as other Writs and Praecipes are returnable in any Court but the Queen her self from whom originally it came shall receive it and also the Message upon it and she her self in such case is Iudge of the contempt and no Record of that Privy Seal doth remain in any Court but the Queen her self shall keep it and then when the Queen is informed of the contempt she makes a Warrant somtimes to the Chancellor to award a Commission somtimes to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer to the same purpose to seize the Lands and that Warrant is signed with the Seal manual of the Queen and the Queen may certifie and set down the cause of such seizure in such Warrant and no other Certificate is made by the Queen and the Queen may certify the same Commission by word of mouth and if the other party will say that the Queen hath not certified it he shall be concluded by the commission which is under the great Seal and diverse Prsidents were shewed openly in Court to that effect And all the matter aforesaid was agreed by the Chancellor Treasurer and the said Iustices and no certificate at all needs to be in the Case and then a superfluous Certificate being nought shall not hurt for Nugation is surplusage Another matter was to consider what interest the Queen hath in the Lands of Fugitives by the common Law And as to that they were all clear of opinion Fugitives that the Queen in such case as aforesaid may seize and assign her interest over And that such Assignees may grant Copy-holds parcel of the Manor assigned which grants shall bind him who cometh in after cum manus Domini regis amoventur and also when the Statutes of 13 and 14 Eliz. come Dy. 375 b. the Statutes do not amend the estate of the Queen but the estate of the Queen doth continue as before and all the Estates under it And there was shewed unto the Court divers Presidents of seizures in such Cases 18 E 2. Edmond de Woodstock Earl of Kent went beyond Sea without Licence of the King and he went with Robert de Mortimer and the King did certifie the same into the Chancery reciting that he had sent his Privy Seal c. but that the said Edmond spretis mandatis nostris redire recusavit upon which issued a commission to seize c. And it was holden that the Queen having seised hy force of the common Law and making a grant of a Copy-hold out of it now when the Statutes of 13 14 Eliz. are made she hath not any estate thereby for she had such interest before and this new seisure after the Statutes works nothing and nothing accrues to her thereby whereof she can make a seisure For she hath departed with the whole before See 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. And note that the grant of the Queen in the case at Bar was quamdiu in manibus nostris fore contigerit And afterwards Iudgment was given that judicium praedictum in omnibus affirmetur XIII Sutton and Dowses Case Ter. Mich. 25 26 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. SUtton Vicar of Longstoke Libelled against Dowse in the spiritual Court Tithes and shewed in his Libel that upon the Erection and Endowment of his Vicaridge four quarters of Corn were assigned to the Vicar out of the Granary of the Prior of B. of the Tithes of the Parson of Longstoke and that the Parson or Fermor of the said Rectory of Longstoke had always paid the said four Quarters of Corn to the said Vicar and all his Predecessors and alledged further that the Lord Sands was seised of the said Rectory and leased the Barn and Tithe-Corn parcel of the said Rectory to the said Dowse his Wife and Son Habendum to Dowse for Term of his life the Remainder to the Wife for Term of her life the Remainder to the Son for life And shewed further that the said Dowse had covenanted with the said Lord Sands to render the said four Quarters of Wheat to the Vicar and his Successors upon which Dowse procured a Prohibition and Sutton prayed a Consultation and it was moved in stay of the Consultation that the Vicar had Libelled upon a Covenant wherein Dowse is taxed to pay the said Corn and that is a lay Title and determinable by the Law of the Land and not in the Ecclesiastical Court But as to that the opinion of the Court was that the Libel is not grounded upon the covenant as the sole Title to the said Corn against Dowse but upon the Endowment of the Vicaridge and the Lease by which Dowse is become Fermor of the Rectory Another matter was moved because that upon the Libel it appeareth that the Lease aforesaid made by the Lord Sands was made to Dowse his Wife and his Son joyntly in the Premisses Habendum ut supra in which case it was objected that Dowse his Wife and his Son are all three Fermors of the said Barn and Tithes joyntly in possession against all whom Sutton ought to have Libelled c. and not against Dowse only for the Habendum hath not severed their estates which were joynt before Co. 1 Iust 783 l. qund tota curia negavit for the Habendum hath severed the joynt estates limited by the Premisses and hath distinguished it into Remainders but if the Habendum had been Habendum successive the estate had remained joynt Another matter was moved because it appeareth upon the Libel that the Parson or Fermor of the said Rectory ought to pay to the Vicar the said Corn and also it appeareth upon the matter that Dowse is not Parson nor Fermor of the said Rectory for the Lord Sands had leased to Dowse and his Son only the Barn and the Tith-Corn parcel of the said Rectory so as Dowse is Fermor but of parcel of the Rectory and the residue of the Rectory doth remain in the Lord Sands in which the said Sut. ought to have Libelled against the Lord Sands and Dowse and not against Dowse only And for that cause the Consultation was denyed And in this case it was further agreed by the Court that if upon a Libel in the spiritual Court the Defendant makes a surmise in Banco to have a Prohibition if such surmise be insufficient the other party needeth not to demur upon it and to have it entred upon Record but as amicus Curiae he shall shew the same to the Court and the Court shall discharge him XIV Punsany and Leaders Case Mich. 25 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. OSmond Punsany brought an Action upon the case against Leader and declared Prescription of Foldage that one Bedingfield was seised of the Manor of D. and that he and all those whose estate he hath in the said Manor time out of mind have had Libertatem Faldagij cursum Ovium in the Town of D. pro meliori pasturatione omnium Ovium suorum the Inhabitants of the said Town having any
extend ad veritatem facti which is set forth in the Avowry but only to reputation and so both stand together well enough Rent charge parcel of a Mannoâ— And that a Rent charge may be parcel of a Manor see 22 E 3. 13. 31. E 3. 23. in the Lord Tiptofts Case where it is ruled that title made to a Rent charge as parcel of a Manor is a good title and the Assize awarded upon it and in our Case the Reputation is enforced by the sute at the Court which was also reserved upon the said Feoffment together with the said Rent so as the intent of the parties to the Feoffment was that this Rent so reserved and accompanyed with the said sute shall be esteemed a Rent service and so parcel of the Manor and as to the continuance of Reputation it sufficeth if at the time of the bargain and sale aforesaid which was 26 H 8. it was by many reputed parcel of the Manor and he cited the Case of the Marquess of Winchester The King gave to his Ancestor the Manor of Dale and all lands then antea reputed parcel of the said Manor and in a Bill of Intrusion against the said Marquess he pleaded the grant with averment that the Land then antea reputed parcel Manerii praedict And because he did not shew certainly at what time the Land was reputed parcel of the Manor Iudgment was given for the Queen for it might be for any thing in his Plea that the said Land was reputed parcel of the said Manor before time of memory which Reputation would not serve but such Reputation ought to be within time of memory and understanding He cited also the Case of the Earl of Leicester King Edward the sixth seised of the Manor of Clibery of which a Wood was parcel granted the said Wood in Fee which afterwards escheated to the King for Treason Queen Mary granted the said Wood to another in Fee who granted it to the now Queen who granted the said Manor omnes boscos modo vel ante hac cognit vel reputat ut pars membr vel parcel Maner praedict to the Earl of Leicester and it was resolved in the Exchequer that by that grant the said Wood did pass to the Earl and Iudgment was given against the Queen Dy. 362 â— for it was part of the Manor in the time of E 6. at which time an t ' hac without the word unquam shall be extended ad quoddamcunque tempus praeteritum And Reputation needs not so ancient a Pedigree for to establish it for general acceptance will produce reputation As the house of the Lord Treasurer now called Tibould was of late a private Manor but now hath a new name by which it is known and that within these twenty years which is not so long a time as we have alleged for our Reputation and would pass in a conveyance by such name so None-such But as to Reputation I conceive that Reputation is not what this or what that man thinketh Reputation quid but that which many men have said or thought who have more reason to know it quaenam est inter illos reputatio There was a Case ruled in the Exchequer 13 Eliz. in a Bill of intrusion the Case was that King Hen. 6. was seised of a Manor to which a Neif was regardant who purchased Lands which the King seised and let by Copy as parcel of the said Manor and so continued until the time of E 6. who granted the same to Allice Hardwick and all Lands Tenements reputed parcel of the said Manor And it was adjudged that the said Land so purchased by the said Neif and demised by Copy did pass by the said grant to Hardwick And afterwards the same Term the Iustices without any solemn Argument shewed their opinions in the principal Case viz. That this Rent did not pass by the bargain and sale made as above by Anthony Wingfield to Bohan father of the Avowant for here in the premisses of the Avowry is not any matter set forth importing Reputation or by which it may appear that the Rent in question was ever reputed parcel of the said Manor but rather to the contrary and the bare averment of Reputation in the conclusion of the Avowry is not sufficient to induce Reputation But if the Avowant had set forth in his Avowry any special matter to induce the Court to conceive a Reputation upon the matter of the Avowry as to shew that the Bayliffs of the said Manor had always received the said Rent as parcel of said Manor and as Bayliffs of the said Manor had accounted for it as parcel of the Manor and that the Lessees of the said Manor had enjoyed the said Rent as parcel of the said Manor the same had been good matter to induce a Reputation to have incorporated the said Rent with the said Manor and so judgment was given against the Avowant and of such opinion as was affirmed by Wray was Anderson chief Iustice of the Common Pleas and Manwood chief Baron of the Exchequer XIX Cham and Dovers Case Pasch 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Ejectione firmae IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was that one Michel was seised of the Manor of D. within which diverse parcels of Land part of the said Manor where customary Tenements demised and demisable by copy c. according to the Custom of the said Manor for one two or three lives within which Manor there was a Custom scil that the Lord of the Manor for the time being might grant Copy-hold estates for life in Reversion The Lord granted such Lands for life by copy in possession took a wife and granted the same Copy-hold to a stranger in Reversion for life and died the Copy-holder in possession died the Land demised by copy is inter alia assigned to the Wife for her Dower who had Iudgment to recover in a Writ of Dower who entred and made a Lease thereof to the Defendant who entred against whom the Lessee of the Copy-holder brought Ejectione firmae Custom ad pasturandum non ad colendum and all this matter was found by Verdict and further found that every Copy-holder of the said Manor might Lease his Copy-hold for a year ad pasturandum sed non ad colendum and that the Lease made to the Plaintiff was for a year ad pasturandum 1. Cro. 469. Wells versus Partridge Post 100. Popham Attorny General of Council with the Defendant took exception to the Declaration because the Plaintiff had declared a Lease at the common Law and the Iury have found a Lease by the custom which cannot stand together And such a Verdict doth not maintain the Declaration as if the Plaintiff had declared upon a Lease for years of Lands and the Iury found a devise for years c. but the exception was disallowed by the Court. As to the matter in Law he argued that the Tenant in Dower should
hold the Land discharged of the Copy-hold for her life and he put this case If the Lord of such a Manor taketh a Wife a Copy-holder for life dieth the Lord grants a Rent-charge out of the customary land and afterwards grants the said land by copy for life dieth the wife shall hold the land discharged of the Rent but the Copy-holder shall be charged and he put a difference where the Lord grants such Copy-hold in possession and where in Reversion for in the first case the Wife shall hold charged but contrary in the last And he cited the Case of one Slowman who being Lord of a Manor ut supra by his Will devised that his Executors should grant estates by Copy 2. Len 109. and died having a Wife the Executors make estates accordingly Dower discharged of a grant of Copy-hold the Wife in case of Dower shall avoid them Plowden contr the Lord of such a Mannor is bound by recognisance and afterwards a Copy-holder for life of the said Mannor dieth the Lord grants his Copy-hold de novo the said new Grantee shall hold his Copy-hold discharged of the Recognisance which Gawdy Iustice granted and by Wray if the Lord of such a Manor grants a Copy-hold for three lives takes a Wife the three lives end the Lord enters and keeps the lands for a time and afterwards grants them over again by copy and dieth the copy-holder shall hold the Land discharged of the Dower and this is a clear case for the copy-holder is in by the custom which is paramount the title of Dower and the Seisin of the Husband and by him in the case of the Earl of Northumberland 17 Eliz. Dyer 344. That the grant of a copy-hold in Reversion by the Earl of Northumberland doth not make such an impediment as was intended in the condition there for it is by the custom and not by the act of the party And afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff that he and his Lessor should hold the lands discharged of the Dower XX. Fringe and Lewes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt by Fringe against Lewes upon a Bond who pleaded Debt that the condition was that whereas the Defendant was Executor to one Morris Degle that if the Defendant should perform observe fulfil and keep the Will of the said Morris Degle in all points and Articles according to the true intent and meaning thereof that then c. and pleaded further that the said Morris by the said Will bequeathed to the Poor of such a Town ten pounds to be distributed amongst them and also to the Church-wardens of the Parish ten pounds and to I S. three pounds and that he had distributed the said ten pounds to the Poor and that he had paid the ten pounds to the Church-wardens and as to three pounds Uncore priâ—â— a good Plea. he said that he is and always was ready to pay the same to the said I. S. if he had demanded it upon which there was a demurrer And as to the ten pounds to be distributed amongst the Poor the same was holden good enough without shewing the names of the Poor amongst whom the mony was distributed so the pleading of the first payment to the Church-wardens was sufficient without nameing of them See 42 E 3. brief 539. Scire facias out of a Recovery against Executors and the Writ was challenged because it was Scire facias Executors not naming their proper names It was holden to be no exception for Executors are as a corporation known in that they are Executors and as to the third part of the Plea scil always ready and yet is the plea is well enough for this Obligation the Condition of which being general to perform the Will c. Poph. 10â— hath not altered the nature of the payment of the Legacy but the same remains payable in such manner as before upon request and not at the peril of the Defendant See 22 H 6. 57 58. 11 E 4 10. 6 E 6. Br. Tender 60. And afterwards the same Term the Court was clear of opinion and so delivered the Law to the Counsel on both sides that in this case the Legacies are to be paid upon request and not at the peril of the Executors in such manner as they were before the Obligation and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff XXI Sir John Smith and Peazes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SIr John Smith brought Debt upon an Obligation against Peaze who pleaded that the Bond was upon condition to perform covenants contained in an Indenture and shewed what and that he had performed them the Plantiff assigned the breach of one covenant that where the Plaintiff had leased to the Defendant for years certain messuages by the same Indenture the Defendant by the same Indenture did covenant to repair all the said Messuages Covenant alia quam quae appunctuatae forent divelli per script dicti Johannis Smith and shewed further that the Defendant had not repaired the said Messuages to him demised as aforesaid and averred that the said house in which the breach of the covenant is assigned non fuit durante termino praedicto appunctuata divelli and upon that matter of reparation they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Averment in the Replication was not sufficient for the Lease was made in November to begin the Michael after Averment and it might be that the Messuage in the not repairing of which the breach of the covenant is assigned was appointed to be pulled down scil divelli before the Term for years began and then the Defendant is not bound to repair it and then the breach of the covenant is not well assigned and so the Averment doth not answer the exception and because this clause alia quam is in the body of the Covenant it ought to be satisfied by him who pleads it scil by him who assigns the breach in the Covenant in which the exception is contained As by the Lord Dyer in his argument in the argument of Stowels Case reported by Plowden 376. Where a man pleaded the Feoffment of Cestuy que use he ought to plead that Cestuy que use at the time of the Feoffment was of full age sanae memoriae c. for that is within the purview contr upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. in pleading of a Fine for that is in a clause by it self which conceit of Plowden the Lord Wray denyed to be Law for he said he that pleads the Feoffment of Cestuy que use or a Fine according to the Statute of 4 H. 7. shall not be driven to shew that the Feoffor or Conusor at the time of the Feoffment or Fine levyed was of full age c. but he who comes in by such Fine 〈◊〉 21 or Feoffment shall shew the same for his own advantage And
