faldand ' tanquam ad tenementa praedicta cum pertinenciis pertinen ' praedictisque Praeposito Scholaribus Collegii praed ' de Tenementis praedictis cum pertinen ' The Principal and Scholars demise to the Plaintiff by Indenture in forma praedicta seisit ' existen ' Praepositus Scholares postea scilicet decimo nono die Octobris Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo primo apud Grancester praedictam quodam Johanne Coppleston Sacrae Theologiae Professor ' adtunc Praeposito Collegii praedicti existen ' ê‘ quandam Indenturam inter ipsos Praepositum Scholares ex una parte quendam Johannem Wittewronge Mil Barronet ' ex altera parte factam cujus alteram partem Sigillo cÌ„oi ipsorum Praepositi Scholarium signat ' idem Robertus Dickman hic in Cur ' profert cujus dat' est eisdem die anno dimiser ' ad firmam tradider ' eidem Johanni Wittewronge Tenementa praedicta cum pertinen ' Habendum habend ' occupand ' praefat ' Johanni Assign ' suis a tempore confectionis Indenturae illius usque plenum finem terminum viginti
loco in quo c. pro eisdem quadraginta octo libr ' de reddit ' praed ' sic aretro existen ' juste c. ut in terris distriction ' praedict ' Nich. As in Lands charged with the Distress Marsh modo defend ' in forma praedict ' onerat ' obligat ' c. Demurrer Et praedictus Philippus Lade dic ' qd ' per aliqua per praed ' Thomam Baker Nicholaum Marsh superius in advocatione praed ' alleg ' iidem Thomas Baker Nicholaus Marsh captionem averiorum praedictorum in praedicto loco in quo c. justam cognoscere non debent quia dicit qd ' placitum praed ' per eosdem Thomam Baker Nicholaum Marsh modo forma praed ' superius placitat ' materiaque in eodem content ' minus sufficien ' in lege exist ' ad captionem averiorum praedictorum in praedicto loco in quo c. justam cognoscend ' ad quod idem Philippus Lade necesse non habet nec per Legem Terrae tenetur aliquo modo respondere Et hoc parat ' est verificare Unde pro defectu sufficien ' placit ' in hac parte idem Philippus Lade pet ' judic ' dampna sua praed ' occatione captionis injuste detentionis averiorum praedictorum sibi adjudicari c. Joynder Et praedict Thomas Nicholaus ex quo ipsi sufficien ' materiam in Lege ad ipsum Nicholaum captionem averiorum praedictorum in praedicto loco in quo c. justam advocand ' Et ad ipsum Thomam ut Ballivum ipsius Nicholai eandem captionem in eodem loco justam cognoscend ' in advocare cognitione suis praedictis superius allegaver ' quam ipsi parat ' sunt verificare quam quidem materiam praedictus Philippus non dedic ' nec ad eam aliqualit ' respond ' pet ' judicium retorn ' averiorum praedictorum unacum dampnis c. sibi adjudicari c. Et quia Justic ' hic se advisare volunt de super praemissis priusquam Judicium inde reddant dies dat' est partibus praedictis hic usque à die Sancti Michaelis in tres septimanas de audiend ' inde Judicio suo eo qd ' iidem Justic ' hic inde nondum c. Lade versus Baker Marsh REplevin for taking his Cattle at Barrham in Kent in a place there called the Fourteen Acrees The Defendant Baker made Conusans and Bailiff of Nicholas Marsh and saith that diu ante praed ' tempus quo c. one Robert Lade was seised in fee of the said 14 Acres and by his Deed indented dated 1 Octob. 24 Car. 1. between him of the one part and Nicholas Marsh Grandfather of the said Nicholas Marsh of the other part and produceth the said Deed in Court in consideration of 100 l paid to him by the said Nicholas Marsh the Grandfather did grant to the said Nicholas Marsh and his Heirs an annual Rent of 8 l to be issuing out of all that Capital Messuage with the appurtenances in Barham aforesaid and out of all Lands and Hereditaments in Barham aforesaid to the said Messuage belonging and then in the occupation of the said Robert Lade unde praedict ' locus in quo est praed ' tempore quo c. fuit parcell ' to be paid at our Lady Day and Michaelmas by equal portions with power to distrain if the said Rent or any part thereof were behind And the Defendant further saith that by virtue of the said Grant the said Nicholas Marsh the Grandfather became seised in Fee of the said Rent and being so seised by his Will in Writing dated the 28th of November 1654 devised the said Rent to Richard Marsh and his Heirs and died by virtue whereof the said Richard Marsh became seised in Fee of the said Rent and being so seised diu ante praedict ' Tempus quo c. viz. 10 Aug. 32 Car. 2. nuper Regis by his Deed indented between him of the one part and the said Nicholas Marsh the Defendant Son of the said Richard of the other part cujus Scripti alteram partem Sigillo praedict ' Richard Marsh omitting sigillat ' idem Thomas Baker the Defendant hic in Cur ' profert for and in consideration of Natural Love and affection which he bore to the said Nicholas now Defendant his Son and the sum of 5 l yearly by him the said Nicholas to the said Richard Marsh during the Life of the said Richard secured to be paid and for divers other good causes and considerations concessit assignavit transposuit to the said Defendant Nich. Marsh and his Heirs the said Annuity or yearly Rent of 8 l to the use of the said Nicholas Marsh the Defendant and his Heirs prout per idem Scriptum Indentat plenius apparet Virtute cujus quidem concessionis assignationis ulterius mentionat vigore Statuti Anno Regni Hen. 8. nuper Regis Angliae vicesimo septimo de usibus in possessionem transferend praedict Nich. Defend ' fuit adhuc est seisit de praedict annual reddit c. and for 48 l for six years arrear at Michaelmas next-before the taking of the Cattle to the said Nicholas the Defendant bene cognoscit ut Ballivus ipsius Nicholai c. To this the Defendant demurs First It is not sufficiently shewn that the Place where c. was charged with the Rent for the Rent is granted out of a Messuage with the appurtenances in Barham and out of all the Lands in Barham aforesaid to the said Massuage belonging and then in the occupation of the said Robert Lade unde praedict locus in quo est tempore quo c. fuit parcell and tho' it were parcel at the time of the Distress taking it might not be belonging to the said House or in the tenure of Lade at the time of the Rent granted which should have been shewn and of that Opinion were the Court. Secondly In the Deed by which the Defendant Nicholas Marsh claims it is said sigillo praedict Rich. Marsh omitting sigillat Sed non allocatur for it is said before that per Scriptum indentat factum inter c. he granted and that is enough Thirdly Here is a grant of the Rent from Richard Marsh pleaded without any Attornment or Enrollment To which it was answered by the Counsel for the Defendant that it appeareth that the Grant was made in Consideration of Natural Affection as well as Mony and so it shall enure as a Covenant to stand seised and for this the Case of Crossing and Scudamore was cited Pas 23 Car. 2. Rot. 871. where in Ejectment it was found by Special Verdict that Nicholas Hele was seised of Lands in Fee and that he made a Deed to Jane Hele enrolled within six Months by which he did for and in consideration of Natural Love Augmentation of her Portion
and the Preferment of Her in Marriage and other good and valuable Considerations Give Grant Bargain and Sell Alien Enfeoff and Confirm unto the said Jane and her Heirs the said Lands And in the said Deed there was a Covenant that after due execution c. the said Jane should quietly enjoy and also a clause of warranty and the Iury found that there was no other Consideration than what was expressed in the Deed ut supra this Deed could not enure as a Bargain and Sale but it was adjudged that it should work as a Covenant to stand seised and Watts and Dix's Case was also cited Sty 188 204 where Rolls said if Lands are passed for Mony only the Deed ought to be enrolled but if for Mony and Natural Affection the Land will pass without Enrollment The Court here in the Principal Case inclined that this Grant would work as a Covenant to stand seised But Pollexfen Chief Justice was of Opinion that it ought to have been so pleaded and not to use the words concessit assign transposuit which is to plead it as a Grant at Common Law Powell and Ventris did conceive that it was pleaded sufficiently in regard it was said that by virtue of the Deed and Statute of Vses he became seised but leave was given by the Court to amend the Plea as the Defendant should see cause Bland versus Haselrig alios QUarto Jacobi Secundi the Case was an Assumpsit was brought against four who pleaded non Assumpsit infra sex annos and the Verdict was that one of the Defendants did assume infra sex annos and the other non assumpsit And it was moved that no Iudgment could be given against the Defendant upon whom the Verdict was found for this is an Indeb assump for Goods sold and 't is an intire contract and they must all be found to promise or else 't is against the Plaintiff Torts are in their nature several so one Defendant may be found guilty and the other not guilty but 't is not so in Actions grounded upon Contract Pollexfen Chief Justice Powel and Rokeby were of Opinion in this Case That the Plaintiff could not have Iudgment Ventris inclined to the contrary he admitted if an Indebitat ' assumpsit be brought against four and they plead non assumps and found that one of them assumed this is against the Plaintiff for he fails in his Action But in the case at Bar it may be taken that they did all promise at first and that one of them only renewed the promise within six years The plea of non assumpsit infra sex annos implies a promise at first and if one should renew his promise within six years 't is reason it should bind him and the Plaintiff must sue them all or else he will vary from the Original Contract But the Chief Justice seemed to be of an Opinion that if the promise were renewed within the six years yet if not upon a new Consideration it should not bind and if there were a new Consideration the Action will lie against him that promised alone Sed Quaere for the common Practice is upon a Plea of the Statute of Limitations to prove only a renewing the Promise without any further Consideration but a bare owning the Debt is not taken to be sufficient Quaere if the first Consideration upon repeating the Promise within six years be not enough to raise a new Cause of Action Iudgment was given for the Defendant Westby's Case WEstby brought an Action by Original and the Instructions to Cursitor for drawing of the Writ were Westby but the Writ was Westly and so all the Proceedings Afterwards the Court upon a motion ordered the Cursitor to attend who satisfied the Court that the Instructions were right and so they ordered the Original to be amended in Court and this without any application to the Chancery or Order from thence and they amended all the proceedings after Termino Paschae Anno 2 Willielmi Wariae In Communi Banco Ellis versus Yates IN an Action of Trespass the Writ was brought and so recited Quare clausum fregit herbam ibid ' crescent ' conculcavit consumpsit averia fugavit and the Declaration was Quare clausum herbam ibid ' crescent ' conculcavit consumpsit bidentes c. fugavit alia enormia c. Vpon Not guilty pleaded a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that fregit was omitted in the Declaration so one of the Trespasses contained in the Writ viz. the Clausum fregit was not mentioned in the Declaration and if the Writ contains more than is Declared for this is a Variance not aided by the Verdict 1 Cro. 329. Haselop and Chaplin where a Replevin was de averiis and declares only of an Horse and for that the Judgment was Reversed in a Writ of Error So where the Writ was Quare clausum fregit and the Declaration Quare clausum 1 Cro. 185. Edwards and Watkin Pollexfen Chief Justice and Rokeby were of that Opinion that Judgment should be arrested Ventris contra Powel being absent because the treading and consuming of the Grass necessarily implied a breach of the Close for there could not be an Entry without a Breach So the Declaration by necessary Intendment comprehended all that was in the Writ and to support the Verdict it was reasonable to intend no other breach of the Close than by a bare Entry But the other two said That there might be given in Evidence a breach of a Gate or Hedge and Damages might be given for that and then there was no ground for such Damage set forth in the Declaration And by the Opinion of the Chief Justice and Rokeby the Judgment was stayed Vid. Keilway 187. B. finding in a Verdict upon a Writ of Forcible Entry that the Defendant expulit disseisivit c. this implies it was Vi armis and yet that is the very point of the Action The Warden of the Fleet 's Case A Motion was made by the Warden of the Fleet for a Writ of Priviledge sitting the Parliament alledging that he was obliged to attend the House of Lords and therefore ought to be priviledged from Suits and divers Presidents were shewn where Writs of the like nature were granted to the Warden of the Fleet upon Motion one whereof was 2 Car. 1. and divers since that time some whereof appeared to be upon hearing of Counsel on both sides And the Court were at first inclined to grant him the like Writ but it being afterwards made appear to the Court that he was sued upon Escapes and the Court considering the great inconvenience that would ensue thereupon and being of Opinion that it was in their Discretion whether they would grant such Writ upon Motion or no. For they could not Iudicially take notice of this Priviledge of Parliament and therefore in case he had such Priviledge the Court said he might plead it
it could not appear upon the Record but that the Verdict was against the Plaintiff upon the mistake of the Action whereas here it appears upon the Matter at large set forth in the Special Verdict that Judgment was given against the Plaintiffs upon the Merits of of the Cause And the Court were of Opinion that the Plea in Bar was good in this Case but they took the Case of Putt and Royston to be a Case of the same nature For tho' the Issue were General yet in regard of the Averments which in every such Plea there must be it appears to the Court that the Matter was the same as well as here it doth upon the Special Verdict and if it were not the same so that the Plaintiff was barred to the former by mistaking the Nature of his Action the Averment might be traversed Therefore by reason of that Case Adjudged and the Importunity of the Plaintiffs Leave was given by the Court to speak further to the Case the next Term. The Earl of Mountague versus The Lord Preston IN an Action on the Case for the Profits of the Office of Master of the King's Wardrobe the Plaintiff Declared That King Charles the Second in the 23th year of his Reign granted him a Patent to hold the said Office for Life reciting a former Grant thereof to the Earl of Sandwich and the Surrender of that Grant And that the Defendant by colour of a Patent granted to him in the First year of the late King James had entred upon the Office and taken the Profits and had deprived the Plaintiff of the whole benefit and profit of the Office Vpon Not guilty pleaded it came to a Trial at the Bar this Term and it was insisted upon for the Defendant That the Plaintiffs Patent having recited a former Grant that they must prove that Grant to have been surrendred To which it was Answered That if they took advantage of the Recital they must admit all that was recited as well the Surrender as the Grant And of that Opinion was the Court. Then the Defendant produced the Earl of Sandwich's Patent and this the Court held would put the Plaintiff to prove a Surrender And a Surrender was shewn in Evidence accordingly Note It was said in an Action of this Nature that it is not necessary to shew every particular Sum received by the Defendant But it is a good Evidence for the Damage to shew the Profit of the Office communibus annis Anonymus AFter an Extent upon a Statute and a Liberate out of this Court the Writ was Habere fac ' terr' tenementa instead of Liberari facias and it was moved to amend the word Habere in the Writ and to make it Liberari And after divers Motions the Court Ordered the Amendment to be accordingly because it is a Judicial Writ 8 Co. 157. a. 1 Cro. 709. A Writ of Enquiry was awarded to the Sheriffs of London and it was quod Inquirat instead of Inquirant and it was amended Vid. the Case of Walker and Riches 3 Cro. 162. and the Case of Keer and Guyn Hob. 90. but in that Case the Roll was wrong in a very material thing for it was not said in the Elegit the Lands and Tenements of the Defendant Anonymus AN Action of Debt was brought in this Court for a Sum of Money recovered in the Hundred Court and the Defendant was admitted to wage his Law tho' at first the Court doubted Vid. Mo. 276. for a Wager of Law to an Action of Debt brought for an Amercement in a Court Baron Note When the Defendant hath his Hand upon the Book before he is sworn the Plaintiff is to be called and he may be Non-suited The Defendant is to bring his Compurgators but they may be less than Eleven and they are sworn de credulitate Anonymus AN Action was brought for speaking of these words of the Plaintiff He broke my House like a Thief And upon Not guilty pleaded a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And the Court held the words not to be Actionable Anonymus IN an Action for Words spoken of the Plaintiff in saying He was a Clipper and Coiner After Verdict upon Not guilty pleaded it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Words did not charge him with Clipping and Coining of Money and Clipping and Coining might be apply'd to many other things But the Court held the Words to be Actionable in regard of the strong Intendment and such Words are understood by those that heard them to mean Clipping and Coining of Money Anonymus AN Attorney brought an Action for that the Defendant said of him He is a Cheating Knave and not fit to be an Attorney After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no Communication of his Profession and the Words did not necessarily relate to his Practice But the Court held the Action would lye for saying That he was not fit to be an Attorney shewed plainly that Cheating Knave had reference to that Anonymus UPon a Motion for a New Trial it appeared that the Solicitor for the Plaintiff who also was an Attorney had wrote two Letters to two of the Jury before the Trial importuning them to Appear and setting forth the Hardships that his Client had suffered in the Cause and how he had Verdicts for his Title The Court set aside the Trial for this Cause and Committed the Solicitor to the Fleet for this Misdemeanor being Embracing of a Jury and before his Discharge made him pay Ten pounds to the party towards the Charges of the Trial. Pretious versus Robinson THe Cause being at Issue in Hillary Term last a Venire was awarded and a Jury Retorned upon it and in Easter Term after another Venire was awarded and a Trial was by a Jury Returned upon the two Venire's Vpon this the Court set aside the Verdict for there was no Authority for the two Venire's so all the Proceedings thereupon are void and not aided by the Statute of 16 Car. 2. Cooke versus Romney AN Action of Covenant was brought against two and it was quod teneat conventionem instead of teneant and after a Writ of Error brought it was moved that it might be amended and made teneant It was Objected That False Latin in an Original could not be amended as hos breve for hoc breve so in Waste destrictionem for destructionem Blackamore's Case 8 Co. But the Court granted the Motion and ordered the Amendment And it was said of late days it had been done in case of a word Mistaken in an Original as in Ejectment divisit for dimisit Vid. in Blackamore's Case the like 159. b. Imaginavit for imaginatus est was amended Anonymus IN Trover and Conversion for a Mare Vpon Not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Mare was said ad valentiam and it should have been pretii Sed non