the remainder to the use of John Father of the Plaintiff in tail the Grandfather died the Father entred Feoffments and by Indenture by words of bargain and sale without any words of Dedi concessi conveyed the Lands to the use of A. in Fee and in the same Indenture was a Letter of Attorney to make Livery which was made accordingly and the said A. by the said Indenture covenanted that if the said John should pay before such a day to the said A. forty shillings that then the said A. and his Heirs would stand seised c. to the use of the said John and his Heirs and if the said John did not pay c. then if the said A. did not pay to the said John within four days after ten pounds that then the said A. and his Heirs from thenceforth shall be seised to the use of the said John and his Heirs c. and the said John covenanted further by the said Indenture to make such further assurance as the Council of the said John should advise Each party failed of payment John levied a Fine to A. without any consideration it was adjudged upon this matter a good Feoffment well executed by the Livery Hob. 151. Dyer 361. a More 194. Post 195 196 197. More 35. b. notwithstanding that the words of the conveyance are only by bargain and sale and that the Covenant to be seised to the new uses upon payment and not payment being in one and the same deed should raise the use upon the contingency according to the limitation of it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly XXXII Bedows Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bill sealed against one Bedow he demanded Dyer of the Bill which was Memorandum that I John Bedow have agreed to pay to R. S. the Plaintiff twenty pounds and thereupon there was a Demurrer first that the Deed wanted the words In cujus rei testimonium c. but notwithstanding that the Court held the Deed good and said so it was lately adjudged Another matter was because the words of the contract are in the preter Tense I have agreed but notwithstanding that exception the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover as by Wray these words dedi concessi according to the Grammatical sence imply a gift precedent but yet they are used as words of a present conveyance Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXXIII Marsh and Smiths Case Pasch 27. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 38. 39. GEorge Marsh brought a Replevin against Smith and Paget who make Conusans as Baylies to Ralph Bard and upon the pleading the Case was That Sir Francis Askew was seised of the Mannor of Castord in his Demesne as of Fee which Mannor did extend unto Daston North-kelsey Grants Mannor 2 Len. 41 42. South-kelsey D. and C. and had demesnes and services parcel of the said Mannor in each of the said Towns and so seised granted totum manerium suum de North-kelsey in North-kelsey to the said Bard and his Heirs and granted further all his Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in North-kelsey and to that grant the Tenants in North-kelsey did attorn And the Land in which the said Distress was taken is in North-kelsey the only question in the case was if by this grant to Ralph Bard a Mannor passed or not And the case was argued by the Iustices And Periam Iustice argued That upon this grant no Mannor passed for before the grant there was no Mannor of North-kelsey or in North-kelsey therefore no Mannor can pass but the Lands and services in North-kelsey shall pass as in gross for they were not known by a Mannor but for parcel of a Mannor And a Mannor is a thing which cannot be so easily created Mannor what it is for it is an Hereditament which doth consist of many real things and incorporated together before time of memory common reputation cannot be intended of an opinion conceived within three or four years but of long time And appendancy cannot be made presently but by a long tract of time As an Advowson in gross cannot be made by an Act appendant and the Queen her self by her Letters Patents cannot make a Mannor at this day à multo fortiori a subject cannot and the Queen cannot by her Letters Patents without an Act of Parliament annex a Mannor to the Dutchy of Lancaster which see 1 Ma. Dyer 95. And where it is usual that the Queen doth grant Lands Reputation tenendum de manerio suo de East Greenwich in communi soccagio if upon the death of such a Grantee without heir the said Land doth revert unto the Queen in point of Escheat the said Land shall not be parcel of the said Mannor for the Land was not parcel of the Mannor in truth but in reputation And he cited a case that the Lord Sturton was seised of the Mannor of Quincamore and was also seised of the Mannor of Charleton which was holden of the said Mannor of Quincamore The Lord Sturton was attainted of Felony and afterwards Queen Mary gave the said Mannor of Quincamore to Sir Walter Mildmay cum omnibus suis juribus parcellis it was adjudged that the Mannor of Charleton did pass for it is now become parcel of the Mannor of Quincamore and I grant that things which go with the Land shall pass well enough As if the Queen grant to three Coparceners of three Mannors 1 Inst 122. a 32 â—â— 6 11. the liberty of Warren in all the said three Mannors they afterwards make partition so as each Coparcener hath a Mannor and the one of them grants her Mannor the Grantee shall have Warren Grants of the King. But if the Queen grant a Leet ut supra and the Coparceners make Partition and each of them hath a Mannor she shall not have also a Leet but the Leet which was grantted doth remain in common and there shall not be there upon such partition several Leets And also I grant that in the case of two Coparceners of a Mannor if to each of them upon partition be allotted demeans and services each of them hath a Mannor for they were compellable to make partition by the common Law being in by descent See 26 H. 8. 4. 9 E. 4. 5. contrary of Ioynt-tenants for they are in by purchase and were not compellable by the common Law to make partition and therefore upon partition betwixt them a Rent cannot be reserved for the equality of the partition And in every Manor a Court is requisite for a Court Baron is incident to a Manor Court Baron but a Court cannot at this day be founded or erected but it ought to be of long time And in our Case no Court hath ever been holden in North-kelsey And if I be seised of the Manor of B. which extends into C. and B. and I grant my Manor of B. in D. now a Manor
passeth and doth extend into D. and the residue which is in C. shall remain in me in gross v. 9 E. 4. 17. Catesby And if I be seised of a Manor which doth consist of services and of twenty Free-holders and one hundred Acres of Demesnes and I grant the services of my twenty Free-holders and forty or twenty Acres of the said one hundred Acres a Manor shall pass although it was not granted by the name of a Manor but if I grant the services of three four or five of my Free-holders and forty or twenty of the said one hundred Acres upon such a grant no Manor shall pass Windham Iustice contrary We are not here to speak of the creation of a Manor that is a forraign matter but we are here to consider upon the division and apportionment of a Manor They that have argued in this case at the Bar have stood much upon the words of the Conveyance manerium suum de North-kelsey and that Sir Fr. Askew at the time of that assurance had not any Manor of North-kelsey or in North-kelsey but that is not any reason for if Cestuy que use mean between the Statute of 1 E. 3. 27 H. 8. will make a Feoffment of the Manor which was in use by these words manerium suum the same had been good and yet it is not manerium suum but the Manor of the Feoffees but it may be said suum by receiving of the profits according to the trust and confidence reposed in the Feoffees so in our case in as much as Sir Fr. Askew had before this grant aswell demesnes as services in North-kelsey it may collaterally be said a Manor there and notwithstanding that tempore concessionis proprie loquendo no Manor was in North-kelsey yet now upon operation of the Law upon this grant a new Manor shall rise for in divers cases where a thing which was not in esse before upon a grant may rise As if I grant unto you out of my Land a Rent de novo And also a thing which was not in esse before may upon a grant take upon it a new nature As if I. seised of a great Wood grant to you Estovers out of it they were not before in me but as Woods and Trees now by this grant they are become Estovers in the Grantee so as they are in the Grantee in another nature than they were in me So in our case although North-kelsey was not a Manor in Sir Fr. Askew yet now upon the grant it is a Manor in Bard 9 E. 4. 17. And as to the matter which hath been objected because a Court cannot now begin the same is not any reason for the Court Baron is incident to the Manor and also to every part of the Manor and transitory through the whole Manor and if Sir Fr. Askew had sold all the demsnes of the Manor in Castord where the Court Baron for the said Manor had always been held and not else-where yet such a Court might be holden in any part of the Demeans in any other of the said Towns The Lord Anderson to the same purpose It hath been argued of the other side that the Manor doth not pass because the grant is in these words manerium de North-kelsey in North-kelsey I conceive that these words de North-kelsey are void as matter of surplusage and the grant shall be construed as if the words had been manerium suum in North-kelsey And a Manor is such a thing as may be determined divided and suspended As if the Lord of a Manor leaseth for years all the Demeans of the Manor the Manor is suspended during the term for years as lately it hath been adjudged And a warranty may be divided as if a Feoffment in Fee be made to two with warranty and the one of them releaseth the warranty vide L. 5. E. 4. 103. A. seised of a Manor which extendeth in four Towns B. C. D. and E. and he gives his Manor in B. C. and D. by this gift the Manor and all that is in the said four Towns passeth And he cited also a Case 21 E. 4. 3. The Lord of a Manor erected a Chapel within his said Manor as a Chapel of Case c. and afterwards it is a Parish-Church now it is become presentable an Advowson appendant as the soil upon the which the Church is built is parcel of the Manor See 32 H. 6. 9. One Manor may be parcel of another Manor as A. holdeth of B. twenty acres of Land as of his Manor of C. which Manor B. holdeth of D. as of his Manor of E. B. dieth without Heir so as his Manor of C. is escheated unto D. now the twenty acres are holden of the Manor of C. as they were before and the Manor of C. is by the Escheat become parcel of the Manor of E. and by Lease of the Manor of E. it shall pass Post 32. And I do not know any difference between the Case of Parceners and the Case of Ioynt-tenants for now they are both equally compellable to make partition And he cited the Case of one Estopp lately adjudged viz. the Queen was seised of the Rectory of D. which extended into the Counties of Lincoln and York and the Queen granted her Rectory of D. in Lincoln these are several grants and now upon the matter they are become several Rectories And as to that which hath been objected concerning a Court Baron which ought to belong to this new Manor and that such a Court cannot now at this day be erected and therfore here cannot be a Manor here needs not the erection of any new Court but forasmuch as the Court Baron before this grant might be by Law holden in any place within the Manor therefore every part of the Demeans of the Manor is capable of a Court to be holden there As where one is seised of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant now is the Advowson appendant not only to the said Manor but to every part of it for if he alien an acre parcel of the Manor with the Advowson the Advowson is now appendant to the said acre See 43 E. 3. 26. So in the Case at Bar because this liberty and franchise of a Manor is throughout the whole Manor and in every part of the Services and Demesnes upon this grant of the Services and Demesnes in North-kelsey and of his Manor in North-kelsey a Manor passeth which Windham also granted and agreed unto Note at this time there were but three Iudges in this Court And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant XXXIV Alington and Bales Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench Rot. 584. 1 Cro. 660. 661. ALington and others Executors of Sir W. Cordel late Master of the Ross brought an Action Debt against Bales The Case was this One Bream being seised of certain Lands by Indenture bargained and sold the same to one Platt by these words give grant bargain sell and by
did not lie in the said Court. 18 Eliz. Dyer 250. F. B. 22. That upon Erronious Iudgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland Error shall be brought in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. Fenner who was of Council with the Archbishop demanded of the Court how and in what manner the Record shall be remanded to the Iustices of Assize so as the Archbishop might have execution To which the Court said that the surest way is to have a Certiorare out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by Mittimus to the Iustices of Assize But Fenner made a difficulty of it to take such course for the remanding of it for doubt they would not allow it to be a Record where it is not a Record for upon the matter the Record is not removed but remains with the Iustices of Assize Then Anderson said Sue Excution out of the said Record but because the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall be also removed and remanded by Writ and so it was LXX Kempe and Carters Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THomas Kempe brought Trespass Copyhold for breaking of his Close against Carter and upon pleading they were at issue if the Lord of the Manor aforesaid granted the said Lands per copiam rotulorum curiae manerii praedict secundum consuetudinem manerii praedict and it was given in Evidence that within the said Manor were divers customary Lands and that the Lord now of late at his Court of the said Manor granted the Land c. per copiam rotulorum curiae where it was never granted by copy before It was now holden by the whole Court that the Iury are bound to find Dominus non concessit for notwithstanding that de facto Dominus concessit per copiam rotulorum curiae yet non concessit secundum consuetudinem manerii praedict for the said Land was not customary nor was it demisable for the custom had not taken hold of it In the same Case it was also shewed that within the said Manor some customary Lands are demiseable for life only Evidence of customs and some in Fee and it was said by the Lord Anderson that he who will give in Evidence these several customs ought to shew the several limits in which the several customs are severally running as that the Manor extends into two Towns and that the Lands in one of the said Towns are grantable for lives only and the Lands in the other in Fee and he ought not to shew the several customs promiscuè valere through the whole Manor And he remembred a Case of his own experience scil The Manor of Wadhurst in the County of Sussex consisted of two sorts of Copy-hold scil sook-Sook-land and Bond-land and by several customs disseverable in several manners As if a man be first admitted to Sook-land and afterwards to Bond-land and dieth seised of both his Heir shall inherit both but if he be first admitted to Bond-land and afterward to Sook-land and of them dieth seised his youngest Son shall inherit and if of both simul semel his eldest Son shall inherit But if he dieth seised of Bond-land only it shall descend to the youngest and if customary Land hath been of ancient time grantable in Fee and now of late time for the space of forty years hath granted the same for life only yet the Lord may if he please resort to his ancient custom and grant it in Fee. It was also moved in this case If customary Land within a Manor hath been grantable in Fee if now the same Escheat to the Lord and he grant the same to another for life the same was holden a good grant and warrantable by the custom and should bind the Lord for the custom which enables him to grant in Fee shall enable him to grant for life and after the death of the Tenant for life the Lord may grant the same again in Fee for the grant for life was not any interruption of the custom c. which was granted by the whole Court. LXXI Walker and Nevils Case Pasch 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower WAlker and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Jervice Nevil and judgment was given upon Nihil dicit and because the first Husband of the Wife died seised a Writ of Enquiry of Damages was awarded by which it was found that the Land which she ought to have in Dower the third part was of the value of eight pound per annum and that eight years elapserunt a die mortis viri sui proximè ante inquisitionem assident damna to eight pounds and it appeared upon the Record that after Iudgment in the Writ of Dower aforesaid the Demandants had execution upon habere facias seisinam Damages so as it appeareth upon the whole Record put together that damages are assessed for eight years where the Demandants have been seised for part of the said eight years upon which the Tenant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error because damages are assessed untill the time of the Inquisition where they ought to be but to to the time of the Iudgment but the Exception was not allowed Another Error was assigned because that where it is found that the Land was of the value of eight pounds per annum they have assessed damages for eight years to eighty pounds beyond the Revenue for according to the rate and value found by verdict it did amount but to sixty four pounds but that Error was not also allowed for it may be that by the long detaining of the Dower the Demandants have sustained more damages than the bare Revenue c. Another Error was assigned because Damages are assessed for the whole eight years after the death of the Husband where it appeareth that for part of the said years the Demandants were seised of the Lands by force of the Iudgment and execution in the Writ of Dower and upon that matter the writ of Error was allowed LXXII Archpool against the Inhabitants of Everingham Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of Huy and Cry by Archoopl against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Everingham the Iury found that the Plaintiff was robbed 2 Januarii post occasum solis sed per lucem diurnam and that after the Robbery committed the Plaintiff went to the Town of Andover and advertised the Baylies of the said Town of the said Robbery and further found that the said Town of Andover is not within the said Hundred of Everingham and that there is another Town nearer to the place where c. the Robbery was done than the said Town of Andover within the said Hundred but the said Town of Andover was the nearest place where c. by the Kings high-way It was moved that upon this matter the Plaintiff should not have judgment