which it was answered That they were not tyed to the Time but the Place it was ibidem facere Ordinationes and not adtunc ibidem But the Court gave Judgment upon the first Matter Newport versus Godfrey THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the Detinet against Godfrey Executor of Stephen Turner for 70 l arrear of Rent and declared upon several Demises upon the 28th of September 1685. to the said Turner reserving several Rents of which there became arrear to the Plaintiff in the Life time of the said Turner 70 l and it appeared by the Declaration that the Leases ended in the Life of the said Turner In Bar of which the Defendant pleaded several Bonds entred into by the Testator to divers persons for the payment of Money which he avers to be all for true and just Debts and that he had administred all besides Goods to the value of 40 l which he retained towards satisfaction of the said Bonds c. To which the Plaintiff demurred and it was Argued last Term for the Defendant that a Debt upon a Specialty was to be preferred before Debt for Rent upon a Lease parol Styl Rep. 61. Rolls said that a Specialty was of an higher nature than Rent reserved upon a Lease by Deed. Indeed it is made a Quaere in Roll. Abr. 1. part 927. but if Rent should be preferred where the Lease was continuing after the Death of the Testator in regard the Testator's Goods are liable to be distrained for it which the Executor cannot withstand Yet there is not the like Reason when the Lease expires in the Life of the Testator and the Case was adjourned to this Term for the Iudgment of the Court. And the whole Court were of Opinion that Judgment should be for the Plaintiff For tho' the Lease be determined yet the Debt still savours of the Realty and is maintained in regard of the Profits of the Land received insomuch that no Wager of Law lies in Debt for Rent tho' brought after the Lease determined A Bond given for Rent will not drown it 11 H. 4. 75. b. an Action lies against the Executors of an Assignee of a Lease for Rent in the Testator's time and yet the Assignee is chargable only in respect of the Lease Vid. 13 H. 4. 1. a. Office of Executors 209 210 211 c. Godfrey versus Ward IN an Action of Debt for Rent The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations and that Causa Actionis praedicte c. accrevit above six years before the Writ brought To this the Defendant demurred and the Cause of the Demurrer was upon the late Statute for reviving of Process anno primo Willielmi Mariae by which it is provided in regard there was an Interruption of the Government and proceedings of Law from the 11th of September 1688. to the 13th of February following that the time within those Days should not be accounted as any part of the six years to barr an Action by the Statute of Limitations or of the six Months for bringing a Quare Impedit c. so as it was urged that the Defendant should have shewn that six Years and so many Days were elapsed as are between the 11th of December and the 13th of February For tho' six years may be passed yet the Plaintiff may be within time by reason of the said Statute But the Court were of Opinion that the Defendants Plea was well and this should be shewn of the Plaintiffs part for the Statute does not alter the Form of Pleading but that shall be as it was before and the Plaintiff if the Matter will bear it is to help himself upon the said Statute The old way upon the Statute of Limitations was for the Defendant to plead the Statute at large but of late years the General Pleading of Non assumpsit infra sex annos has been allowed Warren versus Sainthill Devon ' ss SAMUEL SAINTHILL nuper de Bradmuch in Com' praedict ' Armig ' Johannes Savery nuper de Bradmuch in Com' praedict ' Husbandnian attach ' fuer ' ad respondend ' Thomae Warren gen ' de placito Transgr ' super Casum c. Case for stopping up of a Foot way The Plaintiff says That was possest he and Inhab of in an ancient Messuage And that habuit habere debuit a Foot-way for himself and his Servants Et unde idem Thomas per Johannem Prowse Attorn ' suum Queritur quod cum praedict ' Thomas vicesimo nono die Septembris anno regni domini Regis dominae Reginae nunc primo continue postea usque primum diem Januarii tunc ê“x ' fequen ' fuit possessionat ' inhabitans de in quodam antiquo Mesuagio scituat ' jacen ' in villa de Watterstaffe infra paroch ' de Bradmuch praedict ' ac ê“ totum tempus ill ' quandam viam pedestrem ducen ' à Villa de Watterstaffe praedict ' in per trans quaedam Clausa voc ' Crollands Smiths Down and Tulver Park infra paroch ' de Bradmuch praedict ' usque ad villam de Bradmuch in Bradmuch praedict ' pro se servientibus suis ad eundem redeund ' omnibus temporibus ad libitum ejus tanquam ad Mesuag ' As belonging to his Messuage praedict ' spectan ' pertinen ' habuit de jure habere debuit praedicti Samuel ' Johannes machinan ' intenden ' ipsum Thomam minus rite perturbare ipsum de via praed ' impedire deprivare praedict vicesimo nono die Sept ' Anno primo supradicto apud paroch ' de Bradmuch quaedam Fossa Trencheas ex transverso viae praedict ' The Defendant to disturb him in the Way dug Ditches and Trenches cross the Way And erected Hedges and Fences cross it Whereby he was hindred of his Way in t ' Villas de Watterstaffe Bradmuch praedict ' fodier ' fecer ' ac etiam viam ill ' ibedem cum quibusdam sepibus fensuris ex transverso viae praedict ' eject ' obstruxer ' praecluser ' per quod idem Thomas à via praedict ' in forma praedict ' habend ' à praedict ' vicesimo nono die Septembris usque praed ' primum diem Januarii Anno primo supradicto penitus impedet ' deprivat ' fuit ad dampnum ipsius Thomae quadragint ' librar ' Et inde ê“ducit sectam c. To this the Defendant pleaded a frivolous Plea and the Plaintiff demurrs and the Defendant joyned in the Demurrer and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Warren versus Sainthill IN an Action upon the Case for Stopping of a Way the Plaintiff declared that he was possessed and an Inhabitant of and in a certain ancient Messuage the 29th of Sept. in the first year of the now King and Queen and so continued to the first day of January then next following and for all that time had a Foot-way over the Defendant's
Ground tanquam ad Mesuag ' praed ' spectant ' pertinent ' de jure habere debet and that the Defendant stopped it up ad damnum c. The Defendant pleaded a frivolous Plea to which there was a Demurrer It was Objected on the Defendant's part that the Declaration was insufficient because the Plaintiff did not prescribe for the Way nor otherwise entitle himself to it than by a possession of the Messuage and that he had and ought to have a Way to the said Messuage belonging And a difference was taken between this and Dent and Oliver's Case 2 Cro. 43. where one alledged himself to be seised in Fee of a Mannor and had a Fair there and that the Defendant disturbed him to take Toll And in 2 Cro. Stackman and West there is a Prescription laid in the Dean and Chapter who had the Fee for the Way But it was Objected That a Corporation could not prescribe in a Que Estate but it was held well being but inducement to the Action And the Court here held the Declaration sufficient being but a possessory Action And a Case was said to be so Adjudged in this Court between the same parties Anno primo Jacobi secundi Vide the Case of Saint John and Moody upon the like Point Woodward al' versus Fox IN an Indebitat ' Assumpsit for 200 l for so much Money received by the Defendant for the use of the Plaintiffs The Defendant pleaded Non assumpsit and upon that a Special Verdict was found That in the Year 1681. before the Promise supposed c. John Hammond was and yet is Archdeacon of Huntington within the Diocess of Lincoln and that the Bishop of Lincoln is Patron of the Archdeaconry and that the Office of Register of the Court of Archdeaconry was time out of mind grantable by the Archdeacon for the Term of three Lives and that the said John Hammond in the said Year 1681. for 100 l sold and granted to Simon Michael and John Juce for their Lives the said Office of Register it being an Office concerning the administration of Justice and that by Colour thereof they enjoyed the Office till Juce died which was in 1687. and soon after in the same year the said Simon Michael died in the possession of the said Office and that Hammond was no ways Convicted of selling the said Office upon any prosecution at Law or otherwise And they further said That Thomas Bishop of Lincoln in the said Year 1687. after the Death of Juce and some time before the Death of Michael granted the said Office of Register to the Defendant Fox and set forth the Grant in haec verba which mentioned the said Registers Office to be void by the Statute of the 5 6 Ed. 6. against Sale of Offices and that thereupon it belonged to the said Bishop to grant the said Office by virtue of which the said Fox became seised of the said Office prout lex postulat And they find afterwards that in the same Year that Juce and Michael died Hammond being Archdeacon as aforesaid granted the said Office to the Plaintiffs Woodward Masters and Gilbert for their Lives and that they entred upon the said Office and became seised thereof ê“ut lex postulat And they find that the Bishops Grant was Afterwards Confirmed by the Dean and Chapter and they find that afterwards viz. the 22 of Octob. Anno regni Willielmi Mariae primo the said King and Queen their Letters Patents under the Great Seal reciting that the said Office appertained to Their Majesties to grant by the said Statute of Edward the 6th did grant the said Office of Register to the said Plaintiffs Woodward Masters and Gilbert for their Lives and that by virtue thereof they entred upon and exercised the said Office and received divers Fees and Profits thereunto belonging and that the Defendant having notice thereof did take divers Fees and Profits of the said Office amounting to 30 l claiming them to his own use c. and if upon the whole Matter c. Vpon this Special Verdict there were these Points moved The first Point was Whether this Office of Register could be granted for Lives This was not much insisted on by the Defendants Council it having been usually granted and so found by the Verdict 3 Cro. Young and Fowler 's Case a Grant in Reversion of the Registers Office was allowed being warranted by Usage and so in 3 Cro. Young and Stoel But unless there have been such Vsage 't is not grantable in Reversion Vide 3 Cro. Walker and Sir John Lamb. The second Point was Whether the Grant of this Office in Consideration of Money is void by the Statute of the 5th and 6th of Edward the 6th against Sale of Offices That Point was also waved it being Resolved in Dr. Trevor's Case 12 Co. 78. 2 Cro. 269. forasmuch as it concerned Administration of Justice The third Point was That the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. Enacting That the person who takes any Money for any Office shall lose and forfeit all his Right to any such Office c. Whether the King or the Bishop shall take advantage of this Forfeiture in regard the Statute doth not express who shall dispose of the Office in such case Co. Lit. 159. a. And it was said on the part of the Plaintiff That when a Statute gives a Forfeiture and not said to whom the King shall have it 11 Co. 60. a. unless there be a particular party grieved as upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. of Tythes and yet it was for some time before it was setled that the Parson should have the treble Value in that Case And this agrees with the Reason of the Common Law things that are nullius in bonis the King shall have them as extra Parochial Tythes 11 H. 4. 17. Vid. 5. Co. in Sir Henry Constable's Case The Soil of Navigable Rivers and derelict Lands was with this difference If the Sea leaves the Land gradatim and for but a little quantity the Owner of the Land shall have it but if in a great quantity at a time it goes to the King Davis Rep. 5. 6. Vid. Siderfin 86. Dyer 126. 'T is true at the Common Law where a person hath an Interest in that which is Forfeited he shall have the benefit of it as if a Park-keeper forfeit it shall go to the Owner of the Park And in Sir John Breon's Case Bridgm. 27. where the Earl of Lancaster gave License to make a Park in his Forest and the party forfeited his Office the Earl had the advantage of it In those cases the thing is forfeited to him from whom it was granted as a Copyholder forfeits to his Lord and Tenant for Life to him in Reversion but here the Bishop hath nothing to do with the Office of Register he cannot dispose of it in the time of Vacancy of the Archdeaconry The Verdict finds that his Office is to Register the Acts in the
these Defendants were entitled to these Costs and he that did not appear might release them to the Plaintiff but they said that if there should appear to the Covin between the Lessor of the Plaintiff and the Defendant who did not appear to release the Costs the Court supposed that they might correct such Practice when it should be made appear Bright versus Addy AN Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit was brought by Baron and Feme Pollexfen Chief Justice was of Opinion that the Feme could not be joyned tho' it was her Land Ventris contra For this Action will survive and they have election either to joyn or to bring it alone 1 Brown l. 21. 1 Ro. Abr. 348. Hob. 189. 1 Cro. 96. 3 Cro. Tregniel and Reeve Mo. 5. In an Action of Forcible Entry upon the Wives Land after the Coverture she was joyned with the Husband Adjornatur Anonymus IN an Assumpsit against the Administratrix the Defendant pleaded quod ipsa non assumpsit instead of the Intestate After Verdict a Repleader was awarded and no Costs to either party upon a Repleader Marks versus Nottingham THe Defendant pleaded in Abatement that the Plaintiff was dead at such a place before the Action brought The Court doubted whether such Plea could be received but upon view of Rastall's Entries 161. pl. 6. where the like Plea was Powell and Ventris conceived it to be a good Plea Pollexfen Ch. Justice and Rokeby said that that in Rastall differed because there were two Plaintiffs so that Issue might be joyned with the other Plaintiff Sed vide librum where the Replication to that Plea is that W.H. praedict ' R.B. Attornat ' praed ' J. which J. was pleaded to be dead nomine pro ipso J. Magistro suo dicit quod breve praed ' ratione praeallegat ' cassari non debet quia dicit quod praed ' J. superstes in plena vita existit viz. apud L. in Com. N. non mortuus prout praed ' W. superius allegavit hoc petit quod inquiratur per Patriam praed ' W. similiter c. Adjornatur Haselwood versus Mansfield IN Debt for 150 l the Plaintiff declared upon a Charter-party which contained divers mutual Agreements and in performatione conventionum praed ' ex parte dicti Magistri ipse obligasser se dicto Mercatori in penali summa 150 l ad performationem convention ' praed ' ex parte dicti Mercator ' obligasset se dicto Magistro c. in simili penali summa 150 l c. And this Action was brought by the Master of the Ship against the Merchant The Defendant pleaded an Insufficient Plea to which there was a Demurrer But it was moved that the Declaration was Insufficient for when it comes to the Penalty on the Merchants part it is only obligasset se omitting ipse or ipse praed ' Mercator obligasset se so 't is not expresly declared that the Defendant was bound And of that Opinion were Pollexfen Chief Justice Powell and Rokeby Ventris contra For it is obligasset se dicto Magistro so none but the Merchant can be understood to be bound and if it were ipse obligasset it had been good and that is understood But Judgment was given for the Defendant Snode versus Ward IN an Indebitat ' assumpsit for Goods sold The Defendant pleaded quod ipse infra sex annos proxime ante diem impetrationis Brevis Originalis ipsius Quer ' non assumpsit To which the Plaintiff demurred 1. Because the late Statute of 1 Willielmi Mariae for reviving of Process doth Enact That the Time from the 11th of December 1688 to the 13th of February then next following should not be accounted as any part of the Time upon the Statute of Limitations And therefore the Defendant should have pleaded that he did not assume within six years and so many days as were between the 11th of December and the 13th of February And it was said so had the Pleading been ever since the said Statute But the Court Resolved that the Pleading might be still in such manner as before the Statute For the Statute is that those Days shall be no part of the time and therefore pleading non assumpsit infra sex annos is to be understood of Six years exclusive of those Days between the 11th of December and the 13th of February 2. Another Exception was taken to the Plea for that it is ante impetrationem Brevis Original ' ipsius Quer ' and doth not say praed ' brevis and so it may be referred to some other Writ the Plaintiff might have Pollexfen Chief Justice inclined that it was naught for this Cause Adjornatur Vid. 8 Co. 57. The Earl of Rutland's Case He pleads that he was seised of the Park of Clipsham and granted officium Parci sui and not said praed ' Parci and held it good Vid. 2. Cro. 288. Burton and Eyre Humphreys versus Bethily IN an Action of Debt upon a Penal Bill where the Defendant was to pay 10 s upon the 11th of June and 10 s more upon the 10th of July next following and so 10 s every three Weeks after till a certain Sum were satisfied by such several payments And for the true payment thereof the Defendant obliged himself in the Penal Sum of 7 l The Plaintiff in facto dicit pleaded that the Defendant did not pay the said Sum or any part thereof upon the several days aforesaid unde actio accrevit for the 7 l The Defendant pleaded that he paid 10 s upon the 11th of June hoc paratus estve rificare c. The Plaintiff Replyed that he did not pay it hoc petit quod inquiratur per Patriam To which the Defendant demurred The Plea was held altogether Insufficient But then Pollexfen Chief Justice observed that the Declaration was naught for he should have declared that the Defendant failed in payment of one of the Sums which would have been enough to have entitled him to the Penalty but he says The said several Sums of Money or any of them and this is double and he inclined that it was not aided by Answering over or by the General Demurrer Adjornatur Vide Saunders and Crowley 1 Ro. 112. Thompson versus Leach IN an Ejectment by Thomas Thompson against Sir Simon Leach and divers other Defendants upon the Demise of Charles Leach of the Mannor of Bulkworthy and divers Messuages Lands and Tenements Vpon Not Guilty pleaded a Special Verdict was found to this effect Viz. That Nicholas Leach was seised in Fee of the said Mannors Lands and Tenements in the Declaration and by his last Will in Writing bearing date the 9th day of December in the 19th year of the Reign of the late King Charles the Second devised the Premisses to his Brother Simon Leach for Life remainder to the first Son of the Body of the said Simon and the Heirs Males of the