of the Informer And afterwards by Award of the Court it was ruled that that Entry by the Attorney is not any Barr quoad the Informer so if the Queen be Nonsuit so the Nonsuit of the Informer is no Barr against the Queen And Wray said that such was the opinions of Anderson and Gawdy Iustices c. CLXII The Queen against Lewis Green and others Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Intrat Hill. 30 Eliz. Rot. 10. AN Information for the Queen against Lewis Green and others Grants of the King. 2 Roll. 51. 1 Co. 46. The Case was King E. 6. was seised of the Manor of Stepneth and twenty acres of Lands in Stepneth called Stepneth Marsh and of another Marsh also called Stepneth Marsh and granted unto the Lord Wentworth and his Heirs the Manor of Stepneth in the County of Midd. Nec non mariscam in Stepneth appel Stepneth Marsh in com praedict nec non omnia terr ten eidem Manerio five premissis pertinent And if twenty Acres called Stepneth Marsh not parcel of the said Manor pass or not was the Question Cook that they shall pass Here this grant doth consist of three parts 1. The grant of the Manor 2. Nec non mariscum in Stepneth 3. Nec non omnia terras tenementa dicto Manerio sive praemissis pertinen And by the second clause these twenty acres shall pass be the same parcel or not and the latter words cannot refer to that for it is certainly expressed before And the case lately agreed in the Court of Wards betwixt Bronker and Robotham was cited which was That the King being seised of the Manor of Sandridge and Newnam parcel of the possessions of the Monastery of Saint Albans and part of the Manor of Newnam extended into the Parish of Sandridge and the King granted the Manor of Sandridge nec non omnia terras tenementa sua in Sandridge dicto nuper Monasterio pertinen nec non omnia terras tenementa sua dicto Manerio de Sandridge pertinen By which grant although that the latter clause doth restrain it to the Manor of Sandridge yet the general words of the second clause shall extend to make pass all the whole Manor of Newnam which extended into the Parish of Sandridge a Decree was in the said Court accordingly Hob. 175. 303. Dy. 207. 6 Co. 39. At another day the case was argued and the case put to be thus King E. 6. was seised of the Manor of Hackney and Stepneth in the County of Midd. within which was a great Marsh called Stepneth Marsh parcel of the Manor of Stepneth which the King had by exchange of the Bishop of London and there were also twenty acres of Lands which were lying in Stepneth Marsh and were known by the name of Stepney Marsh late parcel of the possessions of the Priory of Grace and granted unto the Lord Wentworth and his Heirs Dominia sive Maneria sua de Hackney Stepney nec non mariscos suos de Stepney in Stepney praedict nec non omnia Maneria terras tenem mariscos dictis Maneriis aut caeteris praemissis pertinen If these twenty acres pass in the general words in the first Nec non or if the words in the second Nec non dictis Maneriis pertinen doth restrain the generality of the first words was the question And by Phillips the twenty acres do not pass for the grant of the King shall be always taken to a common intent And because here the King hath these Marshes by several titles that Marsh only shall pass which by general entendment shall be intended to pass scil the great Marsh which was in truth parcel of the Manor of Stepney and not the twenty acres which the King hath by a special title although that ex vi termini the grant may extend unto it Also the grant of the King shall be taken secundum intentionem Regis Grants of the King taken according to his intent and not in deceptionem and here it appearth that the intent of the King was not that these twenty acres should pass i. the King grants Maneria sua terras and all Lands c. iisdem pertinen but it is not part of any thing pertinen to those twenty acres therefore his intent was not to pass them Secondly the grant is to have them as fully as the Bishop of London had them without mentioning of the Prior. Thirdly as fully as the Bishop had granted them to us but the Bishop had not granted these twenty acres to the King. Fourthly in the Letters Patents the King recites the value of the Manor of Hackney and Stepney but no value of the twenty acres Quaere what difference there is betwitxt Stepney Marsh and the Marsh of Stepny As to the first the grant is iisdem ita praemissis pertinen which word praemissis includes the premisses or otherwise should be void Secondly the words as the Bishop had and as amply as we have from the Bishop are suplusage nihil operatur by them And if the King had not the same of the Bishop it is not material but they shall pass notwithstanding because by a special name As if the King grants to me Manerium de Dale quod à nobis nuper concelat fuit and in truth it ws not concealed yet it shall pass by his special name But if the grant had been Proviso that if the said Manor were concealed c. the same had been good for it is good by way of Proviso but not by reference As to the valuation the same is not material for who can restrain the bounty of the King. 29 E. 3. 7. and 8. The King granted omnes Advocationes pertinend to such a Priory quas nuper concessimus patri of the Patentee although the King had not ever made such a grant yet it is a good grant to the Sons causa qua supra Gawdy Iustice conceived that the twenty acres did pass and he confessed the case betwixt Bronkor and Robotham to be good Law for there the intention is fully that all appertaining to the Monastery whether it were parcel of the Mannor of Newnam or of Sandridge passeth 6 E. 6. 8. Dyer A man leaseth all his Meadows in A. containing ten acres whereas in truth they are twenty acres all passeth c. And if the King grant the Manor of D. to A and further saith Damus concedimus so freely as I. S. had it and I. S. never had it yet the grant is good And as to the misrecital of the value the same is helped by the Statute Clench Iustice to the same intent and the Iury hath found that the twenty acres are parcel of Stepney Marsh Wray to the same intent Against express words no favour shall be given to the King. And note that the Marshes pertaining to the Manor are in the third clause ergo the Marsh in the second clause shall be intended a Marsh in gross or
as a Will but as an Executory Devise Wray It is not a conditional Estate in Fee but an Estate tail Coke They who would prove the Custom to entail Copyhold Land within a Manor it is not sufficient to shew Copies of Grants to persons and the Heirs of their bodies Copyhold Estate but they ought to shew that surrenders made by such persons have been enjoyed by reason of such matter VVray That is not so for Customary Lands may be granted in tail and yet no surrenders have been made within time of memory CCXLV Matthew and Hassals Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae betwixt Matthew and Hassal the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover and the Defendant brought a Writ of Error Error 1 Cro. 144. and assigned Error in this that the Iudgment was entred Quod querens recuperet possessionem c. where it should be Terminum vent in ten praedict See 9 Eliz. Dyer 258. Coke contrary That the Iudgment is good enough for the Writ of Execution upon it is Habere facias possessionem and in a real Action the Writ is Quod perens recuperet sesinam and not terram And afterwards Iudgment was affirmed CCXLVI Tempest and Mallets Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Tempest against Mallet Iudgment was given and Eror brought and assigned for Error 1 Cro. 153 145. that whereas the Action was brought against four one of them died Mesne betwixt the Award of the Nisi prius and the Inquest taken And it was said on the part of the Defendant in the Writ of Error which was entred upon the Record that the Plaintiff shewed unto the Court the death of one of the Defendants and prayed Iudgment against the others See 4 H. 7. 2 Eliz. 175. And there is a difference where in an Action of Trespass there is but one Defendant and where many Another Error was assigned the Defendant Obtulit se per Higgins Attornat suum without shewing his Christian Name as John or VVilliam for Higgins only without the Christian Name is not any Name for it is but an addition to shew which John or VVilliam Coke The same is helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. Where it is enacted that after Verdict Iudgment shall be given notwithstanding the lack of Warrant of Attorney of the party against whom the Issue shall be tried or any default or negligence of any the parties their Counsellors or Attorneys and of necessity this default here in the Christian Name ought to be the fault of one of them See also 18 Eliz. Cap. 14. for want of any Warrant of Attorney c. Glanvil The Statute provides for default of Warrant of Attorney c. Then Coke To what end was the Statute of 18 Eliz. made for the Statute of 32 H. 8. provides for defects of Warrants of Attorney Glanvil The first Statutes for Warrants of Attorneys of such persons against whom the Issue was tryed but the later Stat. is general Another Error was assigned Quod defendens Capiatur where the Offence so the Fine is pardoned by Parliament and therefore the entry of the Iudgment ought to be Et de fine nihil quia perdonatur Coke The Iudgment is well enough for in every general Pardon some persons are excepted it doth not appear if the Defendant here were one of them and then the Fine is not pardoned 1 Cro. 768. 778. 3 Cro. 22. for the Court cannot take notice of that as it was holden in Serjeant Harris Case but if the Defendant be charged with the Fine then he ought to plead the pardon and to shew that he was not any of the persons excepted And afterwards at another day the Defendant did alledge that there was a Warrant of Attorney in the Common Pleas. And also it appeareth upon Record that the Defendant did appear upon the Supersedeas by Attorney who had his full Name and therefore prayed a Certiorari de novo to certifie the same matter vide 9 E. 4. 32. VVray A Case here greatly debated betwixt the Lord Norris and Braybrook In nullo est erratum and upon Advice such a Writ of Certiorari was granted after the Plaintiff had pleaded In nullo est erratum for this Plea in nullo est erratum goes but to that which is contained within the body of the Record and not unto collateral matter scil Warrant of Attorneys And afterwards the Writ of Error was allowed and upon the day of return thereof it appeared upon the Record of Supersedeas that the Defendant did appear by such a one his Attorney But it was said by the Court that there ought to be two appearances the one upon the Supersedeas and the other when the Plaintiff declares See as to the name of the Attorney Tirrells Case 1 Mar. Dyer 93. CCXLVII. Palmer and Knowllis Case Hill. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 160. PAlmer recovered Debt against Knowllis and sued Execution by Elegit upon which the Sheriff returned that he had made Execution of the lands of the Defendant by the Oath of twelve men but he could not deliver it to the party Execution for it is extended to another upon a Statute upon which the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad satisfaciendum And now came the Defendant by his Counsel and moved that after Elegit returned the Plaintiff could not resort to the Execution by Capias and therefore prayed a Supersedeas Caplas after Elegit because the Capias erronice emanavit But the whole Court was clear to the contrary for upon Nihil returned upon Elegit the Plaintiff shall have a Capias 17 E. 4. 5. See 21 H. 7. 19. A man shall have a Capias after a Fieri facias or Elegit 34 H. 6. 20. and here the special return doth amount to as much as if the Sheriff had returned Nihil Also the Statute of West 2. which giveth the Elegit is not in the Negative and therefore it shall not take away the Execution which was at the Common Law. And here is no Execution returned for after the former extent ended he ought to have a new Elegit which Wray granted And afterwards the said Knowllis was taken by force of the Capias ad satisfaciend and came into Court in the Custody of the Sheriff and the Case was opened and in the whole appeared to be worthy of favour but by the Law he could not be helped and although he instantly prayed a Supersedeas yet the same was denied unto him CCXLVIII The Church-wardens of Fetherstones Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Trespass was brought by the Church-wardens of Fetherstone in the County of Norfolk and declared Church-wardens 1 Cro. 145. 179. That the Defendant took out of the said Church a Bell and declared that the Trespass was done 20 Eliz. And it was found for the Plaintiffs And now it was moved by
day the same had bin good for such By-law doth not take away but order the Inheritance For the nature of a By-law is to put Order betwixt the Tenants concerning their affayrs within the Manor which by law they are not compellable to do And by Periam The Avowant ought to have averred That this By-law was for the Common profit of the Tenants See the Lord Cromwells Case 15 Eliz. Dyer 322. and afterwards in the Principal Case Iudgment was given against the Avowant CCLXXI. Wicks and Dennis Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Replevin WIcks brought a Replevin of Dennis who avowed That one Dennis his Father was seised of the Manor c. and granted out of it to the avowant a Rent of twenty pounds per annum and further granted That if the said Rent be arrear unpaid six days after the feasts c. wherein it ought to be paid si licite petatur That then it should be lawful to distrein The grantor afterward by Indenture Covenanted with the Lord Treasurer and others to stand seised of the same Manor unto the use of himself and his heirs until he or his heirs have made default in they payment of one hundred pounds per annum until three thousand pounds be paid and after default of payment to the use of the Queen and her heirs until the sum of three thousand pounds should be paid and levied The grantor afterwards levied a fine to the said Lord Treasurer and others to the uses aforesaid the Rent is arrear default of the payment of the hundred pounds in made Office is found The Queen seised the land the Avowant during the possession of the Q. demanded the Rent the arrearages thereof The Queen granted over the Manor to W. B. D. the grantee did distrain for the rent arrearages demanded ut supra It was moved by H. Serjeant That this demand of several sums payable at several days before is not good for every sum ought to be severally demanded when it was first due scil si licite petatur scil within the six days for otherwise without such demand distress is not lawful and he resembled it to the case of Sir Thomas Gresham 23. Elizabeth Dyer 372 of several Tenders Periam conceived that the demand ought to be several Anderson That the demand is good enough And as to the demand made during the possession of the Queen It was holden by the whole Court to be good enough for although the possession of the Queen be priviledged as to the distress yet the demand is good Demand of Rent charge during the possession of the King good without any wrong to her prerogative for the Rent in right is due and the possession of the Queen is in right charged with it and the Rent is only recoverable by Petition as it was by way of distress and if the partie sueth to the Queen by Petition for the said Rent he ought to shew in his Petition that he hath demanded the Rent for if the possession had bin in a common person he could not distreyn before demand nor by consequence have Assise And the Rent notwithstanding the possession of the Queen is demandable and payable for to entitle the party unto Petition against the Queen and to distress against the subject when the possession of the Queen is removed And see 7 H. 6. 40. disseisee may make continual claym although the possession of the Land of which he is disseised be in the King. And 34 H. Br. seisin 48. If the heir at full Age intrude upon the possession of the King and pays Rent to the Lord of his Land holden of a subject the same is a good seisin and shall bind the heir after he hath sued his livery 5 E. 4. 4. and see 13 H. 7. 15. That distress taken upon the possession of the King is not lawful but seisin obtained during it is good So in 21 H. 7. 2. CCLXXII Ashegells and Dennis Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Com. Pleas. Int. M. 30 31. Rot. 458. AShegel brought a Quare Impedit against Dennis Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 163. Hob. 304. and the Plaintiff Counted that the Defendant had disturbed him to present ad vicariam de D. and shewed that the Queen was seised of the Rectory of D. and of the Advowson of the vicaridge of D. and by her letters Patents gave unto the Plaintiff Rectoriam praedictam cum pertinentiis etiam vicariam Ecclesiae praedict And it was holden by the whole Court That the Advowson of the vicaridge by these words doth not pass nor so in the Case of a common person much less in the Case of the King But if the Queen had granted Ecclesiam suam of D. then by Walmesley Iustice the Advowson of the vicaridge had passed CCLXXIII Collman and Sir Hugh Portmans Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Ejectione firmae by Collman against Sir Hugh Portman it was found by special verdict Ejectione firmae That the lands where were holden by Copy of the Manor of D. whereof Sir H. Portman was seised and that the Plaintiff was Copyholder in Fee and further found That the said Sir H. pretending the said Copy-hold lands to be forfeited Surrender of Copy-holder entred into Communication with Collman touching the same upon which Communication it was agreed betwixt them That the said Collman should pay to the said Sir Hugh five pounds which was paid accordingly that in consideration thereof Collman should enjoy the said Customary lands except one Wood called Combwood for his life and also of Alice his wife durante sua viduitate and that Collman should have Election whether the said lands should be assured unto him and his said wife by Copy or by Bill c. he chose by Bill which was made accordingly and further found That the said Sir H. held and enjoyed in his possession the said Wood c. upon this matter The Court was clear in opinion That here is a good surrender of the said lands and that for life only and that the said Sir Hugh had the Wood discharged of the customary interest CCLXXIV Thetford and Thetfords Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt IN an Action of Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared That Land was given to him and to T. his wife and to the heirs of their bodies and that his wife leased the Lands to the Defendant and that the Donees were dead and that the Plaintiff as heir c. for rent arrear c. and upon Non demiserunt the Iury found that the Husband and Wife demiserunt by Indenture and afterwards the husband died and the wife entred and within the term died Now upon the matter it seemed clear to Anderson that the Iury have found for the Defendant scil Non demiserunt for it is now no lease ab initio because the Plaintiff hath not declared
she seised of the Advowson in the Right of her Crown or of her Dutchy but when she claims by Lapse it is otherwise And afterwards Exception was taken to the Writ because it is not set forth in the Writ how the Queen claimed the Advowson as where the King had Right to present by reason of the Temporalties of the Bishop in his hands the Writ shall say Ratione Archiepiscopatus Cant. nuno Vacant or Ratione Custodiae And so because this Advowson is parcel of her Dutchy the Writ ought to say so And Anderson chief Iustice was of opinion that the Writ was good enough notwithstanding the want of that clause Ratione Ducatus for both ways it is good and sufficient generally or specially as where a man hath an Advowson in the Right of his Wife and the Husband brings a Quare Impedit the Writ shall be general ad suam special Donationem without the mentioning of his Wife See the Book of Entries 483. the Writ is general but the Count is special And there is the very case of the Dutchy of Lancaster and then the Writ is general but the Count is ratione Ducatus sui Lancastr And such an avoidance of a Church parcel of the Dutchy may be granted under the Great Seal And see the case of the Dutchy of Lancaster in Plowden to that purpose and afterwards a President was shewed in An. 32 H. 6. where the Writ was general and the Count was Ratione Ducatus CCCVIII Pasch 33 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. A Man made a Lease for years to begin at the Feast of our Lady Mary for one and twenty years Lease without shewing the certainty at which Feasts the Annunciation Purification c. yet the Lease is good enough and the Lessee may determine the certainty of the beginning of the Term by his Entry at which of the said Feasts the said Term shall begin by Anderson chief Iustice but Periam doubted of it CCCIX Blagrave and Woods Case Pasch 33 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. IN an action of Trespass brought by Blagrave against Wood Surrender to the Steward out of Court. Co. 4 Rep. 20. of Lands in Totting in the County of Surrey concerning a Surrender made to the use of Sir Thomas Holcroft by Alice Pagnam 7 E. 6. before one Forcet then Steward there The Issue was If at the time of the said surrender the said Forcet was Steward of the said Manor And the Iury found a special Verdict scil That the said Forcet circa 9 Aprilis 7 E. 6. was retained by one Elizabeth Pagnam then before and afterwards Lady of the said Manor to be her Steward there for the keeping of the Courts of the said Manor and this Retainer was only by Word in the Countrey and no Fee or Annuity given for the exercise of the said Office and that the said Forcet according to the said Retainer had kept Courts there divers times And further that such a day and year at St. Dunstans in the East the said Forcet took a Surrender which was entred in the Rolls the next Court and that before that and after he took divers Surrenders as well out of Court as in Court and had holden divers Courts there And upon this Verdict it was moved by Snagg Serjeant That Forcet upon the matter found by the Verdict is not such a Steward that may take Surrenders out of Court being retained only by word although to do other Acts in Court he be a sufficient Steward for in the Court he is as a Iudge and no body is to dispute his Authority there And there is a great difference betwixt a Steward of a Manor and a Steward of Courts and a Steward of one Manor hath not as great an authority as the Steward of another Manor for a Steward of a Manor may take Surrenders in any place otherwise it is where a Steward is retained to keep Courts for he hath no authority to keep Court and all his power is within the Court Vide Co. 4 part 30. Dame Holcrâ—fts Caso and not without See 8 Eliz. Dyer 248. Drew Serjeant to the contrary Here Forcet upon this Retainder was Steward at the Will of the Lady of the Manor which Will shall not be said to be determined until the Lady doth discharge him and the difference which hath been taken betwixt Steward of Courts and a Steward of a Manor is nothing to the purpose for there is not any reason in it and it is true an Assise cannot be brought of such an Office without a Patent of it for it cannot pass for life without a Deed and although a Steward in the Courts of Copyholders be a Iudge yet he may be appointed without Deed as where two submit themselves to the arbitration of others now the Arbitrators are Iudges as to that intent and yet they may be appointed Arbitrators and discharged without Deed 19 H 6. 6. 5 E. 4. 3. 21 H. 6. 30. but they cannot by their award transfer Free-hold from one to another 21 E. 3. 26. 14 H. 4. 18. and 17. by Culpeper and Skreen and see as to a Steward retained by word 8 Eliz. 248. and see 12 H. 7. 25 26 27. where a Bayliff of a Manor may be appointed without Deed and so of an under-Sheriff and yet he is a Iudge Owen Serjant contrary Here Forcet at the time of this Surrender was not Steward but the Retainer void 1. No Fee is allowed unto him for the exercise of the said Office 3 H. 6. A Labourer may be retained without promise of any Sallary in certain for it is appointed by the Law. 2. He is not retained by Deed and although he may be retained without Deed to hold Court pro hac vice yet if the Retainer be for life or for years it ought to be by Deed. 3. He was retained to keep the Court but not to be Steward which shall be intended to hold Court and then when that is past his authority shall cease and then all which he doth afterwards is void But if he had been retained to be Steward of the Manor then the Surrender taken out of Court had been well enough 4. There is not any custom found by the Verdict to warrant such a Surrender taken out of Court and then if the Surrender be not warranted by their custom it is void Yelverton to the contrary In all cases in real actions which concern Lands the Suitors are the Iudges but in personal actions under the sum of forty shillings the Steward is Iudge and although he be a Iudge yet he may be appointed without Deed. And whereas it hath been objected that no Fee is appointed for the exercising of the Office the same is not material as to the Grant but the party is not compellable without a Fee to do the service and a man may be constituted Bayliff of such a Manor without Deed and yet more doth appertain to the Office of the Bayliff than to the
was moved in arrest of Iudgment that it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing that the Plaintiff hath the Free-hold and therefore he ought to have an Assize but the same was not allowed and therefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCXXXIV Kensam and Redings Case Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Grants of the King 1 Cro. 244. Hob. 170. That the Queen by her Letters Patents granted the Site of the Manor of Brokeley lying in W. and all the Lands Pastures Woods Vnder-woods and Hereditaments parcel or appertaining to the said Site exceptis omnibus grossis arboribus boscis maremio and further in the said Letters Patents there was a Proviso that the Lessee should have sufficient House-boot and Hedge-boot c. And if notwithstanding the said Exception the Lessee should have the Vnderwoods was the question And it was argued that the Lessee should have subbois i. e. Vnderwoods for that is granted by express words and the exception extends only grossis arboribus for this word grossis in the exception extends to all that which follows Gawdy Iustice If it were in the case of a common person it is clear that upon such matter the Vnderwoods are not excepted 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. A Lease is made of a Mannor except Timber and great Woods the Vnderwoods shall pass Fenner Iustice The Proviso that the Lessee should have House-boot shews the Queens intent that the Vnder-woods should not pass Wray If this word bois in the exception should not extend to Vnder-woods it should be vain and signifie nothing which should be hard in the Case of the Queen CCCXXXV Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared of Trover and of a Bag of mony and the conversion of it Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 97. 201 555 693. The Defendant pleaded that the Bag of mony was delivered to him as a pawn to keep until A. and B. were agreed which of them should have it and pleaded further that A. and B. were not yet agreed who of them should have it for which cause he kept it absque hoc that he converted it to his own use upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law It was moved that the Conversion is never traversable Wray Generally Conversion is not traversable but upon such special matter as is here Or if A. lend money to B. and B. delivereth a thing of the value to A. in pawn now the Conversion is traversable see the same case 4 E. 6. Br. Action upon the Case 113. so here Fenner agreed with Wray CCCXXXVI The Bishop of Lincoln and Cowpers Case Mich. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prohibition THe Bishop of Lincoln sued a Prohibition against Cowper who had libelled against him in the Spiritual Court for Tithes out of the Manor of D. Tithes 1 Cro. 216. Post 331 332. And the Bishop did suggest that he and all his Predecessors had been seised of the said Manor and that as long as it was in their possessions had been discharged of Tithes and shewed that in the time of E. 6. the said Manor was conveyed to the Duke of Somerset in Fee and afterwards was re-granted to the Bishop and his Successors It was moved That the Prescription was not good because de non decimando And admit that the Prescription be good that same is interrupted by the seisin of the Duke of Somerset and although that the Manor be re-assured to the Bishop of Lincoln yet the Prescription is not revived as Homage Ancestrel if it be once in a Forrain Seisin although it be re-assured yet it is not revived But by Wray Gawdy and Fenner The Prescription is good in the Case of a Spiritual person but not in the case of a common person And they all were clear of opinion that the Prescription is not gon by this Interruption for Tithes are not issuing out of the Lands neither can Vnity of possession extinguish them neither are they extinguished by a release of all right of Land c. See for this Case Co. 11. part of his Reports in the Case of Pridle and Napper CCCXXXVII Dethick King of Arms Case 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictment 1 Cro. 224. Yelv. 34. Noy 250. Misnosmer in an Indictment WIlliam Dethick against Garter King of Arms was indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for striking in the Church-yard For that the said Dethick in Pauls Church-yard in London struck I.S. It was moved If Cathedral Churches be within the meaning of the Statute The Court was clear of opinion that they were And afterwards the Defendant pleaded that before the Indictment found he was created and crowned by the Letters Patents of the Queen which he shewed chief and principal King of Arms and it was granted by the said Letters Patents that he should be called Garter and that that name is not in the Indictment and demanded Iudgment The Kings Attorney by Replication said That by the Law of Arms and Heraldry every one who is made King of Arms before he receives his Dignity ought to be led betwixt two Officers of Arms by the Arms before the Earl Marshal of England or his Deputy and before him are to go four Officers of Arms whereof the one is to bear his Patent another a Collar of Esses the third a Coronet of Brass double guilt fourthly a Cup of Wine and his Patent shall be read before the Earl Marshal and afterwards his Coronet shall be set upon his Head and the Collar of Esses about his neck and afterwards the Wine poured upon his Head And that the Defendant had not received these Ceremonies for which cause he is not King of Arms nor to be called upon to which the Defendant did demur in Law. Broughton argued for the Defendant and he took Exception to the Replication because it is pleaded there that secundum legem Heraldorum Garter upon his Creation ought to receive c. of which Law this Court cannot have Conusance and therefore the Replication ought to be scil Secundum legem Angliae If in Appeal the Defendant wage Battel although that belongs unto Arms and Heraldry yet it shall be pleaded according to the Law of the Land and shall not speak of the Law of Arms. So if an Infant be made a Knight and he be to plead in discharge of his Wardship he shall plead according to the Law of the Land and yet the degree of a Knight belongs to the Law of Arms 11 E. 3. Dower against the Earl of Richmond who was also Duke of Britain who pleaded to the Writ That he was Duke of Britain and not so named in the Writ but the Court did not regard it for they cannot have knowledge of it so not here of the Law of Heraldry Also this Court cannot write to the Heralds to certifie it as they may to the Marshal of the King or to the Bishop But we have sufficiently
the Right of the Complainants come ceo c. with warranty of the said Husband and Wife for which the Complainants did render a Rent of fifty pounds per annum with clause of distress in dictis Manerijs to the said John Amy the Heirs of Amy and also rendred the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to the said John and Amy for their lives the Remainder to the said Francis their Son in tail the Remainder to the said Amy and her Heirs and that John and Amy dyed by force whereof the said Rent descendeth to the said Plaintiff as Son and Heir of the said Amy and that the said Francis entred into the said Mannors as in his Remainder and was seised in tail and was seised of the said Rent by the Hands of the said Francis and afterwards thereof did enfeoff the said Garmons the Defendant c. The Tenant pleaded That the Plaintiff was never seised so as he could be disseised and if c. Nul tor nul disseisin which was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment and Execution upon which the Tenant brought a Writ of Error Stephens assigned Error First the Fine is levyed of two Manors inter alia so as no other Lands passed by the Fine besides the Manors and so the Rent is granted out of the said Lands and Manors and no other Lands which passed by the Fine and then upon the Plaintiffs own shewing it appears that all the Tenants of the Lands charged with the Rent in demand are not named in the Assize Second Error This Rent is granted only out of the Estate tail for Amy hath Fee in both as well the Rent as the Land and then when the Estate tail is determined the Rent is also determined and he hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail or any of his Issue wherefore it shall be intended that he is dead without issue and then the Rent is gone and then he hath not any cause to have Assise Bourchier As to the first conceived and argued that it is not Error for although these words inter alia c. yet it shall not be intended that the Conusor had any other Lands or that the Rent is issuing out of other Lands than those two Manors which are expressed not inter alia As to the second the continuance of the tail needs not to be averred for the Tenant in tail hath enfeoffed the Tenant of the Land by which the estate tail is discontinued And although the Tenant in tail be dead without issue yet the Rent doth remain until Recovery of the Land by Formedon in the Remainder Fenner Iustice was of opinion Vaugh. Reâ— 175. That the Per nomen should go unto the Mannors only and should not extend to the inter alia For if a man in pleading saith that J.S. was seised of twenty acres of Land and thereof inter alia did enfeoff him per nomen of Green-wead the same shall not have reference to the inter alia but only to the twenty acres And the averment of the continuance of the Tail needs not for the Estate-tail is discontinued Gawdy Iustice was of opinion That the per nomen should go as well to the inter alia as to the two Manors and then all the Ter-tenants are not named in the Assise and the same not to be pleaded for it appears of the Plaintiffs own shewing and there needs no averment of the continuance of the Tail for the cause aforesaid Clench Iustice The per nomen doth refer to all which see by the Fine which shews that other Lands passed by the Fine than the said two Manors And as to the second point he said There needed no averment Gawdy As to the first Error the same cannot be saved by any way but to say That the Conusor was not seised of any other Lands than the said two Manors and then the Fine doth not extend unto it and then no Rent is granted out of it Fenner In the Common Pleas in the great case of Fines it was holden that in pleading of a Fine it needs not to say That the Conusor was seised for if the Conusor or Conusee were seised it is sufficient for such pleading is contrary in it self for a Fine sur conusance de droit come ceo c. doth suppose a precedent Gift It was also objected That here is a confusion in this Fine for the Rent is rendred to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Wife and the Land is rendred to the Husband and Wife for their lives the Remainder to Francis in Tail the remainder to the Wife and her Heirs And these matters cannot stand together in a Fine but the one will confound the other But as to that it was said that the Law shall Marshall these two renders so as they both shall stand And it is not like unto a Rent-service for a Rent-service issueth out of the whole Estate And therefore if a Remainder upon an Estate for life Eschears the Seigniory is gone even during the life of the Tenant for life which see 3 H. 6. 1. contrary of a Rent-charge For if the Grantee of a Rent in Fee purchaseth the remainder of the Land out of which it is depending out of an Estate for life he shall have the Rent during the life of the Tenant for life And of that opinion were all the three Iustices for the Conusors took by several Acts and the Estate is charged for it cometh under the Grant. Fenner Iustice There is a difference betwixt a Rent service and a Rent-charge or Common for that shall charge only the Possession but a Rent-charge shall charge the whole Estate And therefore if he who hath a Rent-service releaseth to him in the Remainder upon an Estate-tail or for life the Rent is extinct which Gawdy denied And this Case was put The Disseisee doth release to the Lessee for years of his Disseisor nihil operatur But if the Disseisor and Disseisee joyn in a Release to such Lessee the same is good for first it shall enure as the Release of the Disseisor and then of the Disseisee c. CCCXLIV Tedcastle and Hallywels Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt 2 Roll. 594. 1 Cro. 234 235. IN Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded That the Condition was That whereas John Hallywel had put himself to be an Apprentice to the Plaintiff if the Defendant John Hallywel during his Apprenticeship or any other for him by his consent or agreement take or riotously spend any of the Goods of his said Master the Plaintiff If then the Defendant within one month after notice thereof given to him do pay and satisfie the Plaintiff for all such sums of Monies Wares c. so taken or riotously spent by the Defendant or by any other by his procurement or consent the same being sufficiently proved that then c. The Defendant by protestation Quod nec