them The Lessee comes to the Lessor and the Lessee saith to the Lessor I surrender saith he if the Lessor doth not agree 't is void Car il ne poit surrender à luy maugre son dents And that is certainly so in Surrenders and all other Conveyances for a man cannot have an Estate put into him in spight of his Teeth But I cannot find any of the Books cited that come to this Point That where a Deed of Surrender is executed without the Notice of him in Reversion that it shall pass nothing till he Consents so that it cannot be said that there is any express Authority in the Case Now as to the Form of Pleading of a Surrender it has been Objected That a Surrender is always pleaded with Acceptance and many Cases have been cited of such Pleadings Rastal's Entries 176 177. Fitzh tit Barre 262. which are Cases in Actions of Debt for Rent and the Defendant in Bar pleads That he surrendred before the Rent grew due and shews that the Plaintiff accepted the Surrender So in Waste brought a Surrender pleaded with the Agreement of the Plaintiff These and the like Cases have been very materially and I think fully Answered at the Bar by my Brother Pemberton That those Actions being in Disaffirmance of the Surrender and implying a Disagreement the Defendant had no way to bar or avoid such Disagreement but by shewing an express Agreement before The Case of Peto and Pemberton in the 3 Cro. 101. that has been so often cited is of the same sort In a Replevin the Avowry was for a Rent-charge in Bar of which 't is pleaded That the Plaintiff demised the Land out of which the Rent issued to the Avowant The Avowant Replies That he surrendred dimissionem praedict to which the Plaintiff agreed This is the same with Pleading in Bar to an Action of Debt for Rent But when the Action is in pursuance of the Surrender then it is not pleaded So is Rast Entries 136. The Lessee brought an Action Covenant against the Lessor for entring upon him and ousting of him The Defendant pleads a Surrender in Bar and that without any Agreement or Acceptance In Fitzherbert tit Debt 149. where the Case is in an Action of Debt for Rent The Defendant pleaded in Bar that he surrendred by force of which the Plaintiff became seised There is no mention of pleading any Agreement notwithstanding that the Action was in Disaffirmance of the Surrender Therefore as to the Argument which has been drawn against the Form of Pleading I say that if an Agreement be necessary to be pleaded Then I say First That 't is answer'd by an implied Assent as well as an express Assent I would put the Case Suppose a Lessee for Life should make a Lease for years reserving Rent and in Debt for the Rent the Lessee should plead That the Plaintiff before the Rent grew due surrendred to him in Reversion and he accepted it and Issue is upon the Acceptance and at the Trial it is proved that the Plaintiff had executed a Deed of Surrender as in this Case to him in Reversion in his absence would not this turn the Proof upon the Plaintiff that he in Reversion disagreed to this Surrender for surely his Agreement is prima facie presumed and then the Rule is stabit praesumptio donec probertur in contrarium Again I say it appears by the Cases cited that it is not always pleaded and when pleaded 't is upon a special Reason as I have shewn before i. e. to conclude the party from disagreeing and it would be very hard to prove in Reason that an Agreement admitting an express Assent to be necessary must be pleaded for if it were a necessary Circumstance to the Conveyance why then 't is imply'd in pleading sursum reddidit for it cannot be a Surrender without it In pleading of a Feoffment it is enough to say Feoffavit for that implies Livery for it cannot be a Feoffment without it Now why should not sursum reddidit imply all necessary requisites as well as Feoffavit and therefore I do not see that any great Argument can be drawn from the Pleading For 1. It is not always to be pleaded 2. It cannot be made out to be necessary so to plead it for if Assent be a necessary requisite then 't is implied by saying sursum reddidit as Livery is in Feoffavit and then to add the words of Express Consent is as superflous as to shew Livery after saying Feoffavit And again If it were always necessary it is sufficiently answered by an Assent intended in Law for Presumptions of Law stand as strong till the contrary appears as an express Declaration of the party Memorand Anno quarto Willielmi Mariae this Case was brought by Writ of Error into the House of Lords and the Judgment was there Reversed upon the Reasons in the aforegoing Argument Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 2 W. M. In Communi Banco Coghill versus Freelove IN an Action of Debt for Rent the Plaintiff Declared for 78 l upon three several Demises against the Defendant as Administratrix to Thomas Freelove her late Husband in the Detinet The Defendant pleaded that after the Letters of Administration granted to her and before the Rent became due she assigned to Samuel Freelove the Indenture of Demise and all her Estate and Interest in the Premisses and that Samuel entred and was possessed and that the Plaintiff had notice of the Assignment before the Action brought To this the Plaintiff Demurrs It was said for the Plaintiff that the Action being brought in the Detinet the Assignment was no Plea for the Administratrix is charged upon the Contract of the Intestate and liable so far as there is Assets tho' there be no Assignment And tho' in the 3 Co. and in the 1 Cro. 555. Overton and Syddal's Case seems the contrary and so Marrow and Turpin's Case in the 1 Cro. 715. And that the privity of Contract is determined by the Death of the Lesser yet in Ironmonger and Newsam's Case in Latch 260. the contrary was Resolved Note it did not appear by Latch to be Resolved but the Chief Justice said it was so Resolved So in 17 Car. 2. Syderfin 266. in Heylar and Casbord's Case it was Resolved that the Action lay against the Executor upon the Contract after an Assignment where it was held also that an Executor cannot wave a Term unless he renounceth the whole Executorship After hearing Arguments at the Bar the Court gave Judgment for the Plaintiff Powell absente As to Overton and Syddal's Case it appears by Mo. 352. that Popham and Fenner were against Gawdy and Clench vide Poph. Rep. 121. It appears that the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet and by a Prebend upon the Lease of his Predecessor and then an Assignment will be a Bar which matters indeed do not appear to be urged in the Case as Cited by my Lord Coke and Reported
forma as he hath set forth in his Avowry Petit Judicium dampna c. loc ' in quo c. modo forma prout praed ' Simo per advocar ' suum praed ' superius supponit Et hoc parat ' est verificare unde ex quo praed ' Simo capc̄onem Equuli praedicti in praedicto Clauso in quo c. superius cogn ' idem Samuel pet ' Judicium dampna sua occ̄one capconis injuste detenconis Equuli illius sibi adjudicari c. Demurrer to the Plea Et praedict ' Simo dic ' quod praed ' placitum praedict ' Samuel ' superius replicand ' placitat ' materiaque in eodem content ' minus sufficien ' in lege existunt ad ipm̄ Samuel ' acconem praed ' versus eum habend ' manutenend ' quodque ipse ad placitum illud modo forma p̄d ' replicand ' placitat ' necesse non habet nec per legem terrae tenetur aliquo modo respondere Et hoc parat ' est verificare unde pet ' Judicium si praed ' Samuel acconem suam praed ' inde versus eum habere debeat c. Joynder in Demurrer Et praedict ' Samuel ex quo ipse sufficien ' materiam in lege in replicacone in sua praedicta ad acconem suam praed ' versus praefat ' Simonem habend ' manutenend ' superius allegavit quam ipse parat ' est verificare Quam quidem materiam idem Simo non dedic ' nec ad ill ' aliqualit ' respondet set verificacon ' ill ' admittere omnino recusat Idem Samuel ut prius pet ' Judicium dampna sua occone capconis injuste detenconis Equuli illius sibi adjudicari c. Et quia Justic ' hic se advisare volunt de super praemissis priusquam Judicium inde reddant dies dat' est partibus praedictis hic usque ad audiend ' inde Judicio suo eo quod iidem Justic ' hic inde nondum c. Denney versus Mazey IN a Replevin the Plaintiff Declared of taking of his Horse Colt at S. in quodam loco vocat ' Townfield The Defendant saith that before the Taking one Elizabeth Mann was seised in Fee de praedicto loco in quo c. and 20 Septemb. Anno primo Willielmi Mariae demised the Premisses to him for a year then next ensuing and that he entred and avowed the taking of the Plaintiffs Horse damage feasant The Plaintiff Replied that the said Elizabeth Mann was seised of the Premisses in Fee and before the Lease to the Avowant viz. the 5th of June in the said first year of the King and Queen she demised to the Plaintiff the Premisses habend ' from the second day of March then last past for the Term of six years by virtue of which he entred and put his Horse into the Premisses and traverseth the Lease made to the Avowant To this the Avowant Demurred generally Pollexfen Chief Justice inclined that the Traverse was no cause of Demurrer tho' it might have been omitted He said there were divers Authorities against Heylars ' Case in the 6 Co. which is Reported to the same effect in Mo. 551. 1 Cro. 658. as 1 Cro. 754. Covert's Case Hob. 81.103 Traverse where the Matter in confessed and avoided and the Books generally are only that there need be no Traverse as the Bishop of Salisbury and Hunt in 3 Cro. 581. and Kellend and White 3 Cro. 494. the other Justices doubted relying upon the Authority of Heylar's Case and Rice and Harveston's Case 2 Cro 299. and Yelv. 221. where 't is said that such a Traverse makes the Plea vitious Vid. Mo. 557. But here the Demurrer being General 't is but matter of Form and clearly aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz. where if one Confess and Avoid and Traverse 't is in nature of a Double Plea Vid. That it is good upon a General Demurrer Edwards and Woodden 3 Cro. 323. So Judgment was by the whole Court given for the Plaintiff Woodward versus Fox Quod vide ante ultimo Termino THe Case was this Term Argued again by Serjeant Pemberton for the Defendant and by Serjeant Powell for the Plaintiff upon the Point Whether the Nomination to the Office being forfeited by the Statute of Ed. 6. it did belong to the King or the Bishop in whose Diocess the Archdeaconry was to make the Register But Pollexfen Chief Justice desired them to Consider Whether the King admitting he had a right by the Statute could grant this Office of the Register before Office found of the Forfeiture Note In case of Simony the Presentation vests in the King without Office Adjornatur Morgan versus Hunt IN Covenant the Plaintiff Declared that the Defendant Let to him a certain House and Lands and Covenanted that he should quietly and peaceably enjoy it without any manner of interruption molestation or disturbance and that by virtue of the said Demise he ented and sometime after the Defendant exhibited a Bill against the Plaintiff in the Court of Chancery wherein he charged the Plaintiff with ploughing up Meadows and the committing of divers Wastes and did obtain an Injunction out of the said Court against the Plaintiff whereby he was interrupted in his Ploughing c. and that afterwards the said Bill was dismissed with 20 l Cofts and so the Defendant had broken his Covenant After a Verdict for the Plaintiff I know not upon what Issue it was moved in Arrest of Judgment First That here was no sufficient Breach set forth It was said that the Law does not take notice of Proceedings in Chancery Poph. 205. it is said If one be possessed of Lands by Extent and by a Decree in a Court of Equity he is forced to pay a Rent out of the Lands this shall not be a legal Eviction or Recovery for so much Secondly The Suit in Chancery here is not touching the Lessees Estate or Title but for Waste which he ought not to do and tho' the Suit might be groundless yet it not relating to his Title or Possession was no breach of Covenant The Judgment was stayed by the Opinion of the whole Court for the last Reason for this was interruption or disturbance within the Covenant the Subject matter of the Suit being for Waste But the Court will take notice of a Suit in Chancery and 1 Cro. 768. an Assumpsit in Consideration of desisting from exhibiting a Bill in Chancery was held a good Consideration Anonymus IN a Covenant That the Defendant should keep in good Repair the House Outhouses and Stables and the Breach assigned was that the Defendant had permitted the Racks in the Stable to be in decay After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had not set forth that the Racks were fixed in the Stable and so part of the Freehold for they might be in the Stable and lye loose
Pollexfen Chief Justice was of Opinion that it ought to have been shewn in the Declaration that the Racks were set up and fixed But the other Justices conceived that it should be intended that they were Racks fixed for use in the Stable and it would be very remote to give it any other Construction And so Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Anonymus IN an Ejectment it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had declared of two Demises viz. That J. S. demised 10 Acres of Land to him an that J. N. had demised 10 other Acres of Land to him habend ' for the Term of Five years c. and that he entred into the Premisses demised to him by J. S. and J. N. in forma praedict ' After Verdict upon Not guilty for the Plaintiff it was Objected That in one of the Demises there is no certain Term or Estate for the habend ' can be referred only to the Demise of J.S. for that begins a New sentence But the Court held that the Habend ' should be a good Limitation of both Demises for Five years and when 't is shewn that the Plaintiff entred into the Premisses demised to him in forma praedict ' that is an Averment that all was demised for Five years for that is the forma paed ' As Lands lett to A. for his life Remainder to B. in forma praed ' this is an Estate to B. for Life And so Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Anonymus IN an Action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry it was after Verdict moved in Arrest of Judgment that in the Recital of the Statute there were Variances from the Statute and Omissions First There was no mention of Burning of Houses in the Recital but that is in the Statute Non allocatur For 't is not necessary to set forth more in the Declaration than is pertinent to the Action Secondly The Statute is That the Country should answer for the Bodies of the Malefactors and the Recital is Quod patria respondeat ê“ Malefactoribus the sense of which is That the Country should stand in their stead whereas the meaning of the Statute is That they should produce their Persons Sed non allocatur For as it is in the Recital of the Declaration it well answers the sense of the Statute Anonymus IN an Action of Trespass quare Clausum fregit and digging up and carrying away of his Trees It appeared upon the Evidence That the Defendant had entred into the Plaintiffs Close and digged up several Roots of his Trees and removed them to a place on the same Ground about two yards distance off And the Question was Whether this were such a Carrying away as that the Plaintiff should have full Costs or only Costs according to the late Statute where the Damages are under 40 s as was in this Case Pollexfen Chief Justice and Rokeby Powell absente were of Opinion that the Plaintiff was to have full Costs because the Roots were carried from the place where they were digged tho' not removed off from the Ground and they said that it had been adjudged Felony to take and removed things with an intent to steal them tho' laid at a small distance from the place and not carried out of the House or the like Ventris conceived That the taking of the Roots and laying them a little way off in the same man's Ground could not be taken as an asportavit and it differed from the Case of Stealing for taking Goods as a Thief is the Felony and it doth not lye in the carrying them off but in the Felonious intent in the taking But by the Opinion of the other two of the Plaintiff had his full Costs Anonymus IT was moved for a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court to stay a Suit for Dilapidations by the Successor against the Executor of the former Incumbent upon the late General Act of Pardon for that all Suits for Offences of Incest Simony or Dilapidations are excepted in the Act unless commenced and depending before such a Day viz. the 20th day of March last and this Suit was commenced since The whole Court upon Hearing of Counsel at the Bar and Consideration of the Matter conceived that the Parliament never intended to take away the Successors Remedy for Dilapidations for that would be to ease the Executor of the last Incumbent who was the Wrong-doer and translate the Charge to the Successor But they would intend this Exception of such Suits as might be in the Ecclesiastical Court ex Officio against the Dilapidator himself to punish it as a Crime against the Ecclesiastical Law and to pardon it unless there were Prosecution before the Day aforesaid And so the Prohibition was denied Nota If a Sheriff of a County in a City be in Contempt the Attachment is to go to the Coroner and not to the Mayor or Chief Officer of the Corporation in such City or Town And if the Offender be out of his Office the Attachment shall be directed to the New Sheriff Gawden versus Draper IN an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff declared upon a Deed of Covenant by Indenture made between the Defendant and him whereby the Defendant Covenanted with the Plaintiff That Sarah Wife of the Defendant should be permitted to live separate from the Defendant until the Defendant and the said Sarah by Writing under their several Hands attested by two Witnesses should give notice to each other that they would again Cohabit And further Covenanted That he the Defendant during the Coverture and until such Notice should be given of their desires to Cohahit as aforesaid would pay to the Plaintiff for the Maintenance of the said Sarah 300 l per Annum at four Quarterly payments and sets forth That the said Sarah form the Date of the said Indenture to the time of the said Suit did live separate from the Defendant and no notice of Cohabitation as aforesaid had been given during that time of either side And for 75 l for one Quarters payment of the said 300 l which was to be paid at our Lady-day last the Action is brought The Defendant pleads in Bar That after the Indenture aforesaid and before the Action brought another Indenture was made between the Defendant and the said Sarah his Wife of the one part and the Plaintiff of the other part which the Defendant ê“fert hic in Cur ' reciting the said first Indenture and further reciting That the Defendant and the said Sarah did then intend to Cohabit and did at that time Cohabit and expressing that it was the true intent and meaning of all the said parties to the said Indenture produced ut supra by the Defendant That so long as the Defendant and the said Sarah should agree to Cohabit the said Annual payment should cease And the Plaintiff did by the said last mentioned Indenture by the appointment of the said Sarah as appointed by her being party thereunto and her Signing Sealing and