over the Feoffees do not pay the said mony within the said 15 days afterwards Curties attorns to the Feoffees It was moved if the Reversion of the Lands passed to Curties passeth by the Feoffment of the Manor without attornment which see Littleton 133 134. 2. Attornment If by the attornment of Curties after the 15 days the uses can rise to Bracebridge and his wife c. and it was said That the Case 20 H. 6. Avowry 11 12. If a Manor be granted for life the remainder over in Fee Tenant for life dieth if the Tenants attorn to him in the Remainder the same is good and if a Reversion be granted to two and one of them dieth attornment to the survivor is good and if a Reversion be granted to Husband and Wife in special tail the Wife dieth afterwards without issue Attornment to the Husband is good and if a Reversion be given in Frank-marriage and afterwards the Husband and Wife are divorced and afterwards the particular Tenant attorns to the Wife the same is good and by Manwood If a Man seised of a Manor the demesns of which extends into two Counties and hath issue a Son and a Daughter by one woman and a Son by another woman and dieth the eldest Son enters into the Demesns in one County only and takes the profit in one County only and dieth without issue the Daughter shall have and inherit the Demesns or Services whereof her Brother was seised and the Son of the half-blood the rest And by Manwood the attornment of Curties who was the first Lessee shall bind Moore the second Lessee for he ought to attorn against whom lieth the Quid juris clamat And if a Lease for years be made of a Manor and the Reversion of it be granted to another in fee if the Lessee for years attorneth it shall bind the Tenants of the Manor 18 E. 2. A man seised of a Manor in the right of his Wife leased parcel of it for years without his wife the Reversion thereof is not parcel of the Manor contrary if the Lease had been made by Husband and Wife And by Dyer if Tenant in tail of a Manor leaseth parcel for years and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the whole Manor and makes Livery in the Demesns not leased the Reversion of the Land leased doth not pass for by the Feoffment a wrong is done to the Lessor which the Law shall not further enlarge than appeareth by the Deed contrary in case of Tenant in fee of a Manor and that without Deed with Attornment And it was the Case of one Kellet 25 H. 8. Kellet was Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27 H. 8. of divers Lands by several Conveyances the use of some being raised upon Recovery of some upon Fine and of some upon Feoffment and he made a Feoffment of all these Lands by Deed with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery the Attorney entred into part of the Land and made Livery in the name of the whole and it was agreed by all the Iustices that the Lands passed notwithstanding in others possession i.e. other Feoffees And by Dyer If the Tenants of a Manor pay their Rents to the Disseisor they may refuse again to pay them and if a Lease be made for years the Remainder for life if the Lessor will grant over his Reversion the Lessee for years shall Attorn and his attornment shall bind him in the remainder for life and if a Lease be made to one for years the remainder over for life the remainder to the Lessee for years in Fee. Now if the Lessee for years grant all his interest c. there needs no attornment and if Grantee of a Rent in fee leaseth for life and afterwards grants the Reversion to another the Attornment of the Ter-tenant is not requisite but only of the Grantee for life It was also holden Relation That this Attornment by Curties two years after the Livery was sufficient for it shall have relation to the Livery to make it parcel of the Manor but not to punish the Lessee for waste done mean between the Livery and the Attornment but betwixt the Feoffor and the Feoffee it shall pass ab initio It was holden also That although the uses for it limited are determined by the default of payment within the 15 days yet the Feoffees shall take the Reversion by this Attornment to the second uses 2 Len. 222. and if I enfeoff one upon condition to enfeoff J.S. who refuseth now the Feoffee shall be seised to my use but if the condition were to give in tail contrary So here is a Limitation beyond the first use which shall not be defeated for want of Attornment to the first uses and here it was not the meaning of Bracebridge to have the Lands again upon breach of the condition in his former estate but according to the second use and Iudgment was given in the principal case according to the resolutions of the Iudges as aforesaid And it was said by Harper Iustice That if a Feoffment in Fee be made to J. S. upon condition that he shall grant to A. a Rent-charge who refuseth it J.S. shall be seised to his own use Antea 199. CCCLVI. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this Lord and Tenant by service to pay every year such a quantity of Salt but since 10 H. 7. the Tenant hath always paid the money for Salt. The question was If the Lord might resort to the first service Seisin and if the money be Seisin of the Salt. And Manwood took this difference i.e. where the Lord takes a certain sum of money for the Salt the same is not any Seisin for the service is altered as at the first Socage Tenure was a work done by labor i.e. Plowing but now it is changed into certain Rent and the Lord cannot resort to have his Plowing and in Kent divers Tenants in ancient time have paid Barley for their Rent but the same afterward was paid in a certain sum of money so as now the Lord of Canterbury who is Lord of such Tenements cannot now demand his Barly c. but if the sum which hath been used to be paid be incertain one year so much according to the price of Salt then such a payment of money is a sufficient Seisin of the Salt. Quod fuit concessum per Curiam CCCLVII 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Accompt brought by an Heir Copyholder for the profits of his Copyhold Lands taken during his Nonage the Defendant pleaded That by the Custom of the said Manor Accompt by the Heir of a Copyholder the Lord of the Manor might assign one to take the profits of a Copyhold descended to an Infant during his Nonage to the use of the Assignee without rendring an accompt and the same was holden to be a good Custom as a Rent granted to one and his Heirs Custom to cease during the
afterwards that this murder is dispunishable notwithstanding the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. CCCLXIV The Queen and Braybrooks Case Pasch 25 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 3 Co. 1 2 c. THe Queen brought a Writ of Error against Braybrook The Case was this That King Ed. 4. was seised of the Manor of Marston and gave the same to Lionel Lord Norris and A.M. and the Heirs of the body of the Lord the Remainder to H. Norris in Tail L and A. entermarry L. suffered a common Recovery against himself only without naming the said A. Hen. Norris is attainted of high Treason by Act of Parliament and by the same Act all his Lands Tenements Hereditaments Rights Conditions c. the day of the Treason committed or ever after c. Hen. Norris is executed Lionel dieth without issue the Queen falsified the said Recovery for one moiety by Scire facias because Anne who was joint-tenant with Lionel was not named party to the said Recovery and afterwards the Queen granted to the Lord Norris Son of the said Hen. Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem and now upon the said Recovery the Queen brought a Writ of Error and it was argued by Egerton the Queens Sollicitor that this right to a Writ of Error is such a right as is transferred to the Queen by the Act of Parliament for the words are omnia jura sua quaecunque and here is a right although not a present right yet a right although in futuro so it is a right of some quality as A. Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to B.A. makes a Feoffment in Fee B. is attainted of high Treason and by such Act all his Lands c. given to the King. A. dieth without issue the Queen shall have a Formedon in the Remainder and although the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem yet by such general words a Writ of Error doth not pass which See 32 H. 8. Br. Patents 98. And also this Action rests in privity of record and cannot be displaced from thence but by Act of Parliament see Br. Chose in Action 14. 33 H. 8. for when the King will grant a thing in Action he ought in his Patent to recite all the circumstances of the matter as the Right and how it became a Right and because the Queen here doth not make mention of this Right as of the Entail the Recovery and the Attainder for that cause the Right doth not pass The Case betwixt Cromer and Cranmer 8 Eliz the Disseisee was attainted of Treason the Queen granted to the Heir of the Disseisee all the Right which came unto her by the Attainder of his Ancestor nothing passed Causa qua supra And always where the King grants any thing which he cannot grant but as King that such a grant without special words is to no purpose Coke contrary he agreed the Case put by Egerton for at the time of the Attainder B. had a Right of Remainder but in our Case Hen. Norris had not any Right but a possibility of a Right of Action i.e. a Writ of Error And he said that this Writ of Error is not forfeitable for it is an Action which rests in privity no more than a condition in gross as a Feoffment in Fee is made upon condition of the party of the Feoffor who is attainted ut supra This word Right in the Act of Attainder shall not transfer this Condition to the Queen and of the Act of Attainder to Hen. Norris it is to be conceived That the makers of the Act did not intend that by the word Right every right of any manner or quality whatsoever should pass to carry a Condition to the Queen and therefore we ought to conceive that the makers of the Act did not intend to touch Rights which rested in privity And as to the Grant of the Queen to the Lord Norris of the Mannor of Merston Et omnia jura sua in eodem he conceived that thereby the Right of the Writ of Error did pass for it is not like Cranmers Case but if in the said Case the Land it self had been set down in the Grant it had been good enough as that Cranmer being seised in Fee of the Manor of D. was there of disseised and so being disseised was attainted of high Treason now the Queen grants to his Heirs totum jus suum in his Manor of D c. and so in our Case the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura sua in eodem c. at another day it was moved by Plowden that this Right of Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen by the Act but such Right might be saved to a stranger c. the words of the Act are omnia jura sua and this word sua is Pronomen possessionis by which it is to be conceived that no Right should pass but that which was a present Right as a Right in possession but this Right to a Writ of Error was not in Hen. Norris at the time of his Attainder but it was wholly in him against whom the erroneous Iudgment was had and therefore if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant vouch and loseth and Iudgment is given and before Execution the Tenant is attainted by Act of Parliament by words ut supra and afterwards he is pardoned the Demandant sueth for Execution against the Tenant now notwithstanding this Attainder the Tenant may sue Execution against the Vouchee and afterwards Wray chief Iustice openly declared in Court the opinion of himself and all his companions Iustices and also of all the other Iustices to be That by this Act of Parliament by which all Lands Tenements Hereditaments and all Rights of any manner and quality whatsoever Henry Norris had the day of his Attainder or ever after Lionel then being alive and over-living the said Hen. Norris that this Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen And that the said Act by the words aforesaid could not convey to the King this possibility of right for at the time of the Attainder the Right of the Writ of Error was in Lyonel and Hen. during the estate tail limited to Lyonell had not to do with the Land nor any matter concerning it And Iudgment was given accordingly And it was holden That he in the Reversion or Remainder upon an Estate tail might have a Writ of Error by the common Law upon a Recovery had against Tenant in tail in Reversion CCCLXV Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the common Pleas. Copy-holder IN Trespass brought by a Copy-holder against the Lord for cutting down and carrying away his Trees c. It was found by special Verdict That the place where c. was Customary lands of the Plaintiffs holden of the Defendant and that the Trees whereof c. were Chery Trees de
word Children a good name of purchase But the whole Court was against that conceit for these words in the case At the Assignment of Friendship are not void but shew what person should take if the intent of the party should take effect i. he who the Father by Assignment should enable for no Child shall take but he who the Father shall assign that is part of the contract and although by such Assignment no title accrues to the Child assigned yet without Assignment no Child is capable for by the Lease the Father hath such Liberty that he may assign what Child he will And by Wray If the words of the Lease had been at the assignment of the Father within one month and the Father surcease his month Antea 275. the Interest should not vest in any of the Children And by Ayliff Iustice If the words of the Lease had been to the Husband and wife and their Son John where his name is William nothing should vest And peradventure in this case at the Bar if the Father had assigned his Son then born and had assigned him before or at the time of the Lease i. the delivery of the Lease it had been well enough Note that this Action was brought by Cole Lessee of the Son of the Husband and VVife born at the time of the Lease made And afterwards Wray with the assent of all the rest of the Iustices gave Iudgment that the Plaintiff Nihil capiat per Billam CCCXCII Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Execution where joynt where several NOte It was agreed by the whole Court and affirmed by the Clerks That if Debt be brought upon an Obligation against two upon a joynt Praecipe and the Plaintiff hath judgment to recover that a joynt Execution ought to be sued against them both But if the suit were by one Original and several Praecipes execution might be sued against any of them CCCXCIII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Replevin IN a Replevin The Defendant doth avow for Damage Feasant and shewed that the Lady Jermingham was seised of such a Mannor whereof c. and leased the same to the Defendant for years c. The Plaintiff said That long befor King H. 8. was seised of the said Manor and that the place where is parcel of the said Manor demised and demisable by copy c. and the said King by his Steward demised and granted the said parcel to the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by copy in fee c. upon which it was demurred because by this Bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in the Bar to the Avowry ought to have concluded and so was seised by the custom until the Avowant praetextu of the said Term for years entred And so it was adjudged CCCXCIV The Lord Dacres Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 227. Stewardship of a Manor Office of Trust Grants per Copy Deputy Steward IN Ejectione firmae the case was That the Lord Dacres was seised of the Manor of Eversham and that I.S. held the place where of the said Manor by copy for term of his life and the said Lord granted the Stewardship of the said Manor to the now Marquess of Winchester who appointed one Chedle to be his Deputy to keep a court ad traden dum the said Lands I.S. being now dead to one Wilkins by copy for life afterwards the said Chedle commanded one Hardy his Servant to keep the said court and grant the said Land by copy ut supra which was done accordingly the copy was entred and the Lord Dacres subsigned it confirmed it It was further found That Hardy had many times kept the said court both before and after and that the custom of the Manor was that the Steward of the said Manor for the time being or his Deputy might take Surrenders 1 Co. 48. 49. and grant estates by copy And if this estate so granted by Hardy were good or not was the question because by the Servant of the Deputy whereas the custom found did not extend further than the Deputy It was argued that the estate granted ut supra was void for a Deputy cannot transfer his authority over for it is an office of trust See 39 H. 6. 33 34. 14 E. 4. 1. and 6 Eliz. it was adjudged That the Duke of Somerset had divers Stewards of his Lands and they in the name of the said Duke made diverse Leases of the Lands of the said Duke rendring Rent and the Duke afterwards assented to the said Leases and received the Rents reserved upon them and yet after the death of the said Duke the Earl of Hertford his Son and Heir avoided them So here the assent and the subsignment of the copy by the Lord Dacres doth not give any strength to the copy which was void at the beginning against which it was said That to take a Surrender and to grant an Estate by copy is not any judicial Act but meerly an Act of service and no matter of trust is transferred to Hardy for trust is reposed in him who may deceive which can't be in our Case for here is an express commandment which if Hardy transgress it is absolute void for nothing is left to his discretion And the admitting of a Copy-holder is not any judicial Act for there need not be any of the Suitors there who are the Iudges And such a Court may be holden out of the Precinct of the Manor for no Pleas are holden which was concessum per totam Curiam And by Ayliff Iustice If the Lord of such a Manor makes a Feoffment of a parcel of his Manor which is holden by copy for life and afterwards the Copy-holder dyeth although now the Lord hath not any Court yet the Feoffee may grant over the Land by copy again And the whole Court was clear of opinion That the grant for the manner of it was good especially because the Lord Dacres agreed to it And Iudgment was given accordingly CCCXCV Burgesse and Fosters Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the case was 1 Cro. 48 49. That the Dean and Chapter of Ely were seised of the Manor of Sutton whereof the place where c. is parcel demised and demisable by copy according to the custom and by their Deed granted the Stewardship of the said Manor to one Adams to execute the said office per se vel legitimum suum Deputatum eis acceptabilem Surrenders Afterwards Adams made a Letter of Deputation to one Mariot ad capiendum unum sursum redditionem of one I. W. and I. his Wife and to examine the said I. aforesaid ea intentione that the said I.W. and A. might take back an estate for their lives the Remainder over to one John Buck in Fee Note the Surrender ought be de duobus Messuagiis Mariot took two several
shall not supply the defect of the words in the grant V. Gilbert and Sir George Harts Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. GIlbert brought Debt upon Escape against Sir George Hart Sheriff of Kent and declared Escape 1. Cro. 188. 271. That he recovered a certain debt against A. who was taken in Execution c. And the Case was That the said A. was taken in Execution in the time of the old Sheriff and escaped also then and afterwards the Defendant being Sheriff the Plaintiff again sued a Scire facias against the said A. upon the Iudgment aforesaid upon which Execution was awarded by default and thereupon issued a Capias ad satisfaciendum by which A. was taken and escaped And by the opinion of all the Iustices the Defendant in this Case shall be charged for notwithstanding that A. was once in Execution which was determined by escape in the time of the old Sheriff yet when Execution was now awarded against him upon his default in the Scire facias the same shall bind the Sheriff out of whose custody he escaped VI. Moor and Farrands Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. MOore leased Lands to Farrand upon condition that he 1. Cro. 26. Condition where shall not bind Administrators 1. Anders 123. Dy. 6. 1 Cro. 26. 757 3. Len. 67. his Executors or Assigns should not alien without the leave of the lessor Farrand died intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and aliened without leave and by Periam Iustice she is not within the penalty of the Condition for the Administrator is not meerly in by the party but by the Ordinary And by Meade and Periam If a Lease for years upon such a Condition be extended upon a Recognisance the same is not an alienation against the Condition But if feme lessee for years upon such Condition taketh a Husband and dieth the Husband is within the danger of the Condition for he is Assignee If the King grant to a Subject bona catalla felonum and the lessor for years upon such a Condition be out-lawed upon which the Patentee enters Now by Periam the Patentee is not bound by the Condition Meade contrary for the Condition shall go with the Land. VII Maynyes Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exechequer MAyney seised of Lands in Fee took a Wife Co. 1. Inst 41. â— made a Feoffment to a stranger committeth Treason and thereof is attainted and hath a Charter of Pardon and dieth It was moved by Plowden in the Exchequer if the Wife of Mayney shall have Dower against the Feoffee Dower Manwood Chief Baron by reason of this Attainder Dower cannot accrue to the Wife for her title begins by the Enter-marriage and ought to continue and be consummated by the death of the Husband which cannot be in this Case for the Attainder of the Husband hath interrupted it as in the Case of Elopement Attainder where an Estoppel And this Attainder is an universal Estoppel and doth not run in privity only betwixt the Wife and him to whom the Escheat belongs but every stranger may bar her of her Dower by reason thereof for by the Attainder of her Husband the Wife is disabled to demand Dower as well as to demand his Inheritance and he cited the Resolution of all the Iustices of England in the Case of the Lady Gates 4. Ma. Dyer 140. and the Pardon doth not help the matter for the same extends but to the life of the Offender but doth not take away the Attainder by which she is barred to demand Dower during the said Attainder in force See the Statute of 5. E 6. cap. 11. Vid. Fitz. Dower 82. 13. E 3. 8 E 3. Dower 106 Fitz. Utlag 49. 8 Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer 4. Len. 117. Leases for three lives of Copy-hold estate are not within Stat. 41. Eliz. IN the Exchequer it was found by special verdict That the Guardians and Chanons Regular of Otlery were seised of the Mannor of O c. and that 22 H 7. at a Court holden there granted the Lands in question to W. and W. his Son for their lives by Copy according to the Custom of the said Mannor and that afterwards 30 H 8. They leased the Lands by Indenture to H. rendering the ancient and accustomed Rent and afterward surrendred their Colledge c. and afterward W. and W. dyed And if that Lease so made during the customary estate for life notwithstanding the Statute of 31 H 8. be good or not was the Question being within a year before the surrender c. It was argued by Egerton Sollicitor that the said Lease is void by the Statute the words of which are whereof or in the which any estate or interest for term of life year or years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his being or continuance and was not then determined finished or expired and therefore we are to see if that right or possession which W. had at the time of the making of the Lease were an interest or an estate for life And as to this word estate it is nothing else than measure of time for an estate in Fee-simple is as much as to say an interest in the Lands for ever and the like of other estates and therefore here W. and W. had at the time of the making of this Lease an estate for life in the thing demised And although such customary Tenants are termed in Law Tenants at will yet they are not simply so nor meerly Tenants at will but only Tenants at will secundum Consuetudinem Manerii Copy-holdeâ—â— Interest which Custom warrants his possession here for his life and therefore it is a more certain estate than an estate at will for the Copyholder may justifie against his Lord so cannot a Tenant at will whose estate is determined at the will and pleasure of his Lessor And although this estate is but by Custom and by no Conveyance the estate is raised it is as material so as it be an estate and this estate being supported by Custom is known in Law an estate and so accounted in Law and the Law hath notably distinguished Copy-hold Tenancies by Custom and Tenancies at will by the Common Law for a Copy-holder shall do Fealty shall have aid of his Lord in an Action of Trespass shall have and maintain an Action of Trespass against his Lord his Wife shall be indowed the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie without new admittance and it was adjudged in the Common Pleas 8. Eliz. That if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of another for years the Lessee dieth his Executors shall have the residue of the Term without any admittance M 14. and 15. Eliz. a Copy-holder made a Lease for years by Indenture warranted by the Custom it was adjudged that the Lessees should maintain Ejectione firm although it was objected that if it were so then if
the Plaintiff doth recover Post 16 2 Len. 119. he should have Habere facias possessionem and then Copyholds should be ordered by the Laws of the Land 10 Eliz. Lord and Copy-holder for life the Lord grants a Rent-charge out of the Mannor whereof the Copy-hold is parcel the Copy-holder surrenders to the use of A. who is admitted accordingly he shall not hold it charged but if the Copy-holder dieth so that his estate is determined and the Lord granteth to a stranger de novo to hold the said Lands by Copy this new Tenant shall hold the Land charged and so was it rated and adjudged in the Common Pleas. It was adjorned IX The Lord Paget and the Bishop of Coventry and Leichfields Case Mich. 25. 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. THE Bishop of Coventry and Leichfield was endicted of Trespass in the County of Srafford Endictment of breaking and entring of the Close of Thomas Lord Paget called the Vineyard Challenge the Bishop traversed the Endictment and at the day of appearance of the Iury the Bishop challenged the Array because that he being a Peer of Parliament no Knight was returned c. Vpon which challenge the Queens Counsel did demur in Law but at last for expedition c. the Court delivered to the Councel of the Bishop a Bill sealed to save him the advantage of the said challenge And the Enquest was taken de bene esse who found that one A. by the Commandment of the Bishop entred into the said Close called the Vineyard being then in the occupation of one B. at will of the said Lord Paget and did the Trespass viz. digged a Turff there and there left it and so departed The matter of challenge was many times argued and it was argued against the said challenge because that the King is party against whom no Lord of Parliament shall have such Prerogative To which it was answered on the other side that so much the rather the challenge lyeth in the Case for where a Peer of the Parliament is to be tryed upon an Endictment of Treason or Felony it shall be per pares if upon appeal of Murder or Felony by ordinary tryal See 33. H. 8. Br. Tryal 42 and Br. Enquest 49. It was said on the Plantiffs side that here the Bishop is quodam modo and the Venire facias issued at his own Sute and therfore the mismaking of the Pannell is his own fault But by Gaudy Iustice the Venire facias in this Case is reputed in Law the Sute of the Queen notwithstanding that the parry endicted for his expedition doth pay the Fees for the Process for that the Clarks of the Court have encroached for their gain for otherwise there should be none paid by the Queen and by the better opinion of the Court the challenge was holden good Another matter was moved because the Endictment is clausum Domini Paget and it appeareth by the Verdict that the said close at the time of the Trespass was in the occupation of B. at the will of the Lord Paget for the Lord Paget cannot have an Action of Trespass against the said Bishop or the said A. upon the matter and by Wray the Lord Paget cannot have Trespass Quare clausum fregit intravit upon this matter but for digging upon the Land demised or cutting of Trees an Action lyeth 19 H. 6. Tit. Trespass 36. But here the Endictment is that one F. entred by the commandment of the Bishop upon which matter no Action lyeth against the Bishop by the Lord Paget and especially in this case where the said A. did not carry away the said Turff from thence But by Wray notwithstanding that the Action of Trespass doth not lye for the Lessor yet it is well enough by way of Endictment Another exception was taken to the Endictment because it is alleadged 2 Len. 183. that A. by Commandment of the Bishop entred and did the Trespass and no place is shewed where the commandment was and for this cause the Bishop was discharged X. Stonley and Bracebridges Case Mich. 25 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Stonley against Bracebridge the case was Pâ—o. Com. 417. 418. Thomas Bracebridge Father of the Defendant was seised of the Mannor of Kingsbury to him and to the heirs males of his body and 32 H. 8. Leased a Field called Stalling parcell of the said Mannor to Tho. Coke for years and afterwards 4 E. 6. Leased the said Field the first Lease being in esse to Sir Geo. Griffith for seventy years who assigned the same to A. Bracebridge Brother of the Lessor and to Joyce Wife of the Lessor and afterwards 5 E 6. the said Tho. Bracebridge the Lessor by his Deed Indented gave the said Mannor to the said Sir George by these words dedi concessi barganizavi vendidi Proviso and upon condition That the said Sir George should pay to the said Thomas Bracebridge within fifteen days after ten hundred pounds and if he fail of payment thereof that then after the said fifteen days the said Sir George should be seised of a Tenement parcel of the said Mannor of the yearly value of three pounds now of sate in the occupation of Thomas Smith to the use of the said Thomas Bracebridge for his life and after to the said Sir George until he had levyed five hundred pounds for the payment of the debts and the education of the children of the said Thomas Bracebridge and after to the use of the Defendant in tail And of the residue of the said Mannor to the use of the said Tho. Bracebridge and of the said Joyce his Wife for their lives c. Tho. Bracebridge made livery to the said Sir George in one place parcel of the said Mannor which was in his own occupation in the name of the whole Mannor the fifteen days incur without payment of the said ten hundred pounds the Indenture is enroled Coke attorns Joyce dyes Tho. Bracebridge grants the Lands to a stranger by Fine and before Proclamations Thomas his Son and Heir apparent within age enters in the name of the Feoffees by reason of the forfeiture Proclamations are made Tho. Bracebridge the Father dyeth the Term of Coke expireth A. enters and leaseth to the Plantiff who enters upon whom Tho. Bracebridge the Son enters upon which Entry the Action is brought it was argued by Beamount the elder Although here in the Indenture of bargain and sale there is not an express consideration set down in the common form of a consideration yet because the consideration is implied in the condition it is good enough see the Proviso and condition ut supra that the said Sir George should pay c. As if I bargain and sell to you my Land Proviso that you pay to me for the same at such a day one hundred pounds that consideration set down in the form of a condition is as effectual as if it had been
formally expressed in the usual Terms As to the second payment Where a man bargains and sells his Lands by Deed indented to be enroled and before enrolment he makes Livery to the Bargainee and afterwards the Indentur is enroled the Court discharged Beamount from the arguing of that Point Liveâ—y where it prevents operation of an Enrolment for by Wray the Livery doth prevent the operation of the Enrolment and Sir George shall be accounted in by the Livery and not by the bargain and sale for Livery is of more worth and more worthy ceremony to pass estates and therefore shall be preferred and then the Livery being made in such part of the Mannor which was in the possession of the Feoffor in the name of the whole Mannor no more of the Mannor passeth but that which was then in the possession of the Feoffor And the Reversion of such part of the Mannor which was in Lease shall not pass without Attornment but when the Enrolment cometh now the whole passeth and then the Reversion being setled by the Enrolment the Attornment coming afterwards hath no relation See 48 E. 3. 15 16. The Iury here have found the default of payment whereby the conditional use which passed by the bargain and sale upon the condition broken shall be reduced to the Bargainor without any Entry 1. Cro. 382. and then the uses limited after are void for an use limited upon an use cannot rise quod fuit concessum per totam curiam Then Bracebridge the Father having the Inheritance of the said Mannor in his own right and the interest de futuro for years in the right of his Wife joyntly with the said A. when he sells the said Mannor by Deed indented and enroled now thereby the interest for years which he hath in the Right of his Wife doth not pass for a bargain and sale is not so strong a conveyance as a Livery As if I have a Rent-charge in the right of my Wife out of the Manor of D. which Manor afterwards I purchase and afterwards by Deed indented and enroled I bargain and sell the said Manor c. the Rent shall not pass Then the said Thomas Bracebridge the Father having the said Right of an entail to him and to the Heirs Males of his body and being Tenant for life by his own conveyance the Remainder in tail to his Son and Heir apparent the now Defendant when he levyeth a Fine and the Son enters for forfeiture before Proclamations pass and his Father dyeth in that case the Defendant is not remitted unto the first entail although after Proclamations pass in the life of the Father and so he shall not avoid the Leases for notwithstanding that the Issue in tail by that Entry hath defeated the possession which passed by the Fine yet as to the right of the old entail the Fine doth retain its force and so he entred quodam modo in assurance of the Fine As if Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth the Discontinuee and levieth a Fine with Proclamations and the Discontinuee enters within the five years now although the Fine as to the Discontinuee be avoided so as the possession which passed by the Fine is defeated yet the right of the entail doth continue bound Egerton Solicitor contrary and he conceived that all the Mannor doth pass by the Livery to Sir George and nothing of it by the Enrolment and that the meaning of the parties was that all should pass by the Livery for if the assurance should enure by the bargain and sale then the second uses limited upon default of payment should never rise for an use upon an use cannot rise and then the said uses limited for the payment of the debts of the Feoffor c. should be defeated and also where at the begining of the assurance the condition was entire the warranty entire c. and if such construction should be allowed here shall be a divided condition a divided warranty And also the meaning of the parties that the whole Mannor should pass by such construction should be dismembred and part pass by the Livery and part by the bargain and sale and we ought to make such constructions of Deeds that things may pass by them according to the meanings of the parties as if I be seised of a Mannor to which and Advowson is appendant and I make a Deed of Feoffment of the same Mannor cum pertinencijs and deliver the Deed to the party but no Livery of seisin is had the Advowson shall not pass for then it should be in gross whereas the meaning of the parties was that it should pass as appendant and that in such case cannot be for there is no Livery therefore it shall not pass at all and so it hath been adjudged So if I bargain and sell my Mannor of D. and all the Trees in the same and I deliver the Deed but it is not enrolled the Trees shall not pass for the intent of the parties was that the Trees should pass as parcel of the Free-hold and not as Chattels And as to the remitter I conceive that the Heir entring as Heir by the Law is remitted but where the Entry is given by a special Statute there the Entry shall not enure further than the words of the Statute As Land is given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the Husband levieth a Fine and dieth the wife entreth this Entry shall not avail to the issue in tail for the Entry is given to the Wife by a special Law And he cited Sir Richard Haddons Case the Husband aliened the Lands of his Wife they are divorced the Husband dieth the Wife shall not enter by 32. H. 8. but is put to her Writ of Cui in vita ante divor And afterwards the same Term the Iustices having considered of the Case delivered their opinions upon the matters by Wray chief Iustice viz. That the one moyety of the Lease was extinct by the Livery viz. the moyety of Ioyce the Wife of the Lessor and as to the other moyety it is in being for here is no remitter for if any remitter had been in the Case it should be after the use raised which is not as yet raised for the Land ought to remain in Sir George until the said five hundred pounds be levyed and that is not found by the Verdict and therefore for the said moyety the Plaintiff had Iudgment XI Treshams Case Mich 25 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer SIR John Tresham seised of the Manor of D. holden of the King in Capite by Knights service 4 H. 7. enfeoffed Edmund Earl of Wilts and N. Vaux Knight who gave the said Manor to the said Sir John in tail upon condition that he should not alien c. quo minus c. John Tresham dyed seised by whose decease the Manor descended to Tho. Tresham who entred 2 Len. 55 56. and 18 H. 8. aliened with