that King James came to the Crown and the time is supposed to have influenced the Opinion of the Court and the Plaintiff had Iudgment After having heard the Case several times spoken to the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff principally for the words that he went to Mass for by the Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 4. the Offender is to Forfeit 100 l and he imprisoned for a year so that they expose him to Corporal Punishment It is held that to say a Man committed petit Larceny is Actionable Allens Rep. 11. The Chief Justice here said That where a Man had been in an Office of Trust to say that he behaved himself corruptly in it as it imported great Scandal so it might prevent his coming in to that or the like Office again and therefore was Actionable Note The time these words were spoken was taken notice of viz. between King James the Second's Desertion of the Kingdom and the Proclaiming of the King and Queen when to call a Man Papist would have exposed to him the danger of the Rabble whereupon Judicium pro Quer. Lade versus Parker VIde ante Termino Michal ' ult It was this Term moved again That the pleading dedit concess ' Nicholao Marsh filio suo Annuitatem praed ' habend ' praed ' Nicholao heredibus assignat ' suis ad opus usum dicti Nicholai haered ' assign ' suor ' per quod vigore Statuti de usibus in possession ' transferen ' the said Nicholas became seised c. was sufficient and the words quae quidem concessio c. quod vide ante were to be rejected as Surplusage And of that Opinion were Powell Rokeby and Ventris But Pollexfen Chief Justice held strongly to the contrary and he agreed this Deed being to the Son with an express Consideration of natural affection tho' Money was also part of the Consideration mentioned that it would work as a Covenant to stand seised But then the Parties ought to have pleaded it as a Covenant to stand seised according to the legal construction of such a Deed where there is no Execution at Law whereas here they have pleaded it as a Grant at the Common-Law The other Judges differing in their Opinion said it was sufficient to plead the Deed as it was worded and if there were sufficient matter to intitle the Avowant Iudgment ought to be given accordingly and then the Avowant concludes that he became seised by the Statute of Vses which shews he intended to take the operation of the Deed that way so Iudgment was given for the Avowant Chief Justice contra Note Serjeant Levins cited the Pleading in Foxes Case 8 Co. where the words Demise and Grant in consideration of Money amounted to a Bargain and Sale it being of an Estate for years without enrolment it was pleaded dimisit concessit ad firmam tradidit non Barganizavit Woodward c. versus Fox IN an Action sur Assumpsit for 200 l received to his use Vpon non Assumpsit a Special Verdict was found quod vide ante Term ' Trin ' ult ' and the Case this Term came to have the resolution of the Court The case upon the Special Verdict is to this effect an Arch-deacon maketh a Register of the Court belonging to his Arch-deaconry in Consideration of 100 l The Bishop of the Diocess who was also Patron to the Archdeacon supposing the Office to have been void by the Statute of 5 and 6 Edw. 6. against the Sale of Offices relating to the Administration of Iustice granted the said Office of Register to the Defendant and the said Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter The Archdeacon after the Death of that person to whom he had sold the Office ut supra Grants the said Office to the three Plaintiffs for their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them the Plaintiffs before any Office found for the King or any Record shewing the Sale of this Office obtains a Grant of it from the now King and Queen The Court were all of Opinion for the Plaintiffs The Court did not speak to two Points stirred in the case viz Whether this Office could be granted for three Lives or whether it was within the said Statute of 5 and 6 Edw. 6. because they were in a manner agreed at the Bar and the Points setled But the two main Points in the Case which were spoken to are First Where an Archdeacon sells the Office of Register in the Court of the Archdeaconry whether by the Statute of 5 and 6 Edw. 6. the Grant and Nomination to this Office shall come to he Crown or whether it shall go to the Bishop of the Diocess Secondly Admitting the Right to be in the Crown whether the King and Queen can make a Register till Office found or that the Title appeareth by some matter of Record 1. It was resolved that the Right of appointing the Register it being Forfeited by the said Statute of 5 and 6 Edw. 6. did come to the King and Queen It is a Rule laid down by Manwood Chief B. Mo. 238. That where a Statute giveth a Forfeiture either for Nonfesans or Mis-fesans the King shall have it so in 11 Co. 68. This follows the Reason of the Common-Law in case of things which are nullius in bonis where no visible Right appears the Law giveth them to the King Siderfin 148 86. As Derelict Land Treasure Trove and a great number of such like instances may be cited from the Books so it is in Extraparochial Tithes tho' things of an Ecclesiastical nature 2 Inst 646. Cawdry's Case 5 Co. 18. Nay if the Right lie equal between the King and Subject the Kings Title hath the preference by Law Detur digniori is a Rule 9 Co. 24. In case of concurrence of Titles between the King and Subject It was objected That this held in valuable things and matters of profit to the Crown But the Court said there was no such distinction made in the Books and many Prerogatives c. were given to the King for the publick good and interest of the Government as well as for encrease of the King's Treasure There is no exception out of this construction of Forfeitures upon Penal Statutes unless they are in recompence for the Damage suffered by a Subject as the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. that giveth the Forfeiture of the treble value for not setting out of Tithes 2 Inst 650. And this follows the Reason of the Common Law that Fines and Penalties for Offences at Law go to the King as the Head of the Government and that was the second Reason the Court went upon that the Offence for which this Forfeiture is inflicted is principally against the King By the preamble of the Statute it appears to be made for avoiding of corruption in Offices and abuses in the Administration of Justice Now the King is the Fountain of Justice and that Ecclesiastical as well as Civil in
Mesuages Lands and Premisses And to the intent that the Contingent Remainder by the said Will limited to the Heirs Males and Females of the Body of the said Robert Durdant might be extinguished and destroyed he the said John Higden by the appointment of the said Robert Durdant did surrender his Estate in the Premisses to the said Gideon Durdant and by the said Deed it was Covenanted That the said Robert Durdant John Higden and Gideon Durdant should levy a Fine of the Premisses which should be to the use of the said John Higden and his Heirs They find that a Fine was levied accordingly in Easter Term 15 Car. 2. They find That Robert Durdant died on the 19th of August 20 Car. 2. and that John Higden after in 20 Car. 2. upon a valuable Consideration in money enfeoffed John Burchet of the Premisses and that the said Burchet died the 1st day of October in the same year and that the Premisses from him came to the Defendant Burchet who entred into the Premisses and became seised prout lex postulat And they find That Robert Durdant as well at the time of the said Will making as at the death of the said Henry Wicks had an only Son called George Durdant who was also Godson to the Testator and that the said George Durdant died and that William Durdant Lessor of the Plaintiff was his Son and Heir and entred and made the Demise prout c. si super totam materiam c. Vpon his Special Verdict Iudgment was given in the Kings-Bench for the Plaintiff And the Court here afterwards having heard the Case thrice Argued did affirm the Iudgment And the first Point spoken to was Whether the Estate did not execute in Robert Durdant by the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses For if so he would be seised of an Estate tail and then Burchet would have a good Title It is clear Lands may be Devised to the use of another as in Popham 4. 'T is true a Devise implies a Consideration and will lodge the Estate in the Devisee if no Vse be limited upon it Here it is Devised to John Higden and his Heirs upon trust and confidence that he should permit and suffer c. The word Trust is proper for the Limitation of an Use and the Estate shall Execute unless it be first limited to the use of a man and his Heirs in Trust for another there the Intention is that it should be only a Trust and here Robert Durdant is restrained only from doing waste which shews that he intended he should take an Estate or else he could not commit waste But Lands may be Devised to an Use tho' the Statute of Wills is since the Statute of Uses Mo. 107. 1 Cro. 343. The Court over-ruled this Point and Resolved it to be only a Trust in Robert Durdant for the words are That Higden should permit him to take the profits which shews that the Estate was to remain in Higden And for the restraint of waste it was proper for Higden was to permit Robert Durdant to have the possession but the Testator would not have him to commit waste or spoil The second and principal Point was Whether the Remainder to the Heirs of Robert Durdant now living did vest in George Durdant or was a Contingent Remainder It was much urged That one could not take in the Life of his Ancestor by the name of Heir for nemo est haeres viventis in the 1 Co. Archer's Case A Devise to Robert Remainder to the next heir Male of Robert and to the heirs Males of the Body of that heir Male this is Resolved to be a Contingent Remainder during the Life of Robert and it was said in that Case that the next heir Male is as much a designation of a person as an Heir now living He that will take by purchase by the name of Heir must be a compleat Heir to all intents Co. Littl. 24. b. 2 Leon 70. Chaloner and Bowyer 's Case upon a Devise But it was Resolved that this was a Remainder vested in George Durdant for the Remainder being limited to the Heirs of the Body of Robert Durdant now living and George being found to be then the only Son it was a sufficient designation of the person and as much as if it had been said to his Heir apparent and such an one is called Heir sometimes in proceedings in Law where the greatest strictness of phrase is used as in Writs of Ravishment of Ward Quare filium haeredem rapuit 2 Inst 439. Westm 2. cap. 35. 25 Ed. 3. the Statute of Treasons Treason to kill the Heir of the King The third Point was Whether George Durdant took an Estate Tail or only an Estate for Life for it was Objected that if the words Heirs of the Body were taken for the description only of the person who should take then he must take only for Life But the Court held that they would make an Estate Tail for Heirs is nomen collectivum and is sometimes so taken when 't is only Heir in the Singular Number A Devise to one for life Remainder to the heir Males of his Body for ever this is an Estate Tail in the Devisee Pawsey and Lowther in Rol. Abr. 2. Part 253. But in case the first words viz. Heirs of the Body now living would carry but an Estate for Life to George Durdant yet the subsequent words would make an Entail in him viz. and to such other Heirs Male and Female as he should hereafter happen to have of his Body this would clearly vest an Entail in George he being Heir of the Body of Robert and surviving Robert So the Judgment was affirmed Sed Nota as to the second Point the Lord Chief Baron Atkyns and Justice Powell seemed to be an Opinion that the Remainder was Contingent But in regard the Point had been upon a Writ of Error brought in the House of Lords upon a Judgment given in the Kings-Bench in another Case upon the same Will adjudged to be a Remainder vested they conceived themselves bound by that Judgment in the House of Lords Paschae Anno 2 Willielmi Mariae Memorandum BY an Order of the King and Council 1 Willielmi Mariae the Judges were Ordered to meet and all of them except Gregory Eyre and Turton were assembled at the Lord Chief Justice's Chamber to give their Opinion concerning Colonel Lundy who was appointed Governour of London Derry in Ireland by the King and Queen and had endeavoured to betray it and afterwards he escaped into Scotland where he was taken and brought Prisoner into England and Committed to the Tower Whether admitting he were guilty of a Capital Crime by Martial Law committed in Ireland he might be sent thither from hence to be Tryed there in regard of the Act of Habeas Corpus made Anno 31 Car. 2. which Enacts That no Subject of this Realm shall be sent over Prisoner to any Foreign parts But
and that Isaack Knight his Executor took a Capias thereupon out of the Common-Pleas Now it being a Statute-Merchant it ought first to have been certified into the Chancery and from thence a Capias should be issued out Returnable in the Court of Common-Pleas And so the Statute of Acton Burnel 30 Ed. 3. Enacts and so is Fitz. N.B. 130. whereas here the Capias goes out of the Common Pleas and for ought appears was the first step towards the execution of this Statute for it doth not appear that it was ever certified or that the Court had any Record before them to award this Capias upon and so the Execution is quite in another manner than the Statute provides and in a new Case introduced by the Statute and therefore it seems to be void and if so then the Statute of Knight could not be assigned so as to pass the Interest of it to Edward Lewis and the Fines will have no effect upon it and indeed it puts it clean out-of the Case before us as if it had never been acknowledged and the Interest of that Statute must be still in the Executor of Knight But then admitting it to have been extended and consequently well assigned together with Gerrard's Statute to Edward Lewis if so I take it to be drowned in Gerrard's Extent As to that the Case is no more than this that after the Statute is extended there comes another Extent upon a puisne Statute for 't is found that Gerrard's Statute was extended after Knight's Statute whether the Estate by Extent upon the puisne Statute be in the nature of a Reversional Interest for if so then when the Interest of the first Extent and the latter comes into one person the first must be drowned for an Estate for years or other Chattel Interest will merge in a Chattel in Reversion that is immediately expectant And that is Hughes and Robotham's Case in the 1 Cro. 302. pl. 32. If a Lease for years be made and then the Reversion is granted for years with Attornment the Lessee may surrender to the Grantee and the Term will drown in the Reversion for years To which it is Objected That an Extent is rather in the nature of a Charge upon the Land than an Interest or Estate in the Land it self In the Case of Haydon and Vavasor versus Smith in Mo. 662. an Extent is thus described that it is onus reale inhaerens gremio liberi tenementi tout temps Executory as the words of that Book are If the Tenant by an Extent purchase the Inheritance of part of the Lands extended the whole falls So a release of the Debt will immediately determine the Extent and it has been compared to one that enters into Lands by virtue of a power to hold until the arrear of Rent is satisfied It is true an Extent is an Execution given by the Statute Law for the satisfaction of a Debt and therefore the release of the Debt must determine the Estate by Extent because the Foundation of it is removed and so if the Inheritance of part of the Land extended comes to the Conusee it destroys the whole Extent whereas if a Lessee for years purchaseth the Reversion of part the Lease holds for the rest But in case of an Extent if it should be so the Conusee would hold the residue of the Land longer because the Profits that should go in satisfaction of the Debt must be less and this would be to the wrong of him in the Reversion But in other respects an Extent makes an Estate in the Land and hath all the properties and Incidents of and to an Estate and doth in no sort resemble such an Interest as is only a Charge upon the Land An Interest by Extent is a new Species of an Estate introduced by Statute Law Our Books say that 't is an Estate treated in imitation of a Freehold and quasi a Freehold but no Book can be produced that says that 't is quasi an Estate The Statute of 27 Ed. 3. cap. 9. Enacts That he to whom the Debt is due shall have an Estate of Freehold in the Lands and the Statute of 13 Ed. 1. de Morcatoribus say That he shall have Seisin of all the Lands and Tenements When a Statute is extended it turns the Estate of the Conisor into a Reversion and so are the express words in Co. 1 Inst 250. b. and so the Objection That he does not hold by Fealty is answered and there are no Tenures that are to no purpose but he that enters by virtue of a power to hold till satisfied an Arrear of Rent he leaves the whole Estate in the Owner of the Land and not a Reversion only If a Lease for years be made reserving Rent and then the Lessor acknowledge a Statute which is extended the Conisee after the Extent shall have an Action of Debt for the Rent and distrain and avow for the Rent as in Bro. tit Stat. Merch. 44. and Noy fo 74. but he that enters by a Power to hold for an Arrear of Rent shall not He in Reversion may release to the Tenant by Extent which will drown the Interest and emerge his Estate according as it is limited in the Release Co. 1 Inst 270. b. 273. Tenant by Statute may forfeit by making a Feoffment Mo. 663. He is to Attorn to the grant of the Reversion 1 Roll. 293. and is liable to a Quid juris clamat 7 H. 4. 19. b. Tenant by Extent may surrender to him in Reversion 4 Co. 82. Corbet's Case therefore these Cases are to shew That an Extended Interest makes an Estate in the Lands as much as any Demise or Lease And I take it the consequence of that is That when an Estate by Extent is evicted by an Extent upon a prior Statute as Elwaies and Burroughs Extent was by the Extent of Knight's Statute or where the prior Statute is first extended and then a Statute of later date is extended as Gerrard's Statute is found to be extended after the Extent upon Knight's Statute In both these Cases the Extent upon the puisne Statute will be in the nature of a Reversional Interest A Reversion is every where thus described viz. An Estate to take effect in possession after another Estate determined 'T is not in nature of a future Interest as a Term for years limited to commence after the end of a former Term for such an one shall not have the Rent upon a former Lease as I have shewn before but he that extends upon a Lessee for years shall for the Liberate gives a present Interest to hold ut liberum tenementum but indeed cannot take effect in possession by reason of a prior Extent or by prior Title And this is the very case of a Reversion which is an actual present Interest tho' it be to take effect in possession after another Estate Now I conceive it will plainly follow from this That Knight's Statute is drowned in Gerrard's
to be done where there has been only a right of Action as in Sawle and Clerke's Case in Jones 211. and Cro. Car. where the Case as to this Point is to this effect A Remainder upon an Estate Tail was divested by the Fine of Tenant in Tail who had made an Estate for Life warranted by the Statute and died without Issue He in the Remainder was barred from bringing a Formedon in the life of the Tenant for Life within Five years after the Fine and had not a new Five years after the death of Tenant for Life tho' he could not Enter in the life of the Tenant for Life And the Reason given in Crook's Reports is because he had no other Right after the Death of the Tenant for Life than he had before and this plainly distinguisheth that and the Case at the Bar from the Cases that have been cited of June and Smye's Case in the 1 Cro. 219. and Laund and Tucker 254. for there the Fine was Levied by the particular Tenant which was a Forfeiture which he in Reversion might choose whether he would take advantage of and as the case might be it would be to his prejudice to take advantage of it where the particular Tenant has charged the Land and therefore if he would he should have Five years after the Estate determined to claim as of his Reversion which is another distinct Right from that of the Forfeiture And this was the standing difference that made the distinction where there should be a new Five years given to him in Reversion after the particular Estate determined and where not as we see in Margaret Podgers Case in the 9 Co. 106. If the Tenant for years were ousted and a Fine levied by the Disseisor he in the Reversion was bound by the first Five years Non-claim because tho' he could not enter as if the Estate for years had been determined or as in the Cases before of the Forfeiture yet he might have immediately brought an Assize with which Sawl and Clarke's Case exactly agrees and goes upon the same Reason As for Freeman's Case the Resolution goes wholly upon the Circumstances of Fraud appearing in the Case the principal of which was That the Lessee continued in possession and paid the Rent I confess they have gone a little further of late and now it is taken That he in Reversion shall have Five years after the Term is ended by effluction of Time tho' there were no Forfeiture incurred at the Levying of the Fine Nor no such plain Circumstances of Fraud as appears in Fermer's Case and the Case put before and cited out of Margaret Podgers Case is not held to be Law The contrary whereof is taken to have been Resolved in Folley and Tancred's Case in the 24 Car. 2. and I do not intend to shake the Authority of that Case but admit it to be good in Law yet I crave leave to observe That it is a Resolution carried beyond the words of the Statute for the Right is not pursued within Five years next after it first came For it is agreed in Fermer's Case fo 79. that there the Construction was against the Letter of the Statute and I must say it is a Construction by Equity which is a little extraordinary to weaken the force of a Statute which was made for the quieting of mens Possessions and to add force to Fines which were of so great regard in Law and especially to make a Construction by Equity contrary to the Reason of the Common Law which took no care of a future Right at all for he in the Reversion in case of a Fine Levied at the Common Law depended wholly upon the Entry or Claim of the particular Tenant and in default of that lost his Estate as in the 1 Inst 262. b. and in Plowden's Commentaries in Stowell's Case I say again I do not design by this to oppose any Case that hath been setled But I confess I should not have gone so far if I had not been led by Authority and am not willing to go a step further And now I shall endeavor to shew that this Case goes a great deal further and would be a greater strain upon the Statute than yet has been And First I Observe that upon all or most of the Cases of a Fine where there has been an Estate for Life or Years in being at the time of the Fine that the Possession has held still in the particular Tenant so that he in Reversion had no reason to suspect any Fine or other thing done upon the Estate there being no alteration of the Possession And this agrees somewhat with the Reason of the Common Law in case of a Fine Executory he that had Right was not bound to claim till there were an Execution of the Fine and Transmutation of the Possession thereupon as in Plowden's Commentaries 257. b. in Stowell's Case But here it is found that the Conusor and not the Conusees or the Tenants by Extent or either of them were in possession so that the Land being in the possession of a Wrong-doer they which had Right ought to have watched and might well suspect that Fines should be Levied to the prejudice of their respective Rights It is said in Fermer's Case If a meer Wrong-doer having got the Possession levieth a Fine on purpose to bind the Right this shall bind notwithstanding his unjust Design But the Differences that I chiefly rely upon to distinguish the Case before us from the Cases of Reversions upon Estates for Life and Years or the like particular Estates are these 1. That in those Estates there is either by an express Limitation of the Parties or an operation of Law a certain and particular Term or End of the Estate which until it happens it has not its proper determination which an Estate by Extent has not I know it is has been much insisted on that the natural and proper determination of an Extent is satisfaction by a perception of Profits according to the extended Value whereas I cannot see but a release of the Debt or satisfaction by a sudden Accident is as properly a determination of the Extent as if it were run out by perception of Profits according to the extended Value For when the first Extent is out of the way the second is immediately to take place or why this acknowledging Satisfactoin on Record should be the natural and proper determination of the Extent more than a Release of the Debt by the Conusee or destroying of it by a Fine which is an higher Record than the Statute or the Entry of Satisfaction acknowledged thereupon 2. To let him that has the Reversion upon an Estate by Extent have Five years to claim after the first Extent run out by perception of Profits or Satisfaction acknowledged is to let in a Claim after an Estate that no man can see to the end of For when it shall be satisfied by the Profits no man can tell and can
But Hale said That he thought that in this Case inasmuch as the Mortgage to Lee was only of part of W. that therefore Marsh might bring Lee to an Account upon the extended value whereupon these two Mannors were extended upon the Statute and if Lee had received the Money due upon the Statute by receiving of the Profits according to the extended value or if she will pay down the residue of the Money due upon the Statute or if she will pay down so much as the proportion will come to for Monfield that then she may discharge the Mannor of Monfield But then my Lord Keeper asked him how he would have it appointed and how much should be laid upon Monfield and how much upon Wicksal for that part of W. is under that Extent To which Hale Answered That if Marsh did sue Lee for the discharge of this Statute from Monfield that Monfield should be Discharged by her paying down as much as the proportion comes to or when Lee shall have received so much according to the extended value and that he thought there might be a proportion found out by the Court. Nota Sir H. Fynch Counsel for Lee cited Primate and Jackson's Case Grove and Grove's Case and Mrs. Calamy's Case All which were Resolved in this Court That a Purchasor or Mortgagee coming in upon a valuable Consideration without Notice and purchasing in a precedent Incumbrance it shall protect his Estate against any person that hath a Mortgage subsequent to the first tho' before the last Mortgage tho' he purchased in the Incumbrance after he had Notice of the second Mortgage White versus Ewer AT a Re-hearing before my Lord Keeper assisted with Justice Vaughan and Turner concerning the Redemption of a Mortgage which had been made above 40 years since My Lord Keeper Declared That he would not relieve Mortgages after 20 years for that the Statute of 21 Jac. cap. 16. did adjudge it reasonable to limit the time of ones Entry to that number of years Vnless there are such particular Circumstances as may vary the ordinary Case as Infants Feme Coverts c. are provided for by the very Statute tho' these Matters in Equity are to be governed by the Course of the Court and that 't is best to square the Rules of Equity as near the Rules of Reason and Law as may be Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 22 Car. II. In Cancellaria Peter Pheasant versus Anne Pheasant The Lord Mayor of London and Sir Thomas Player Chamberlain of London c. THe Case was this Anne Hadly now Pheasant one of the Defendants being an Orphan of London and having an Estate of 3 or 4000 l in Money in the Court of Orphans there was married to W. Pheasant elder Brother to the Plaintiff W. Pheasant before he was at the Age of 21 years and not having taken out this Money dies having bequeathed this Money inter alia to his said Wife provided that she should not claim Dower c. Notwithstanding she brings Dower against the now Plaintiff Brother and Heir to her late Husband Whereupon he brings this Bill in Chancery to make Discovery of this Estate and to compel her to release her Dower or renounce this Devise and thereupon obtains an Injunction to stay Proceedings in the Writ of Dower The Point was Whether this Money in the Court of Orphans were Devisable or no Serjeant Goodfellow Argued That it was Devisable as a Chattel personal in the Testator's possession and vested in the Baron the Court of Orphans have but have the Custodiam Co. Entries 346. 1 Roll. 550. the Chamberlain of London is the Officer intrusted and a sole Corporation to this purpose so as to take Recognizance which shall go to his Executors and is the only Corporation of that nature in England His possession is the Testator's actual possession Latch 127. If the Servant be robbed the Master shall have the Action in the 1 Cro. 37. This is not a Debitum but a Depositum as in Custodia in gremio legis by the Custom of London as if Money had been brought into Court here by a Compulsory Order in which case it would have vested in the Husband Now in the Court of Orphans they compel People to bring in the Money or to give Security and they pay no Interest only allow Finding-Money that is for the Orphans Maintenance and no more Seeing the Feme is intituled to Dower immediately it were hard that the Baron should not have the Portion Debts he shall not have because of his Latches in not bringing an Action whereby to reduce them to Property but this cannot be had until the Wives full Age. Vpon the Marriage of Orphans the Custom is to appoint the Common Serjeant to Treat and take Security for the Orphan Serjeant Maynard contra This was a Chose en Action Debt lies for it and it cannot be recovered without an Action Interest is allowed for it according to the Custom tho' not Statute Interest and proportionable to the Sum. And the Case of Dr. Ent versus Adrian was by the Custom of London If a man dye leaving three Sons his Estate shall be equally divided amongst them and if either of them dye within Age his part shall survive to the other The Father taking notice of this Custom Devised That if any of his Sons dye within Age his part should not survive but that it should go to J.S. It was Resolved that the Father could not thus give the Childs Portion because but a possibility and a thing not vested in himself Wyld said That when he was Recorder he certified the Custom in that Case to be That the Father might Devise Curia viz Bridgman Lord Keeper Twisden and Wyld assisting We are clear of Opinion that this was a Chose en Action and not Devisable A Trover and Conversion lies not for it if it be refused to be paid It was the Latches of the Husband that he did not recover it for by the Custom it is to be paid at the full Age or Marriage of the Female Orphan The Chamberlain is not a Servant to the Orphan but to the Mayor If it were purely a Depositum it must be paid in specie without Interest but they pay Customary Interest And tho' whilst the Orphans are under Age and Vnmarried if Women they give them Finding Money only yet at the end of all when the Orphan comes at full Age or if a Female marries all is Cast up and the Interest is paid The word Custodia in Pleading imports an Interest as in the Case of Guardian in Soccage c. the Lord Mayor c. have a Special Interest in it and if it be lost or miscarry they are to Answer it Let the Injuction be Dissolved Nota This Case was referred by my Lord Keeper to Justice Wyld A man opens a Mine in his Land and digs until he comes under the Soil of another whether he can follow his Mine there And he certified