Lands within the said Town every second year left their Lands to lye fresh and untilled and prescribed further that the Tenants of the Lands within the said Town might erect Herdals in in their Lands with the Licence of the Lord of the said Manor and not otherwise and further declared that the said Bedingfield had let to him the said Manor and that the Defendant had erected Herdals upon his Lands without Licence so as the profit of his Foldage is impaired by it And all this matter was found by Verdict And it was objected in stay of Iudgment that the prescription is not good for it is against Law and common right to abridge the Subject of the profits of his Lands But the whole Court was clear of opinion that the prescription is good enough as 15 E 2. Prescription 51. Prescription to have common appendant in other Land afte that the Hay is cut and v E. 1. Prescription 55. A. seised of Lands may Plow it and Sow it and cut and carry away the Corn and afterwards when the Corn is carried B. by prescription may have the said Land as his several and the other who sowed it cannot meddle with that land but to plow and sow it in season c. And the Cattel cannot eat and pasture in the Land when they come to plow or sow it or to carry it away nor have any profit but the Corn and yet the Free-hold of the Land is in such person c. and that was holden a good Prescription and a difference was taken by the Court where one doth prescribe to take away the whole interest of the Owner of the Land and where a particular profit is restrained And here this prescription doth not extend but to restrain the Ter-tenant to erect Herdals which is a reasonable prescription See 1 H 7 24. The Lord of the Town doth prescribe to have free Foldage of the Beasts of his Tenants in D. and see there that libera Falda is not any other but to hav the Beasts of the Tenants to manure the lands of the Lord c. And afterwards Punsany the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover XVI Mich. 25 26 Eliz. at Serjeants Inn. IN the Dutchy Chamber the case was that King E 6. leased for years certain lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster rendring rent with clause of re-entry and that a lease was made to one Bunny It was found by Office that the Rent was arrear and by another Office that the Servant of the said Lessee had tendred the rent in his absence and by the commandment of his Master and that afterwards one I. S. Receiver General of the Dutchy received the said Rent and had accounted for it and upon his account it was allowed And this matter was opened at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street before Wray Anderson Manwood Clench Rhodes Plowden and Stanhop and it was argued by Shuttleworth that in this case of rent reserved upon a Lease for years made by the King of dutchy-Dutchy-Land The King not bound to demand Rent the King is not bound to demand it but he may for default of payment of it re-enter without demand and that the Lessee is tied to tender it at his peril as well as if the Queen had been seised of the said land in the right of her Crown and as to that payment the Statute of 1 H 4. is to be considered by which it is enacted that the possessions of the said Dutchy Taliter tali modo per tales officiarios ministros in omnibus remaneant deducantur gubernentur sicut remanere deduci gubernari debuissent si ad culmen Regis Dignitatis assumpti non fuissemus and these words ought to be intended of things which concern the Lands themselves but this Act of demand is a personal thing and concerns the person of the King and toucheth the Majesty and dignity of the King and in all cases of the Dutchy the person of the King shall hold his priviledge notwithstanding that the possession of the Land be carried in the course of a private person And therefore if the Queen will alien Lands parcel of her Dutchy she ought to make Livery for now she meddles with the possession it self but if the Queen will sue for parcel of her Dutchy non omittas shall be in the Writ for she cannot sue but as Queen and the Queen hath such Prerogative that none shall execute her Writs at her own sute but the Officer of the Crown 21 E 4. 60. for Livery if it be not Land within the County Palatine and for the residue See 10 H. 4. 7. 3. Eliz. 216 217. Plowden Lessee for years of Lands of the Dutchy shall have aid of the King before Issue joyned c. And if the King make a Feoffment of Lands of his Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of him in Capite the Feoffee shall hold it so and a Feoffment of such Lands upon condition that the Feoffee shall not alien is a good condition and Lapses shall not bind the Queen in case of an Advowson which the Queen hath in the right of the Dutchy and if the Villain of the Queen in the right of the Dutchy purchaseth Lands in Fee and aliens yet the Queen shall seise and that hath been adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber and if the Queen make a Lease of such Land and afterwards makes another Lease of the same Land without recital of the first Lease it hath been adjudged that the second Lease is void It was argued contrary by Beamount the younger that this condition which goeth to the realty to reduce the Land again ought to be ordered and governed by the Queen as it ought to be by a Subject and therefore if the Queen will take advantage of this condition she ought to make a Letter of Attorney under the Dutchy Seal to her own Officer authorizing him thereby to make demand of the said Rent c. And by Shuttleworth here be two Offices the one contrary to the other the best shall be taken for the Queen 14 E 4. 5. in Skreens Case in the end of it And if the Rent of the Kings Farmor be behind now although that after the Receivor of the Dutchy doth receive it yet the same doth not purge the forfeiture as if the Bayliffs of a Manor receive rent of a new Feoffee the same will not change the Avowry of the Lord without notice given to him 41 E 3. 26. And if a Copy-hold escheat the Steward without a special Warrant cannot grant it over de novo XVI Rearsbie and Rearsbies Case Intrat Trinit 25 Eliz. rot 746. Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. REplevin by W. Rearsbie against A. Rearsbie and L. Rearsbie who avow the distress because that one W. Vavasour was seised of the Manor of Deniby whereof the place where c. is parcel in his Demesne as of Fee and so seised gave the said Manor to
the said Indenture covenanted with Platt that the said Platt and his Heirs should quietly enjoy the said Lands without interruption of any person or persons And afterwards certain controversies rising betwixt them concerning the said Lands Arbitrament the said Bream and Platt submitted themselves to the award and arbitrament of Sir W. Cordel to whom they were bounden severally for the performance of such award the which Sir W. amongst other things awarded that the said Platt and his Heirs should enjoy quietly the said Lands in tam amplo modo forma as the said Land is conveyed and assured by the coveyance and assurance aforesaid And the truth was that the said Bream at the time of the said Assurance was bounden in a Recognizance of six hundred pounds to one More 15. Eliz. and afterwards More 16 Eliz. sued a Sci. fac upon the said Recognizance and 18 Eliz. the bargain and sale aforesaid was made and afterwards 19 Eliz. More sued forth Excution by Elegit and the moyety of the said Land assured to Platt was delivered in Execution to More And if upon the whole matter the Arbitrament was broken was the question It was argued by Godfrey that the Plaintiff ought to be barred and first 1 Hob. 35. Mor. 175. 3 Len. 43. Post 93. Post 179 279. 1 Inst 366. a. b. 388. Dy 42. he conceived that these words in the Indenture give and grant did not help the Action for the Lands passed with a charge and the general words Dedi concessi do not extend to this collateral charge but to the direct right of the Land only but if a stranger had put out the bargainee there upon such general words an Action would lie but as the Case is they do not give any cause of Action for the Recognizance was a thing in charge at the time of the Assurance and yet see 31 E 3. Br. Warr. Chartae 33. A. enfeoffeth B. with warranty who brings a Warrantia Chartae and recovers pro loco tempore and afterwards a stranger doth recover against him a Rent charge out of the said Land and it was holden that upon the matter B. should have execution the special words of the Aribitrament upon which the Action is brought are that the said Platt and his Heirs should enjoy the said Lands in tam amplo modo forma as it was assured and conveyed to the said Platt ergo not in more ample manner 1 Cro. 660. 661. Owen Rep. 65. 2 Cro. 571. 1 Roll. 425. and the said Land was conveyed to Platt chargeable to the said Recognizance therefore if Platt enjoy it charged there is no cause of Action And as to the Covenant in the Indenture that Platt and his Heirs should enjoy quietly the said Lands without interruption of any person the same is a Collateral surety and the words of the Award are that Platt shall enjoy it in tam amplo modo forma as it is conveyed and assured by the assurance aforesaid without interruption these are not words of assurance for the assurance doth consist in the legal words of passing the estate scil bargain sale Dedi concessi and in the limitation of the estate and not in the words of the Convenant And therefore it hath been adjudged that if I. be bounden to A. in an Obligation to assure to him the Mannor of D c. if A. tender to me an Indenture of bargain and sale in which are many Covenants I am not bound upon the peril of my Bond to seal and deliver it Also here doth not appear any interruption against the Covenant in the Indenture for here is not any lawful Execution for it appeareth here that More hath sued Execution by Elegit 4 years after the Iudgment in the Scire facias in which case he shall be put to a new Scire facias for the Sheriff in this Case ought to have returned that the Conusor after the Recognizance had enfeoffed divers persons and shewed who and upon that matter returned the Conusee should have a Sci. facias against the Feoffees vide F. N. B. 266. And the Court was clear of opinion against the Plaintiff XXXV Floud and Sir John Perrotts Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. FLoud recovered against Sir John Perrot 1 Cro. 63. Post 264. 3 Len. 240. in an Action upon the Case upon a promise eighty six pounds against which Floud and Barlow affirmed a Plaint of Debt in London and attached the said moeny in the hands of the said Sir John and had execution according to the custom of London And now the said Floud sued a Scire facias against the said Sir John who appeared and pleaded the said Execution by attachment upon which Floud the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was adjudged no plea for a duty which accrueth by matter of Record cannot be attached by the custom of London And notwithstanding that the custom of London be layed generally in aliquo debito and damages recovered are quoddam debitum as it was urged by the Council of the Defendant Yet the Law is clear that Iudgments given in the Courts of the King ought not Judgments in the Kings Courts not to be defeated by particular custom of places nor cannot by such particular customs be defeated and avoided as it was lately adjudged in a Western Case Damages were recovered the Sheriff by virtue of a Fieri facias levyed the money which one to whom the Plaintiff was endebted did attach by the custom in the hands of the Sheriff but it was adjudged the attachment was not good for the custom of attachment cannot reach upon a thing of so high a nature as a Record is the same Law of Debt upon a Recognizance and Statute c. and it was affirmed by Wray chief Iustice that upon great deliberation it was agreed by Bromley Lord Chancellor himself the Lord Anderson Mead and Periam Iustices that where a Merchant having in an Action recovered certain damages became Bankrupt upon which issued an Commission upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. of Bankrupts that such Commissioners could not entermeddle with such damages to dispose of them to the Creditors according to the said Statute But now see the Statute of 1 Jacobi The Commissioners have power to dispose of such debts c. XXXVI Sir Walter Hungerfords Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Grants of the King. IN a Replevin by Sir Walter Hungerford the Case was this the Queen being seised of a great Waste called Ruddesdown in the Parish of Chipnam granted to the Mayor and Burgesses of Chipnam the moyety of a yard-Yard-land in the said Waste without certainty in what part of the Waste they should have the same or the special name of the Land or how it was bounded and without any certain description of it And afterwards the Queen granted to the said Sir Walter the said Waste and afterwards the said Mayor and Burgesses by warrant of Attorney
for that he hath not made his Fresh sute according to the Law for he ought to have begun his Fresh sute within the Hundred where the Robbery was done and it was also objected that the Robbery was done post occasum solis in which Case the Hundreders are not to pursue the Malefactors And Walmsley Serjeant cited a Case out of Bracton Si appellatus se defenderit contra appellantem tota dle usque ad horam in qua Stellae incipiunt apparere recedat quietus de appello and it is not reason to drive the Hundreders to Follow felons at such a time 1 Cro. 270. when for want of light they cannot see them And all the Iustices were clear of opinion that if the Robbery was done in the night time the Inhabitants are not bound to make the pursute And by Rhodes if in a Praecipe quod reddat of Lands the Sheriff summons the Demandant upon the Land in the time of night such a summons is meerly void LXXIII Wiseman and Wisemas Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin 28. Rot. 1458. IN an Action of Debt by Wiseman against Wiseman the Case was Debt 1 And. 160. Owen 140. that one Wiseman was seised of the Lands and by his Will devised 1. I will and bequeath unto my Wife B. acre for the Term of her life the remainder to my Son Thomas in tail Item I will and bequeath unto my Son Thomas Devises all my Lands in D. and also my Lands in S. and also my Lands in V. Also I give and bequeath unto the said Thomas my Son all that mâ— Island or Land enclosed with water which I purchased of the Earl of Essex To have and to hold all the said last before devised premisses unto the said Thomas my Son and the Heirs of his Body The only matter was If the Habendum shall extend to the Island only in which Case Thomas shall have but for life in the Lands in D. S. and V. or unto the Island and also to the Lands in D. S. and V 2 Roll. 60. Roph. 126. in which Case he shall have Fee-tail in the whole And it was argued by Fenner that the Habendum should extend to the Island only as he said the opinion of the Iustices of this Court was in 4 Eliz. in another Case I devise my Manor to D. my eldest Son and also my Land in S. in tail in that Case the entail limited for the Land in S. shall not extend to the 1 Roll. 844. said Manor and of such opinion was Weston Welsh and Dyer Brown contra that the Son hath tail in both But if the words of the devise had been I devise my Manor of D. and my Lands in S. to my Son in tail here the Son had an estate tail in both So it hath been adjudged that if I devise Lands to A. B. and C. successively as they be named the same is good by way of Remainder Walmesley contrary and he relied much upon this that the words of the Habendum are in the plural number 2 Bulst 180. 181. All the last before devised premisses whereas the thing lately devised by the Will was an Island in the singular number which cannot satisfie the Habendum Extent of an Habendum which is in the plural number and therefore to verifie the plural number in the Habendum the Habendum by fit construction shall extend to all the Lands in D. S. and V. and so upon his motion made at another day it was resolved by all the Iustices that the Habendum should extend to all the said Lands and the Habendum should not streighten the Devise to the Island only LXXIV Fullwood and Fullwoods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Bail renders himself in Court. IN an Action upon the Case the Defendant put in bail to the Court to answer to the Action and now Iudgment being given against him he came into Court and rendred himself and prayed that in discharge of his sureties that the Court would record the rendring of himself which was granted And the Court demanded of the Plaintiff if he would pray execution for the body against the Defendant who said he would not whereupon the Court awarded that the sureties should be discharged and the Rule was entred that the Defendant offered himself in discharge of his sureties and Attornatus Querentis allocatus per curiam c. dixit se nolle c. Ideo consideratum fuit per curiam quod tam praedict defend quam praedict Manucaptores de recognitione praedict denariis in eadem contentis exonerentur LXXV Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was He in the Reversion upon a Lease for years makes a Charter of Feoffment to divers persons to the use of himself for life Feoffments and after to the use of his eldest Son in tail and the words of the Charter were Dedi Concessi Barganizavi Feoffavi and he sealed and delivered the deed but no livery of seisin was made and afterwards he came to his Lessee for years and said to him that he had made a Feoffment and shewed also the uses but did not shew to whom the Feoffment was made to whom the Lessee said you have done very well I am glad of it Attornment And if that were a good Attornment was the Question It was said that that was the Case of one Arden And Gent and Manwood were of opinion that the same was no Attornment because it was not made to the Feoffee scil to the Grantee of the Reversion and so it was ruled in this Case for Attornment ought to be to the Grantee himself and not to Cestuy que use 1 Cro. 251. Tythes and where the spiritual court shall have jurisdiction of them LXXVI The Parson of Facknams Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Parson of great Facknam brought an Action of Trespass against the Parson of Hannington and the Case was If the Parson of one Parish claim by prescription a portion of Tythes out of the Parish of another if the Spiritual Court shall have the Iurisdiction for the tryal of it And the opinion of the whole Court was clear that it should because that the matter is betwixt two spiritual persons and concerning the right of Tithes As 35 H. 6. 39. I. Vicar of B. brought Trespass for taking away of forty loads of Beans c. The Defendant pleaded that he is Parson of the said Church of B. and the Plaintiff is Vicar c. and before the Trespass c. the Beans were growing in the same Town and severed from the nine parts and he took them as belonging to his said Church and demanded Iudgment of the Court c. The Plaintiff said that he and all his Predecessors Vicars c. time out of mind c. have used to have the Tithes of such a Close c. belonging to his Vicaridge and