his Opinion that he might But if the Owner dig there also he conceived that he might then stop his farther progress And in Cornwall it is their Vse that if a man begins a Mine in his own Land he may proceed in the Vein through another mans Ground Note If a Bill in Chancery be Exhibited against a Peer the Course is first for my Lord Keeper to write a Letter to him and if he doth not answer then a Subpoena and then an Order to shew Cause why a Sequestration should not go and if he still stands out then a Sequestration For there can be no Process of Contempt against his Person Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 29 Car. II. Clobberie's Case IN one Clobberie's Case it was held That where one Bequeathed a Sum of Money to a Woman at her Age of 21 years or Day of Marriage to be paid unto her with Interest and she died before either that the Money should go to her Executor and was so Decreed by my Lord Chancellor Fynch But he said If Money were bequeathed to one of his Age of 21 years if he dies before that Age the Money is lost On the other side If Money be given to one to be paid at the Age of 21 years tho' if the party dies before it shall go to the Executors Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 30 Car. II. In Cancellaria Haymer Vid. versus Haymer THe Case was thus The late Husband of the Plaintiff before their Marriage had entred into Articles with the Plaintiff whereby it was Agreed That certain of the said Haymer's Lands should be setled before the Marriage which was then intended between them should be solemnized upon him and the Plaintiff and the Heirs of his Body by the Plaintiff but died before the Settlement was made In pursuance of the said Articles the Plaintiff married him and after his Decease the Plaintiff Exhibits her Bill to have those Articles executed Which was Decreed accordingly against the Heir at Law of the Husband Altho' it was Objected That the Articles being to make the Settlement before Marriage it was a Waver of the benefit of them the Plaintiff marrying before it was done and the Plaintiff being the sole party with whom they were made her marriage with the other party before they were performed was a Release in Law Note The Lands were mortgaged to one that had no Notice of the Articles It was Decreed That the Plaintiff should Redeem and hold for her Life and that her Executors should detain the Land till the Money was raised that she had been out upon the Redemption Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 31 32 Car. II. In Cancellaria Sir Oliver Butler's Case UPon a Scire facias to Repeal a Patent granted by this King to Sir Oliver Butler for a Market to be kept at Chatham reciting That there was an Ancient Market long before kept at Rochester within Half a Mile of Chatham and that there was an Ad quod damnum taken out before the New Patent and the Inquest thereupon taken found it not to be to the Damage of any and that it was Executed by Surprize and without Notice and that notwithstanding it was to the great Damage of the former Market c. To this Scire facias Sir Oliver Butler Demurred And it was Argued by his Counsel That this Patent could not be Repealed because it was preceded by a Writ of Ad quod damnum whereupon it was found to be to no Bodies damage and that should conclude all or at least the King could not bring a Scire facias to Repeal his own Patent But the Lord Chancellor Fynch assisted by North Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas and Justice Jones gave Judgment for Repealing of the Patent For the Return of the Writ of Ad quod damnum was not Conclusive and here by the Demurrer it is Confessed to be to the Damage of the former Market And where a Patent is granted to the prejudice of the Subject the King of Right is to permit him upon his Petition to use His Name for the Repeal of it in a Scire facias at the King's Suit and to hinder multiplicity of Actions upon the Case for such Actions will lye notwithstanding such void Patent Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 32 Car. II. In Cancellario Sir Jerom Smithson's Case A Motion was made for a Ne exeat Regnum against Sir Jerom Smithson for that his Wife had Sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court for Alimony and it was suspected that he would go beyond Sea to avoid the Sentence And the Writ was granted And the Lord Chancellor said That it had been so done before for this Court was to aid the Ecclesiastical Court in such Cases And likewise the Court being Informed of his Ill usage of his Wife a Supplicavit de bono gestu was granted My Lord Hollis's Case Pasch 26 Car. II. MY Lord Hollis's Case was thus An Hundred Pounds was Lent by his Lady and in the Note which was first given for it it was written that the Money was to be disposed as the Lady Hollis should direct An Action at Law for this Mony being barred by the Statute of Limitations a Bill was exhibited for Relief and the Statute of Limitations insisted upon But in regard the Money was looked upon as a Depositum and a Trust thereupon to the Lady a Decree was obtained for the Money Sir William Beversham's Case HE had purchased a Mannor and a Copyhold being a little before Escheated which was not intended to pass in Demesn was left out of the particular yet the Conveyance was sufficient to pass it in Law And the Vendor Exhibited a Bill to be relieved and obtained a Decree to hold by Copy of Sir William Beversham Vide 1 Roll. 397. Averments not to be admitted in Chancery contrary to the purport of a Deed. Anonymus Trin. Anno 31 Car. II. THe Case was thus J.S. made his Will his Wife being at that time with Child where he ordered that all his Personal Estate after his Debts and Legacies paid should be laid out in Land in case he had a Son and be setled upon his Brother for preservation of his Name and Devised That if his Wife were delivered of a Daughter that she should have 3000 l paid her at her Day of Marriage provided that she married with her Mothers Consent and otherwise but 1000 l and also Devised That the Mother should have 80 l part of the Interest of the 3000 l for the Education of the Daughter The Testator dies and the Wife has a Daughter The Question was Whether the Daughter should have the remaining part of the Interest of the 3000 l or the Executors should have it in Trust for the Brother and so to be laid out c. It was said for the Brother that the Father intended the Daughter but 3000 l at the most and that appointing 80 l part of the Interest of her Education excluded her from the rest
and it s a Devise That all his Personal Estate shall be laid out c. Curia There is nothing to be laid out until the Debts and Legacies paid the 80 l is not to the Daughter but for the Mother 'T is taken for granted that where a Sum of Money is devised to a Child at such an Age it shall have the Interest in the mean time rather than the Executor shall swallow it but clear when no Maintenance is otherwise provided for The Lord Chancellor Decreed it for the Daughter and that the Executor should account for what Interest he paid the Brother Note Tho' it be said that the Money to be laid out after all Legacies paid yet all besides what serves to pay the Legacies should be laid out presently Anonymus Trin. Anno 31 Car. II. A Devise of 100 l to J.S. at the Age of 21 years and if J.S. died under Age then J.N. and A.B. to have the 100 l or else the Survivor of them A.B. and J.N. dye both in the life of J. S. and before the Age of 21 years and then J.S. dies under the Age of 21 years The Administrator of J.N. who survived A.B. sued and obtained a Decree for the 100 l for tho' he died before the Contingency hapned yet his Administrator should have it Charles Blois al' Plaintiffs versus Dame Jane Blois and Jane Blois Infants Defendants Mich. Anno 31 Car. II. THe Case was thus Sir William Blois who had Issue the Plaintiff and two Daughters by a former Venter and Jane the Defendant by a second Venter upon his second Marriage setled Lands for the Ioynture of his Wife and after her decease in case he had Issue only a Daughter to raise 3000 l for that Daughter to be paid her at the Day of Marriage so that she married after Sixteen or otherwise at the Age of Eighteen years and if she died before either then his Heir to have the benefit Afterwards Sir William Blois by his Will devises the Reversion of his setled Lands and all his other Estate to Jane his Relict one of the Defendants and three others and says That after the Son by a convenient Match shall have raised 9000 l for his three Daughters that then they should let the Son the now Plaintiff have his Estate The Question now was That if the Daughter by the second Venter had 3000 l paid her whether she should have any further benefit by the Settlement and so take a double Portion one upon the Will and another upon the Settlement The Decree made by my Lord Fynch was That if the Heir paid 9000 l the Security by the Settlement should be discharged the Will being but Cumulative Security and so the Defendant Jane was to have but one 3000 l and be subject to the same Contingencies with the Settlement and gave the Heir two years time to pay the Money and in the mean time Jane to have a third part of the Profits of the Land devised My Lord Chancellor cited one Pyne's Case where a man had secured Portions for his Children and afterwards by his Will Devised to each of them a like Sum it was held that this would not double their Portions unless plainly proved that he intended to do so Nota If one sue in Chancery an Executor of one Obligor to discover Assets you must make all the Obligors parties that the Charge may lye equal Quaere Whether you may not sue the Principal and leave out them that are bound only as Sureties But 't is clear that if a Judgment be had at Law against one Obligor you may sue the Executor of him alone to discover Assets c. because the Bond is drowned in the Judgment Turner's Case A Mortgage was made in Fee which descended to the Heir at Law and the Money ten years since paid to him The Executor of the Mortgagee preferred his Bill and had a Decree for the Money but without Interest My Lord Chancellor went upon the Reason of the Case in Littleton That if a Feoffment be made upon Condition to re-enter upon the payment of a Sum of Money and not expressed to whom to be paid there after the Death of the Feoffee it must be paid to the Executor and not to the Heir So here tho' the Proviso was to pay to the Feoffee his Heirs or Executors yet when the Day is past 't is as much as if no person had been expressed and then Equity shall follow the Law and appoint it to the Executor Termino Paschae Anno 32 Car. II. In Cancellaria Anonymus AN Impropriator devised to one that served the Cure and to all that should serve the Cure after him all the Tythes and other Profits c. Tho' the Curate was incapable to take by this Devise in such manner for want of being Incorporate and having Succession yet my Lord Chancellor Finch Decreed That the Heir of the Devisee should be seised in Trust for the Curate for the time being Broadhurst versus Richardson al' A Man had Issue three Daughters and devised to his three Daughters 540 l equally to be divided between them that is to say 180 l apiece but if any of them died without Child her part to go to the Survivors One of the Daughters married Broadhurst and before the Portion paid she died without Issue Broadhurst Exihibits his Bill against the Executor and the two surviving Sisters and had a Decree for the 180 l For a Sum of Money cannot be Entailed Anonymus IF Lands be devised for the payment of Debts and Legacies and the residue of the Personal Estate be given to the Executors after the Debts and Legacies paid the Personal Estate shall notwithstanding as far as it will go be applied to the payment of the Debts c. and the Land charged no further than is necessary to make up the residue Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 32 33 Car. II. In Cancellaria Sayle Freeland al' Infants THe Bill was to Redeem a Mortgage made by the Father of the Defendants or to be foreclosed The Defendants by Guardian Answered setting forth That their Grandfather was seised in Fee and made a Settlement whereby he entailed the Estate but with a power of Revocation by any Writing published under his Hand and Seal in the presence of three Witnesses And the Case was That he made his Will under his Hand and Seal wherein he recited his Power and declared that he Revoked the Settlement but the Will had but two Witnesses which subscribed their Names tho' a third present and died The Lands descended to the Father who made the Mortgage and the Defendants claimed by virtue of the Entail The Decree was that the Mortgage Money should be paid First My Lord Chancellor said that here was an Execution of the Power in strictness tho' the third Witness did not Subscribe Secondly If there had not that Equity should help it in such a little Circumstance where the Owner of
may be sold Noell versus Robinson THe Plaintiffs Father being seised in Fee of a Foreign Plantation devised it to the Plaintiff and made the Defendant Executor The Executor let it for years reserving Rent in Trust for the Plaintiff who now Exhibited his Bill to have his Rent The Defendant Confessed the Devise of the Testator and the Lease made by himself but said That great Losses had fallen upon the Testator's Estate and that he paid and secured which is payment in Law for the Debts of the Testator to â— great value and that he hoped he should be permitted to reimburse himself by the receipt of this Rent notwithstanding the mentioning of the Trust as aforesaid The Cause came to Hearing and the Court Decreed for the Plaintiff For altho' a Legatee shall refund against Creditors if there be not Assets and against Legatees all which are to have these proportion where the Assets fall short yet the Executor himself after his Assent shall never bring the Legacy back But if he had been sued and paid it by the Decree of this Court the Legatee must have refunded as if a Debtor to a Bankrupt pays him voluntarily he must pay him over again Otherwise of payment by Compulsion of Law Note My Lord Chancellor said That if they give Sentence for a Legacy in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition lies unless they take Security to Refund Note also in this Case that tho' it be an Inheritance yet being in a Foreign Country 't is looked upon as a Chattel to pay Debts and a Testamentary thing It was Objected That this could not be taken for an Assent for if so how could the Executor let it But the Court said that it did tantamount to an Assent and being a lawful Act a little matter will be taken for an Assent Anonymus A Bill was Exhibited by the Assignees of Commissioners of Bankrupts to have an Account against the Defendant of the Bankrupts Estate The Defendant pleaded that he was but Servant to the Bankrupt and had given an account of all to his Master and likewise had been Examined before the Commissioners upon the whole Matter Vpon Hearing his Plea my Lord Chancellor Over-ruled it and Ordered that he should Answer Anonymus IF a man makes a Lease or devise an Estate for Years he being seised of an Estate of an Inheritance for payment of Debts if the Profits of the Lands surmount the Debt all that remains shall go to the Heir tho' not so exprest and albeit it be in the case of an Executor Barney versus Tyson THe Case was thus The Plaintiff in the Life of his Father being about 26 years of Age and having occasion for Money prevails with the Defendant to let him have in Wares to the value of 400 l and gives him Bond for 800 l to be paid if he survived his Father at which time an Estate would befall him of 5000 l per Annum and he having survived his Father he preferred his Bill against the Defendant to compel him to take his Principal Money and Interest And it was proved in the Case that the Defendant was Informed at the time of this bargain that the Father was ill and not like to live and he did live but a year and half after and that one Stisted a man very Infamous was employed in the transaction of this Bargain And the Plaintiff obtained a Decree in the time of the Lord Chancellor Fynch And now upon a Petition to the Lord Keeper North the Defendant obtained a Re-hearing And in maintenance of the Decree it was alledged that the hazard which was run was very little and such Bargains with Heirs were much to be discountenanced The Lord Keeper affirmed the Decree but said that he would not have it used as a President for this Court to set aside mens Bargains But this Case having received a Determination and the Defendant having accepted his Principal Money and Interest thereupon and there being only a slight Omission in the Enrolment of the Decree which if it had been done had prevented a Re-hearing and the Defendant having delayed his Application to him by Petition he would not now set the Decree aside Termino Paschae Anno 35 Car. II. In Cancellaria Hodges versus Waddington THe Case was thus An Executor wasted the Testator's Estate and made his Will wherein he devised divers of his own Goods and made his Son Executor Afterwards a Suit was commenced against the Son to bring him to an Account for the Estate of the first Testator which was wasted and pending that Suit the Son after the Bill brought against him by the Legatee of his own Goods delivered them to the Legatee and assented to the Legacy After which upon the Account against the Son it appeared that the first Executor had wasted the Goods of the first Testator to such a value And then the party at whose Suit the said Account was and who was to have the benefit thereof together with the Son and Executor of the first Executor preferred a Bill against the Legatee of the Goods to make him Refund and obtained no Relief especially for that he had made the Executor Plaintiff who should not be admitted to undo his own Assent But liberty being given to bring a New Bill against the Legatee and the said Executor the Cause came to Hearing and it was Decreed That the Legatee should Refund So that one Legatee that is paid shall not only Refund against another but a Legatee shall Refund against a Creditor of the Testator that can charge an Executor only in Equity viz. Upon a wasting by the first Executor But if an Executor pays a Debt upon a Simple Contract there shall be no Refunding to a Creditor of an higher Nature Note also The Principal Case went upon the Insolvency of the Executor Anonymus A Bill was brought setting forth a Deed of Settlement of Lands in Trust and to compel the Defendant who was a Trustee therein nominated to Execute an Estate The Defendant by Answer says That he believed that there was such a Deed as in the said Bill is set forth c. And upon the Hearing they would have read a Deed for the Plaintiff tho' not proved but upon a Commission taken out only against another Defendant to the Bill supposing it to be Confessed by the Answer But the Court would not permit the Reading of it for the Confessing goes no further than what is set forth in the Bill and will not warrant the Reading of a Deed produced altho' it hath such Clauses in it Anonymus A Bill was preferred against one to discover his Title that A.B. might be let in to have Execution of a Judgment The Defendant pleaded That he was a purchaser for a valuable Consideration but did not set forth That he had no Notice of the Judgment And it was Over-ruled for 't is a fatal Fault in the Plea Bird versus Blosse THe Case was thus One wrote a Letter signifying
his Assent to the Marriage of his Daughter with J.S. and that he would give her 1500 l And afterwards by another Letter upon a further Treaty concerning the Marriage he went back from the Proposals of his Letter And at some time after declared That he would agrèe to what was propounded in his first Letter This Letter was held a sufficient Promise in Writing within the Statute of 29 Car. 2. called the Statute against Frauds and Perjuries and that the last Declaration had set the Terms in the first Letter up again Anonymus WHere a man buys Land in anothers name and pays Mony it will be in Trust for him that pays the Mony tho' no Deed declaring the Trust for the Statute of 29 Car. 2. called the Statute of Frauds doth not extend to Trusts raised by Operation of the Law Anonymus AN Administrator de bonis non of the Conusee of a Statute had agreed with the Conusor to assign it in Consideration of a Sum of Mony which upon the said Agreement the Conusors had Covenanted to pay to him his Executors or Administrators and then the Administrator died The Court Decreed the Mony to be paid to the Executor of the Administrator and not to the New Administrator de bonis non altho' before the Extent it could not be assigned at Law Sed nota That there were not Debts of the first Intestate appearing Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 35 36 Car. II. In Cancellaria NOte Suits in Chancery admitted for Distribution of Intestates Estates upon the Act of 22 Car. 2. Sir Thomas Draper Mil ' versus Dr. Crowther THe Bill sets forth a Contract under Seal with the Defendant for making of a Lease of certain Lands in Middlesex and to have an Execution of the Agreement The Defendant pleaded That he has Head of a Colledge in Oxford and sets forth the Charters of 14 R. 2. and 14 H. 8. Impowering the University to enquire and proceed in all Pleas and Quarrels in Law and Equity except concerning Freehold where a Scholar their Servants and Ministers sunt una partium c. ita quod Justiciarij de Banco Regis sive de Communi Banco vel Justiciarij ad Assisas non se intromittant c. And the Confirmation by an Act of Parliament of the 13th of Elizabeth and Concluded his Plea to the Iurisdiction of the Court. And it came to be Argued before the Lord Keeper Guildford 22 Febr. 1683. and the Plea was Over-ruled because the Charter ought properly to be extended to Matters at Common Law only or to Proceedings in Equity that might arise in such Cases and not to meer Matters of Equity which are Originally such as to Execute Agreements in specie Again Conuzance of Pleas is never to be allowed unless the Inferior Jurisdiction can give Remedy Here they can only Excommunicate or Imprison but cannot proceed to Sequestration of Lands in Middlesex If the Matter lay only in Damages it might be allowed to them because the Jurisdiction is given over all England but this is not to be intended where the Suit is for the thing it self and when 't is out of their reach A President was cited in the year 1663. before my Lord Clarendon Chancellor assisted with Hale then Chief Baron and Justice Wyndam where the Plea was Over-ruled Vide in the 3 Cro. 63. Wilcocks and Bradell's Case and Hallie's Case 87. Sir Robert Reeve's Case SIr George Reeve upon his Marriage with his Second Wife setled a Ioynture of divers of his Lands in Suffolk which he had before charged with his Daughters Portion viz. 3000 l which Daughter he had by a former Wife and by his last Will he mentioned that the said Joynture Lands were so incumbred and therefore he Devised certain Lands he had in Bickerton in Yorkshire to his Wife in lieu of such part of the Suffolk Lands as were charged with the Portion in case she would accept thereof But after his Decease it appeared that the Lands in Bickerton were not equivalent in Value to the Suffolk Lands and therefore she held to the latter and was not prejudiced by the Charge of the Portion because it appeared to be a Voluntary Settlement Nota In this Case the Lord Keeper Decreed that the Portion should be charged upon the Bickerton Lands for so much as it was defeated by the Settlement in Ioynture of the Suffolk Lands Anonymus ONe Devised his Lands to J.S. in Fee in Trust for Katharine and the Heirs of her Body and if Katharine died without Issue to Jane for life And in another Clause in the Will he devised That if Katharine died without Issue and Jane be then deceased then and not otherwise he gave the Land to J. N. and his Heirs Katharine died without Issue and Jane survived her and died A Bill was brought by J. N. against J. S. and the Heir at Law of the Testator to have this Trust executed My Lord Keeper Decreed it for J. N. altho' Jane survived Katharine because the words if Jane be then deceased seemed to be put in to express his meaning that Jane should be sure to have it for her life and that J. N. should not have it till she were dead and also to shew when J.N. should have it in possession Termino Paschae Anno 36 Car. II. In Cancellaria Wiliam Ragget and his Wife versus William Clarke THe Case was thus Nicholas Wheeler was seised of a parcel of Land for his own life and the lives of two others and prevailed with the Defendant to be bound with him for a Sum of Mony And that the Defendant might raise Mony for the discharge of the said Debt he permitted the Defendant to enter into the said Lands and to take the Profits for two years the said Lands being about 12 l yearly value and the said Land being so in the possession of the Defendant the said Wheeler died and made Isabel Wife of the now Plaintiff his Executrix And this Bill was brought by the said Husband and Wife to have an account of the Profits and that the possession of the Land should be delivered up to them The Defendant by Plea sets forth his Title as Occupant and it was allowed And the Bill was dismissed Bonham versus Newcomb ONe being seised in Fee in Consideration of 1000 l paid to him by a Person that married his Kinswoman Conveys to him and his Heirs and takes a Re-demise for 99 years if he should live so long And a Covenant therein That if he should pay 1000 l with the Interest that should be due for the same at any time during his life that the Grantee should Re-convey to him and his Heirs and that if he did not pay the Mony then that his Heirs c. should have no power to Redeem He died the Mony not being paid and his Heir preferred a Bill to Redeem it And it was urged for him That in a Conveyance which was a Security for Mony whatever
Covenant there was therein to exclude from Redemption such Covenant would not be regarded in this Court and that the Person to whom the Conveyance was made might have had a Bill in the life time of him that Conveyed to have a time set for the payment of the Mony or otherwise to be foreclosed But my Lord Keeper dismissed the Bill For he said in a common Mortgage such Covenant to restrain Redemption should not be regarded but this was made with an Intention of a Settlement of his Estate besides the Consideration of the Mony paid And he denied that he could have been by the Decree of this Court limited to any time for payment of the Mony for this Court cannot shorten the time that is given by express Covenant and Agreement of the parties but when that time is past then the Practice is to foreclose Nota This Dismission was afterwards in the Parliament held 1 2 W. M. affirmed Nota If a man makes a Voluntary Conveyance and there be a defect in it so as it cannot operate at Law this Court will not Decree an Execution thereof But sometimes it has been Decreed where it is intended a provision for younger Children The Lord Salisbury's Case MY Lord Salisbury married the Daughter of one Bennet who had two Daughters and bequeathed by his Will to each of them 20000l provided that if they or either of them married before the Age of Sixteen or if that the Marriage were without the Consent of such persons that they should lose 10000 l of the Portion and that the 10000 l should go to his other Children The Case was thus The Lord Salisbury married with one of the Daughters under the Age of 16. but with the Consent of all the parties It was urged That it being with Consent it might be at any Age. But my Lord Keeper was of Opinion that both parts must be observed Anonymus IN a Covenant to stand seised to the use of A. for life and after to two equally to be divided and to their Heirs and Assigns for ever My Lord Keeper declared his Opinion that the Inheritance was in Common as well as the Estate for life He said that it had been held that where the words were to two equally divided that should be in Common otherwise if the words were equally to be divided but since taken to be all one Nay a Devise to two equally will be in Common Here there shall not be such a Construction as to make one kind of Estate for life and another of the Inheritance and Survivorship is not favoured in prejudice of an Heir Note That if a Bill be Exhibited for the Examining of Witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam if the Plaintiff therein prays Relief the Bill shall be dismissed Termino Paschae Anno 1 Jac. II. In Cancellaria The Lord Pawlett's Case THe Lord Pawlett had made a Settlement of his Estate and had by the Deed charged his Lands with the payment of 4000 l apiece to be paid to his two Daughters at their respective Ages of 21 years or days of Marriage and reserved to himself a Power of otherwise ordering it by his Will And by his Will in Writing made at the same time or within a day after devised by these words viz. I give and bequeath to my two Daughters by name 4000 l apiece to be respectively paid unto them for their Portions in such manner as I have provided by the said Settlement and mentioned that he would be understood to mean only one 4000 l to each of his said Daughters and appointed to each of the Daughters 100 l per annum for Maintenance It hapned one of the Daughters died before Marriage or the Age of 21 years and my Lady Pawlett the Mother of the Daughters took out Letters of Administration to the Daughter that died and preferred a Bill against the Trustees for the 4000 l and the Heir to whom the benefit of the Lands after the Mony raised was appointed The Question solely was Whether this Mony should go to the Administratrix or the Land be discharged thereof and accrue to the benefit of the Heir It was agreed on all hands that if this had been a Legacy or a Sum of Mony bequeathed by the Will altho' the party had died before the Age of 21 or Marriage the Administrator should have had it and that is the Practice in the Ecclesiastical Court in case of Legacies The Legatee in such case is taken to have a present Interest tho' the time of payment be future My Lord Keeper mentioned the Reason to be because it Charges the Personal Estate which is in being at the time of the Testator's death and if the Legacy should by such an accident be discharged it would turn to the benefit of the Executors whereas the Testator did not probably so intend it And further it has been Ruled That altho' a Sum of Mony be devised out of Lands to be so paid at a future day the Death of the Legatee doth not lose it Tho' my Lord Keeper did not seem satisfied with the Reason of that Case but it having been so Decreed it was not good to vary to avoid Arbitrariness and Incertainties But here this Sum of Mony is appointed to be paid by the Deed and is a Trust charged upon Lands and Trusts are governed by the Intention of the party and that the Personal Estate is not Charged and this Sum of Mony doth not lye in demand by a Suit as where a Legacy is devised but only a Bill may be preferred to have the Trusts performed And tho' it was much insisted on for the Plaintiff that here the Will bequeaths this Mony yet that refers to the Deed and orders it to be paid in such manner as was thereby appointed And it was said to be the same with the Case of Bond and Richardson which was lately by my Lord Keeper thus Decreed being a Sum of Mony charged to be paid out of Land at such an Age. If a Settlement were made and Lands charged with such Sums of Mony as a Will should declare there the Will would be but Declarative and not Operative Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 1 2 Jac. II. In Cancellaria Frances Whitmore Vid ' Plaintiff versus Weld al' Defendants THe Case as it was drawn up upon Reference thereof by my Lord Keeper to the Judges of the Common Pleas for their Opinion was thus Viz. On the 18th of January 1675. William Whitmore the Elder taking notice that he had setled the major part of his Lands by Deed and being possessed of a very great Personal Estate in Mortgages Jewels Plate Bonds and other Goods and Chattels amounting in the whole to a very great Sum by Will in Writing devised several Legacies and after Wills in this manner Viz. The surplusage of my Personal Estate my Debts Legacies and Funeral Charges being paid and satisfied I give unto the Right Honourable William Earl of Craven for
Hazard a general Declaration good without setting forth Cross Considerations 175 A Promise to one Part being void cannot stand good as to the other 224 Attorney An Attorney has Priviledge to lay his Action in Middlesex because of his Attendance 47 Averment Whether an Agreement may be pleaded and averr'd to shew the meaning of the Parties and that the Condition of a Bond may be taken accordingly 108 Quarter-days may be averr'd upon these General Words The usual Feasts 141 Authority See Vmpire Where an Authority is once fully Executed the Power is determined Not so where there is a compleat Execution 115 Where a man is vested with a bare Authority his denial or refusal to execute it does not conclude him but that he may execute it afterwards 116 Secus where he is vested with an Interest 117 Award See Arbitrament B Bail See Pleading THe Plaintiff may release his Action after the Sheriff hath taken a Bail-Bond 131 Attachments out of Chancery within the Statute that enables the Sheriff to take Bail-Bonds 238 How far a Bail-Bond may vary from the Writ 238 Bankrupt Trover and Conversion brought by an Assignee of Commissioners of Bankrupts against one possest of Bankrupt's Goods 63 The Commissioners cannot assign Money levied at the Bankrupt's Suit in Execution remaining in the Sheriffs hands or in Court 95 A Bankrupt's Servant shall set forth an Account of the Bankrupts Estate in his Answer to a Bill in Chancery tho' he hath been already Examined before the Commissioners 358 Baron and Feme If a Woman be Warden of the Fleet and one in Prison there marry her he is thereby out of Prison and in the Eye of the Law at large being a Husband cannot be in Custody to his Wife 19 Battery brought for both and found only as to the Wife tho' they cannot joyn for beating both yet good after Verdict 29 That Baron and Feme Executrix devastaverunt converterunt ad usum iplorum good 45 In an Action brought against the Husband for Lodging and Goods had by the Wife after Elopement what Plea shall be good what not 155 Whether the Wife may joyn with her Husband in bringing Trespass Quare Clausum fregit where the Land is the Wives 195 A Supplicavit de bono gestu granted in Chancery against the Husband for ill Usage to his Wife 345 Bond or Bill Penal See Obligation By Law A Corporation cannot make a By-Law to bind those which are not of its Body without Act of Parliament or express Prescription 33 Whether a By-Law of the University of Oxford shall oblige the Townsmen 33 34 A Corporation cannot make a By-Law to have a Forfeiture levied by sale of Goods nor for Forfeiture of Goods 183 C Canons THose of 3 Jac. 1. of force tho' never confirm'd by Act of Parliament 44 What Canons of force what not ibid. Challenge To the Array because the Sheriff in 1687. had not taken the Test the Challenge disallow'd 58 Chancery See Covenant Mortgage Trial Limitations Executor An Infants Answer in Chancery by Guardian no Evidence at Law to affect the Infant 72 There can be no Process of Contempt in Chancery against a Peer 342 Purchaser without Notice of Incumbrance favour'd in Chancery 339. 343 Words of Conveyance passing more than was intended how relievable in Chancery 345 A Trust and Equitable Interest is a Creature of the Chancery and therefore disposable by the Rules of that Court 350 Where a man leaves his Estate under several Incumbrances if the Heir buys in any of the first they shall not by the Course of this Court stand in the Way of Creditors for more than the Heir really paid for them 353 Relieves an Heir against Extortion 359 What shall be admitted to be read in Chancery what not 361 Distribution of Intestates Estate upon the Statute of 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 10. may be sued for in Chancery 362 Where a Bill is Exhibited to examine in prepetuam rei memoriam the Plaintiff must not pray Relief 366 Commitment What Commitment of Justices of the Peace for refusing to find Sureties of Good Behaviour good what not 22 23 24 Condition Condition of a Bond not to give Evidence at the Assizes against Law and the Obligee ought to be prosecuted for taking such a Bond 109 Consideration See Vse Notice Grant Enrolment Marriage Mortgage Conveyance Conveyances at the Common Law not such as work by the Statute of Vses or Surrenders of Copy-holds divest the Estate out of him that makes them immediately and put it in the Party to whom such Conveyance is made tho' in his Absence or without his Notice till he shews his disagreement 201 What Acts are requisite in Conveyances at Common Law 201 202 Atricles to Settle decreed to be executed by the Heir at Law 343 A Voluntary Conveyance defective at Common Law rarely relieved in Chancery 365 Copyhold See Action on the Case In what Cases and when the Lord shall seize the Copyhold Estate of his Tenant for Felony or Treason 38 Lands do not appear to be Copy-hold by saying they were held according to Custom unless it be said at the Will of the Lord 144 A Copyholder in Pleading need not shew admittance where the Title does not come in question as in Avowry for Rent reserved from his Under Tenant 182 Corporation See By-Law A Corporation cannot prescribe in a Que Estate â— sed quere 186 Costs See Nonsuit The Court cannot allow double Costs unless the Judge of Assizes caused the Postea to be mark'd 45 Divers Trespasses assigned the Defendant pleads Not Guilty for some and Justifies for others and the Jury find for the Plaintiff in one Issue and for the Defendant on the other no more Costs than Damages 180 195 What Costs discharged by the General Pardon and what not 210 No Costs to either Party upon a Repleader 196 Full Costs in Trespass given where the Damage was under 40 s 215 Covenant See Grant Trespass An Attorney Covenants on behalf of another Person that the Plaintiff shall quietly Enjoy an Action of Trespass is brought against the Plaintiff Whether this is a Breach of the Covenant 46 61 62 In an Action of Covenant the Defendant cannot plead that the Plaintiff tempore quo nihil habuit in tenementis tho' such Plea in an Action of Debt for Rent is good 99 Where Lessee Covenants to build three Houses upon the Premisses and keep them in Repair he builds four and lets one fall to decay Whether the Covenant extends to the fourth 128 A Covenant which does not consist with the Recital that leads and occasions it shall not oblige 140 A Suit in Chancery to stay Waste no Breach of Covenant for quiet Enjoyment tho' the Bill be dismist with Costs 213 214 A Latter Covenant by a second Indenture cannot be pleaded in Bar to the former but the Defendant must bring his Action on the last Indenture if he will help himself 218 Custom See Fine D Damages See Costs Debt
See Rent IF part of a Debt upon Bond be received and an Acquittance given before the Action it is a Bar only of so much as was received but if after the Action brought it seems it may be pleaded in bar to the Whole 135 Whether an Action of Debt may be brought upon a Judgment pending a Writ of Error and whether the Defendant in such Action ought to Demur or plead Specially 261 A Consideration creates a Debt tho' that Debt be not reduced to a certain Sum as in the case of a Quantum meruit 282 Debt secured is Payment in Law 358 Devise See Tail Vse Of implicit Devises and where Lands shall pass by Implication in a Will and where not 56 57 A Reversion shall pass in a Will by the Words All my Hereditaments 286 Whether Money in the Court of Orphans be devisable 340 If Money be devised to one to be paid at his Age of 21 years if the Party dies before it shall go to his Executors but if Money be bequeathed to one at his Age of 21 years and he dies before the Money is lost 242 366 Where a Sum of Money is devised to a Child at such an Age it shall have the Interest in the mean time rather than the Executor shall swallow it especially when no Maintenance is otherwise provided 346 Devise to J.S. at the Age of 21 and if J.S. dies before 21 then to A A. dies after J. S. dies under 21 the Administrator of A. shall have it 347 If Lands be devised for payment of Debts and Legacies the Personal Estate shall notwithstanding as far as it will go by apply'd to the payment of Debts c. and the Land only make up the Residue 349 Where an Administrator shall have an Estate devised to an Infant and where not 355 356 A Sum of Money devised to be raised out of the Profits of his Lands the Profits will not amount to the Sum the Land may be sold 357 Diversity where a Child's Portion is devised out of Personal Estate and where to be raised out of Land 366 367 Distress Whether a Drover's Cattel put into a Ground belonging to a Common-Inn upon the Road to London may be distrained for Rent due from the Innkeeper 50 Leave given to mend the Conisans upon a Distress after a Demurrer paying Costs 142 A Distress may not be sever'd as Horses out of a Cart and therefore in some Cases a Distress of great Value may be taken for a small matter because not severable 183 Where one holds a Third part of certain Land and another two Third parts of the same Land undivided he who hath the One part cannot distrain the Cartel which were put in by Licence of him who hath the two Parts 228 283 E Ecclesiastical Court See Marriage WHether the Ecclesiastical Court may proceed against Conventicles or whether they be punishable only at the Common Law 41. They may 44 The legal Method of Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts 42 43 The Proceeding ex Officio 43 A Suit may be tryed in the Ecclesiastical Court upon a Prescription to Repair the Chancel so also for a Modus Decimandi 239 Ecclesiastical Persons A Curate incapable of taking an Estate devised in Succession for want of being Incorporate but the Heir of the Devisee shall hold the Estate in Trust for the Curate for the time being 349 Ejectment In Ejectment the Declaration of Michaelmass Term and the Demise laid 30 of October after the Term began 174 Elegit See Execution Enrolment A Deed where the Grant is exprest to be in Consideration of Natural Affection as well as Money need not be Enrolled but the Land will pass by way of Covenant to stand seised 150 Error See Debt Essoine Where several Tenants in a Real Action may be Essoigned severally 57 Regularly Proceedings in an Essoine in Dower 117 Estate What Words shall create a Tenancy in Common 265 266 Evidence See Action on the Case Chancery Exchange Bills of Exchange have the same Effect between others as between Merchants and a Gentleman shall not avoid the Effect by pleading He is no Merchant 295 310 The Custom of Bills of Exchange 307 310 Execution How the Sheriff ought to behave himself in Executing a Fieri facias 94 95 Whether Money paid for Goods taken upon a Fieri facias is properly paid to the use of the Sheriff or Plaintiff ibid. A Fieri facias was executed after the Party was dead upon the Goods in the hands of the Executor but Teste before tho' not delivered to the Sheriff till after This was a good Execution at the Common Law but quaere since the Statute of 29 Car. 2. cap. 3. 218 An Extent upon an Elegit being satisfied by perception of Profits he in Reversion may enter 336 Executor See Award Rent Waver And Executor may detain for a Debt due upon a simple Contract against a Debt grounded upon a Devastavit 40 Whether the Executor of a Bishop may bring an Action of Covenant for breach of a Real Covenant relating to Lands of the Bishoprick 56 Where a Woman disposes of Goods as Executrix in her own wrong if she takes Administration afterwards tho' before the Writ brought this will not hinder the Plaintiff from charging her as Executrix in her own wrong 180 An Executor in his own wrong cannot retain ibid. The Mother Executrix shall not discount for Maintenance and Education out of the Money left by the Father for the Mother ought to maintain the Child But Money paid for binding him Apprentice may be discounted 353 After an Executor assents to a Legacy he shall never bring it back again to pay Debts Secus where he is sued and pays by Decree in Chancery there the Legatee shall refund 358 Where an Executor pays a Debt upon a Simple Contract there shall be no refunding to a Creditor of a higher nature Vid. Legacy 360 Money decreed in Chancery to the Executor of an Administrator do bonis non and not the second Administrator de bonis non where no Debts appeared of the first Intestate 362 Minority as to Executorship determines at the Age of 17 and then a Personal Estate devised to such Executor vests in him 368 Exposition of Words Faldagium 139 The force of these Words in forma praedicta 215 F Fieri facias See Execution Fine WHere and how a Fine levied by a Feme-Covert shall be set aside and where the Commissioner who took it may be fined by the Court 30 A Fine acknowledged before the Revolution and Writ of Covenant sued out after allowed good 47 48 A Right to an Estate by Extent barr'd by a Fine and Non-claim 329. So also the Right to a Term for years ibid. Secus where a Statute is assigned in Trust to wait upon the Inheritance 330 Fine Customary What Customary Fine between Lord and Tenant shall be allow'd good upon Alienation 134 135 Forfeiture See Office Generally where a Statute gives a Forfeiture and not said to
whom the King shall have it unless there be a particular person grieved 188 189 267 268 A Forfeiture shall not bind in Equity where a thing may be done afterwards or Composition made for it 352 G Gaming See Assumpsit DIce Play not unlawful in it self tho' prohibited by several Statutes to certain persons and in certain places 175 Grant A Deed having no Execution to make it work as a Grant shall operate as a Covenant to stand seized 261. and by the Statute of Vses 266 Where Land is granted by Deed-Pool in Consideration of Natural Affection without Enrolment or Attornment whether it shall operate as a Covenant to stand seized or be void 318 H Habeas Corpus NO Habeas Corpus to be moved for in the Common Pleas unless it concerns a Civil Cause yet the contrary permitted in the case of an Attorney of that Court 24 Half-Blood The Half-Blood shall have equal Share with the Whole-Blood in Distribution upon the Statute of 22 23 Car. 2. c. 10. 317 Heir See Mortgage Heirs is Nomen collectivum and is sometimes so taken when 't is only Heir in the Singular Number 313 Heir and not Executor shall have the Surplusage of Lands leased for payment of Debts 359 I Infant INfants not foreclosed in Chancery till they come of Age 351 Intent No Exception to Vnum Vasum Vini Hispanici that is not said what the Vessel was made of for it is intended to be made of Wood 67 The Name of a Grantor omitted in an Indenrure supplied by Intendment 142 Racks in a Stable shall be intended to be fixt and need not to be shewn to be so in Pleading 214 Every Agreement must have some reasonable Construction that may may be consistent with the Intent of the Parties and therefore if a man agrees with another that he shall make a Drain through his Ground he shall not make it through the parties Stables or Buildings in case there are other places proper 278 In a Special Verdict nothing shall be intended that is not found 330 Imprisonment See Pleading Impropriation Whether a Rectory Impropriate being made a Lay-Fee can be sequestred by the Court Christian for not Repairing the Chancel 35 Ireland See Naturalization Of its Conquest and the Introducing the Laws of England there 4 The Power of an Act of Parliament in Ireland 5 K King See Forfeiture ALlegiance due to the Natural and not the Politick Person of the King 3 In case of things which are Nullius in Bonis where no visible Right appears the Law gives them to the King as Derelict Lands Treasure Trove Extra-parochial Tythes c. So where the Right is equal between the King and the Subject the Kings Title hath the Preference 268 The King is the Fountain of Justice and that as well Ecclesiastical as Civil and may by the Ancient Law of the Realm visit reform and correct Abuses in the Jurisdiction Spiritual 268 In what Cases Forfeitures are vested in the King before Office found and where not 270 L Law A Thing for which there is neither Practical Custom Judicial Precedent or Act of Parliament to warrant may well be judged to be against Law 7 The clearest way how to understand any Law is to consider what was the Judgment of those People among whom and the Times in which it was practical 17 To excite the People to the disobedience of a Law of a Publick Nature is the highest Offence under High Treason 23 Lease What Lease capable of a Release to work a Bargain and Sale 35 For 99 years if two Persons shall so long live determines upon the death of either 74 Legacy See Executor Legatees are to have their Proportion where the Assets fall short 358 Legatees shall refund against Creditors and if the Ecclesiastical Court give Sentence for a Legacy a Prohibition lies unless they take Security to refund 358 360 Licence See Distress Limitation See Original Mortgage Suit to recover a Depositum in Trust for a Feme Covert not barr'd by the Statute of Limitations 345 London Of the Custom of London relating to Orphans Money 340 341 M Market WHere a Market is granted to the Damage of another the Patent may be repeal'd in a Scire facias notwithstanding a Writ of Ad quod Damnum had been executed for the Return of that Writ was not conclusive 344 Marriage Whether a Man may marry his Great Uncle's Widow 9. He may 18 20 The four Statutes relating to Marriage expounded 11 infr Tho' the Stat. 32 H. 8. c. 38. allows all persons to Marry that are without the Levitical Degrees yet persons Pre-contracted or under a perpetual Impotence are prohibited to Marry 15 To Marry his Brother's Wife prohibited by the Statute tho' not by the Levitical Law 17. So of his Wives Sister ibid. Marriages in the ascending and descending Line prohibited without limit not so between Collaterals and the Reasons 18 The Ecclesiastical Courts have Conizance to punish persons Marrying within the Levitical Degrees but not to determine what is within the Levitical Degrees and what not 22 Agreements to settle in Consideration of Marriage favoured in Chancery 353 354 357 Marriage restrictions how to be observed 365 Mine If a Man opens a Mine in his own Land he may dig and follow the Vein under another Man's Ground 342 But if the Owner did there also he may stop his further progress ibid. Mortgage Where Lands are Mortgaged thrice over the third Mortgagee may buy in the first Incumbrance to protect his own Mortgage and he hath both Law and Equity for him 338 He shall hold the Land against the second Mortgagee until be be satisfied both the Money he paid the first Mortgagee and also his own which he lent upon the last Mortgage ibid. But where only Part of the Lands are mortgaged to the first and the whole to the second and after to the third here if the third buys in the first Title it shall protect only that part that is in the first Mortgage 339 A Purchaser or Mortgagee coming in upon a Valuable Consideration without Notice and purchasing in a precedent Incumbrance it shall protect his Estate tho' he purchased in the Incumbrance after Notice of a second Mortgage ibid. Mortgages not relievable in Chancery after 20 years for the Stat. 21 Jac. 1. c. 16. limits the time of Entry to that number of years and 't is best to square the Rules of Equity as near the Rules of Reason and Law as may be 340 Upon a Mortgage in Fee the Redemption Money shall be paid to the Executor and not to the Heir 348 351 Where by a Devise of all his Lands Lands in Mortgage pass 351 Where a man 's own Covenant shall restrain him from his Equity of Redemption and where it shall not 365 Murder Husband kills a Man in the act of Adultery with his Wife Manslaughter and not Murder the Provocation being exceeding great Vide the First Part of these Reports 158 N Naturalization WHether
upon that Attainder was penned as amply as this of 12 Car. and the Case of Warner and Harding Latch 25. is very like this W. Shelley enfeoffed divers to the use of himself for Life and afterwards to divers others upon Condition that if a Ring were delivered by the said William Shelley declaring that he intended those uses should be void that then c. it was resolved that nothing was forfeited but during his Life Rainsford I shall speak nothing to the Fraud because that is a pure matter of Fact which is to be found by the Jury and cannot in any Case be presumed by the Court. I am of Opinion that the Judgment ought to be affirmed The power of altering the Trusts reserved by the first Proviso is inseparable from the person of Simon Maine for it is to be by his Will in Moor 193. the Lord Pagetts Case It is resolved that inseparable Powers are not forfeited upon like words as are in this Act and so the second Proviso limits to him a double Power First Of revoking the old Trusts Secondly Of limiting new But this is to be done by Writing under his Hand and Seal in the presence of two Witnesses so the performance of this also is personal The D. of Norfolks Case is the very same unless for that it is there under his proper Hand and Seal and here under his Hand and Seal which certainly is all one But admitting this Power were forfeited yet it is not found that ever it was executed after it come to the King which must be before any Estate could come to the King therefore in Englefields Case it was found that a Ring was tendred in the behalf of the Queen And whereas it was objected That he had jus disponendi and therefore might Forfeit as a Man shall a Term which he hath in right of his Wife as Dame Hale's Case in Plowden is resolved I answer That here he hath not jus disponendi but rather potestatem disponendi but that is qualified and to be executed by certain Circumstances which must be performed to give it effect Twisden As to the Fraud I cannot see how the Jury could have found this fraudulent Settlement made to prevent a Forfeiture enacted by Parliament 20 years after which surely could not be without the Spirit of Prophecy I am of the same Opinion as to the matter with my two Brothers That Simon Maine had only a Trust in him during his own Life and if he had brought a Bill in Equity he could have had the Estate executed no further and therefore can Forfeit no more by this Act and it is not always that a Man that hath power over Land hath a Trust as we may sée in Cranmers Case Dier 308 309. there were as large words in the Act of his Attainder as here Indeed the Argument in Englefields Case 7 Co. rules this for if a Trust had béen implied in the power of Revocation they néeded to have argued that it should have been forfeited as a Condition so the D. of Norfolks Case for tho' the word Use is in that Act and not Trust as in this yet it makes no difference for an Use was then the same with what a Trust is now and tho' the word Power had béen in this Act yet there should have béen no Forfeiture in this case because the Execution of it is so personal and individual Neither is there found that ever there was any Execution and at most the Forfeiture could only be of what was in Simon Maine neither can Smith Execute it by virtue of his Grant from the King for the Kings Patent conveys nothing by implication and shall never work to a double intent Hale Chief Justice of the same Opinion First Crooke is a good Lessor for the other Trustees disagréement makes the Estate wholly his Secondly For the Circumstances of Fraud they are not material to be considered Thirdly The Trust is wholly disposed of after the Death of Simon Main so that he had nothing but during his Life Fourthly Then what is operated by the Attainder Why the Trust during Life is forfeited Vid. the E. of Somerset's Case Hob. 214. 2 Cro. 512. But then this Trust must have béen executed by the Court of Revenue 'T is true the Act doth not only give the Trust but the Term it self to the King that is during the Life of Simon Maine so that by this Act so much of the Term is drawn out of the Trustees as served the Trust which S. M. had but leaves the residue of the Term to serve the other Trusts so that the possibility of the Term returns to the Trustees after the Death of S. M. and this appears by the body of the Act. Also this appears by the saving in the Act. The first saving which saves all the Conveyances made by the Feoffor before the 29 of Sept. 1659. indeed might not help because Conveyances made to the Wives Children or Heirs are therein excepted But there the other Proviso saves the Right Interest c. of all persons whatsoever doth in Law and Equity not derived form the offenders since 25 Mar. 1646. and therein the Interest of Wife or Children and all are saved now this Estate was created before viz. 1643. I come now to the Provisoes The first Proviso determins nothing till the time of Simon Maine's Death and consequently this can revest no more to M. than he had before For the Condition is in expectation till he have a Son living at the time of his Death why then by this there comes nothing to S.M. so much as in point of Execution during his Life By his Will he might have limitted new Uses but he made none and 't is personal No other Man can make his Will Why then all stands as it did and nothing is made void till the time of his Death and then all is immediately executed to the Son by force of the first Conveyance But if the Proviso had béen That if S.M. had a Son there all had revested in S. M. and might have béen forfeited The last Proviso doth not create a Trust to him for if he had not béen Attainted the Trust should not have gon to his Executors c. No it creates a personal power of fetching back the former and declaring new Trusts observing the circumstances upon the same reason that this Estate can be forfeited a bare Executor I mean without a Devise of the residue might forfeit his Estate this is a Power yea and 't is a manacled Power it is a kind of Trust that he may revoke The D. of Norfolks Case is the same with this So Harding and Warners Case which was adjudged in C. Banco tho' there there were two to two and it was confessed by the Kings Attorney in Scaccario and the Kings Attorney doth not use to confess Judgment in Cases of great moment without consultation with the Judges This power was not nor could be passed to the