within the said Close the Beans were growing and were parcel of his endowment and that at the time of the taking they were severed from the nine parts whereupon he took them And it was holden by Ashton and Danby because it is confessed on both sides that the Beans whereof c. were Tithes the Right of which would come in debate betwixt the Parson and the Vicar and both are spiritual persons that the tryal thereof doth belong to the Spiritual Court. See 6 E. 4. 3. 22 E. 4. 23. 24. in such a matter betwixt the Parson and Vicar there the Temporal Court was ousted of the Iurisdiction See also 31 H. 6. 11. betwixt the Parson and the Servant of another Parson 7 H. 4. 102. In Trespass by a Parson against a Lay-man who said that one A. is Parson of a Church in a Town adjoyning to a Town where the Plaintiff is Parson and that A. let to him the Tithe and demanded Iudgment c. and pleaded to the Iurisdiction and by Gascoigne the Plaintiff may recover his Tithes in the Spiritual Court. LXXVII Bunny against Wright and Stafford Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass the Case was this Leases within 1 Eliz. and 32. 7 8. made by Bishops Grindal Bishop of Lond. leased parcel of the possessions of his Bishoprick for one and twenty years and afterwards ousted the Lessee and leased unto another for three lives rendring the antient and accustomed Rent which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter And afterwards Grindal is translated Cook argued That the Lease is warranted by the Statute of 1 Eliz. At the Common Law a Bishop might make an Alienation in Fee-simple being confirmed by the Dean and Chapter But by 32 H. 8. cap. 28. Bishops without Dean and Chapter or their confirmation may make a Lease for one and twenty years but with the confirmation of the Dean and Chapter may make a Lease for one thousand years Co. 1. Inst 45. 2. More 107. 1 Anderson 65. But by the Statute of 1 Eliz. the power of Bishops in that right is much abridged for now with confirmation or without confirmation they cannot dispose of their possessions but for one and twenty years or three lives and this Lease is in all points according to the Statute of 1 Eliz. for first it begins presently upon the making of it Secondly the antient rent is reserved payable yearly during the term for although here be an old Lease in esse yet the Rent reserved upon the second Lease is payable during the second term for payable is a word of power and not of action as 1 H. 4. 1. 2. 3. Lord Mesne and Tenant the Mesne gives the Mesnalty in tail rendring Rent it is a good Rent and well reserved although here be not a present distress yet it may be the Tenancy will escheat and then the Donor shall distrein for all the Arrearages And so the Rent is payable by possibility And 10 E. 4. 4. A. leaseth for years and afterwards grants the Reversion to a stranger if the Beasts of the stranger come upon the Lands during the term A. may distreâ—â— for the Arrearages incurred and if he happen seisin he shall have aâ—â— Assise during the continuance of the first term And he cited a Case lately adjudged in the Exchequer A Lessor entred upon Lessee for years and made a Feoffment rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry the Lessee re-entred claiming his Term and afterwards during the said Term for years the Rent reserved upon the Feoffment upon demand of it is behind Now hath the Lessor regained the Reversion And so a Rent may be demanded although not distreinable And all that was affirmed by Egerton Solicitor General And see the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 28. Rent reserved yearly during the said Lease due and payable to the Lessor c. such Rent c. and yet by the said Statute such Leases may be good although there be a former interest for years in being if the same shall be expired surrendred or ended within one year after the making such new lease and so not expresly payable in rei veritate annually during the Term. LXXVIII Bonefant and Sir Rich. Greenfields Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Sale of Lands by the Executors of the Devisor BOnefant brought Trespass against Sir Rich. Greenfield and upon the general issue this special matter was found Tremagrie was seised of a Manor whereof the place where c. was parcel in his Demesne as of Fee and by his Will devised the same to his four Executors and further willed Post 260. that his said Executors should sell the same to Sir John Saintleger for the payment of his debts if the said Sir John would pay for it one thousand one hundred pounds at such a day and died Sir John did not pay the mony at the day One of the Executors refused Administration of the Will the other three entred into the Land and sold it to the Defendant for so much as it could be sold and in convenient time It was moved that the sale was not good for they have not their authority as Executors but as Devisees and then when one refuseth the other cannot sell by 21 H. 3. Cestuy que use Wills that is Executors shall alien his Land and dieth although the Executors refuse the Administration yet they may alien the Land. 19 H. 8. 11. 15 H. 7. 12 Egerton Solicitor argued that the sale is good by the Common Law and also by the Statute 49 E. 3. 16 17. Devise that his Executors shall sell his Land and dieth and one of the Executors dieth another refuseth the third may sell well enough 1 And. 145. and the sale is good See Br. Devise 31. 30 H. 8. 39 E. 3. Br. Assise 356. And he put a difference where an Authority is given to many by one deed there all ought to joyn contrary where the Authority is given by Will And if all the Executors severally sell the Lands to several persons such sale which is most beneficial for the Testator shall stand and take effect And here it is found by verdict that one of the Executors recusavitonus Testamenti Ergo he refused to take by the Devise for it was devised unto him to the intent to sell therefore if he refuseth to sell he doth refuse to take and so it is not necessary that he who refuseth joyn in the sale and although we are not within the express words of the Statute yet we are within the sense and meaning of it And afterwards it was adjudged that the Condition for the manner of it was good LXXIX Gamock and Cliffs Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Ejectione firmae EJectione firmae was brought by Gamock against Cliff of the Manor of Hockly in the County of Essex and upon the evidence the case was That the King and Queen Philip and Mary seised
their amendment makes alteration of the substance of the pleading or of the Verdict as 20 H. 6. 15. In Trespass the Plaintiff declared of a continuando usque diem impetrationis brevis viz. 18. die Martii where the Teste of the Writ was 2 die Januarij the Defendant pleaded to Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and that Misprision of the Teste or date of the Writ could not be amended And no amendment upon this Stat. of 27 Eliz. two things are to be considered First that the Iudges in such amendment medle not with matter nor alter the substance Secondly that they do not amend but according to their judicial knowledge Anderson to the same intent for as it hath been said before the truth of the Case doth not appear unto us according to which we can judge and I conceive that upon any amendment upon this Statute we cannot take out one Roll and put in another and as our case is we cannot amend this defect without taking out the whole Roll and therefore in the Case of Leonard which was late Custos brevium here where in a Replevin he avowed for a Rent-service and upon especial Verdict the Case was that Sir Henry Isley held of the said Leonard by Fealty and the Rent mentioned in the Avowry and was attainted of high Treason and the King seised and granted the Land to the Plaintiff upon whom Leonard avowed for the Rent-service and I and my companions were agreed that the rent notwithstanding the seisure and grant of the King remained distrainable of common right but Leonard could not have return of the Cattel because he had avowed for a Rent-service now it appeareth to us upon the Verdict that he had right to so much rent but not to such a Rent but a Rent-seck distrainable of common right so a Rent in another degree and we also agreed that the Avowry was not amendable for then upon such amendment we ought to take out a whole Roll which was not intended by this Statute And he conceived also that in debt against Executors in the Debet detinet such a Writ shall not be amended by this Statute and he conceived that his exception to the Bar quod ad medietatem 60. Messuag c. parcel medietatis c. is relieved by this Statute for the meaning appeareth And also the exception that it is not expresly shewed that the Fine was engrossed in the same Term in which it was levied And Periam moved another matter Co. 1 Inst 71. b. 72. a. if now the parties demurring in Law as to part of the Land in demand and being at Issue upon the residue if the Court shall adjudge the matter in Law before the Issue be tried or not 32 H. 6. 5 6. In Trespass for taking of his Cattel the Defendant as to parcel pleaded not guilty and as to the remnant pleaded another Plea upon which the parties did demur and there they proceeded to trial before the matter in Law determined and found for the Plaintiff and he had Iudgment thereupon for the damages but the costs were suspended until c. And the Defendant brought his Writ of Error 48 E. 3. 15. In an Action of Wast as to parcel the Defendant pleads no Wast and as to the rest pleaded matter in Law upon which there was a demurer joyned It was holden that the Issue should not be tried until the matter in Law be determined But it was said by Fulthorpe in Trespass if the Defendant to parcel plead the Enquest and to other parcel matter in Law in such case he should proceed to trial presently and damages should be taxed of the whole as well of that upon which there was a demurrer in Law as of that of which the Issue was joyned ad quod non fuit responsum See also 11 H. 4. 228. In Trespass the Defendant pleaded to Issue for part and for the residue did demur in Law Process for the trial issued before the matter in Law determined And Periam conceived that the Court might proceed in such Case the one way or the other As to the matter in Law whether the issue in tail upon this Fine should have the Averment he conceived that he should not have the said Averment for that it should be very perilous to the Inheritances of the subjects And he argued much upon the dignity of Fines out of Bracton and Glanvil whom he called Actores non Authores Legis that Fines at the common Law were of great authority until the Statute of West 2. And afterwards by the Statute of 34 E. 3. of non-claim from whence they became to be of so little value in Law that they were accounted no other than Feoffments upon Record so as thereby no assurance was of Inheritances but a general incertainty until the Statute of 4. H. 7. by which Statute they were restored to their ancient power and virtue After which Statute many shifts were devised to creep out of it So as the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made to take away all questions and ambiguities which were conceived upon the said Statute of 4 H. 7. And therefore we who are Iudges ought to frame our Iudgments for the maintaining of the authority of Fines for so the possessions and inheritances of the Subjects shall be preserved And that is the reason that if a stranger levy a Fine of my Land in my name that I have not any remedy but a Writ of Deceit against him who levyes the Fine so if a Feme-covert levyeth a Fine of her Land as a Feme-sole the same shall bind her after the coverture if the Husband do not enter upon the Conusee during the coverture and interrupt the possession gained by the Fine And 17 E. 3. and our Books are very plentiful to this purpose that the Law doth aerge admit of such allegations against such Fines A Fine was pleaded in Bar of Land in A. B. and C. he against whom it was pleaded was not received to aver against the supposal of the Fine that there was no such Town or Hamlet as A. 46 E. 3. 5. A woman Tenant in tail had Issue a Daughter who was inheritable to the tail the Daughter took a Husband they both living the Mother and during her seisin levied a Fine of the Land entailed to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. who rendred the Land to the Husband and Wife in specil tail the Husband died having Issue the Wife took another Husband had Issue and died the Husband to entitie himself to the Land as Tenant by the curtesy would in pleading have averred the seisin of the Mother at the time of the Fine levyed and he could not and yet he was a stranger to the Fine but he was privy to the estate and his claim was by her who levyed the Fine 6 E. 3. 46. Fitz. Averment 40. In a Writ of Entry sur dissei sin the Fine of the
as in case where the Husband died seised Dy. 370. the which dying seised is not found by the Verdict In which Case it was said by the Court the Demandant might pray Iudgment of the Lands and release damages or the Demandant may aver that the Husband died seised and have a Writ to enquire of the damages quod omnes Pregnotarii concesserunt CXIX Michel and Hydes Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower DOwer by Michel and his Wife against Lawrence Hyde who appeared upon the grand Cape And it was because that the said Hyde in truth was but Lessee for years of the Land of which c. in which case he might plead non-tenure if now he might wage his Law of non-summons so as the Writ be abated for by the wager of Law he hath taken upon him the Tenancy and affirmed himself to be Tenant 33 H. 6. 2. by Prisoit to which it was said by Rhodes and Windham Iustices that here the Tenant being but Lessee for years is not at any mischief for if Iudgment and Execution be had against him he notwithstanding might afterwards enter upon the Demandant Another matter was moved That where the Writ of Dower was de tertia parte Rectoriae de D. and upon that the grand Cape issued Cape in manum nostram tertiam partem Rectoriae and the Sheriff by colour of this Writ took the Tythes severed from the nine parts and carried them away with him And it was agreed by the said Iustices that the same is not such a seisure as is intended by the said Writ but the Sheriff by virtue of such Writ ought generally to seize but leave them there where he found them And the Court was of opinion to commit the Sheriff to Prison for such his misdemeanor CXX Hamington and Ryders Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Haming Executor of Isabel Haming brought Debt upon an Obligation against Ryder Debt Savil Rep. 74. Owen Rep. 6. 1 Co. 52. 1 Andâ— 162. the Case was that Kidwelly was seised leased for years to John Hamington Husband of Isabel and afterwards John Hamington being so possessed by his will devised that the said Isabel should have the use and occupation of the said Land for all the years of the said Term as she should live and remain sole and if she died or married that then his Son should have the residue of the said Term not expired John died Isabel entred Devises to whom the said Lawr. coveyed by Feoffment the said Land in Fee and in the Indenture of the said Conveyance Lawr. covenanted that the said Land from thence should be clearly exouerated de omnibus prioribus barganijs titulis juribus omnibus alijs oneribus quibuscunque Isabel took to Husband the Son entreth If now the Covenant be broken was the question It seemed to Anderson at the first motion that this possibility which was in the Son at the time of the Feoffment was not any of the things mentioned in the Covenant scil former bargain title right or charge But yet it was conceived by him that the word bargain did extend to it for every Lease for years is a contract and although that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was not charged yet it was not discharged of the former contract And by Windham if I be bounden in a Statute-staple and afterwards I bargain and sell my Lands and covenant ut supra here the Land is not charged but if after the condition contained in the defeazance be broken so as the Conusee extends now the Covenant is broken And by him the word charge doth extend to a possibility and this possibility might be extinct by Livery as all agreed but not translated by grant Ante 33. 3 Len. 43. Covenant or extinguished by release as it was lately adjudged in the Case of one Carter At another day it was argued by Walmesley and he much relied upon the words clearly exonerated utterly discharged or altogether exonerated and without doubt it is a charge which may happen and if it may happen then the Land is not clare exonerated And also former bargains do extend to it and the Term is not extinct by the acceptance of the Feoffment aforesaid of Kidwelly and although that at the time of the Feoffment it was but a possibility and no certain interest yet now upon the marriage of Isabel it is become an actual burthen and charge upon the Land and he cited a Case adjudged 8 Eliz. A man seised of Lands grants a Rent-charge to begin at a day to come before which day he bargains and sells the Lands and covenants that the said Lands are discharged of all charges in that case when the day when the Rent ought to begin is incurred the Covenant is clearly broken for the Lands were not clearly exonerated c. At another day the Case was moved at the Bar. And Anderson openly in Court declared that he and all his companions were agreed that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was not discharged of all former Rights Titles and charges and therefore commanded that Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff CXXI Howel and Trivanians Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HOwel brought an Action upon the Case against Trivanian in the Common Pleas and declared Assumpsit that he delivered certain goods to the brother of the Defendant who made the Defendant his Executor and died after which the Plaintiff came to the Defendant and spake with him concerning the said goods upon which communication and speech the Defendant promised the Plaintiff that if the Plaintiff could prove that the said goods were delivered to the Testator 2 Roll. 594. that he would pay the value of them to the Plaintiff And the Declaration was in consideration that the said goods came to the hands of the Testator and also afterwards the goods came to the Defendants hands and upon non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given And afterwards Error was brought in the Kings Bench and Error assigned because that the Plaintiff had not averred in his Declaration that he had proved the delivery of the said goods to the said Testator 1 Cro. 105. for the words of the promise are si probare potuisset And also it was assigned for Error that here is not any consideration upon which this promise could receive any strength for the Defendant hath not any profit or advantage thereby scil by the bailment of the said goods to the Brother of the Defendant And also it is a thing before executed and not depending upon the promise nor the promise upon it As the Case reported by the Lord Dyer 10 Eliz. 272. The Servant is arrested in London and two men to whom the Master is well known bail the said Servant and after the Master promiseth to them for their friend-ship to save them harmless from all costs
And at another day Wray said Dy. 179. that partition by Tenants in common without deed wheresoever it is made is good but in this case it appears that the parties who made the partition were in the house for they were Tenants in common of the Messuage and a close adjoyning to it and made partition that one should have the house 6 Co. 12. and the other the close so as they were not upon the close when they made the partition and then it was void for the close and if for the close then also for the house And Iudgment was given accordingly CXXXVII Cook and Songats Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the case by Cook against Songat the Plaintiff declared Quod cum quaedam Lis and controversie had been moved betwixt the Plaintiff Lord of the Manor c. and the Defendant claiming certain Lands parcel of the said Manor to hold it by copy and whereas both parties submitted themselves to the Iudgment and Arbitrament of I. S. Counsellor at Law concerning the said Land and the title of the Defendant to it The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that if the said I. S. should adjudge the said Copy to be good and sufficient for the title of the Defendant that then he would suffer the Defendant to enjoy the said Land accordingly without molestation The Defendant reciprocally promised the Plaintiff that if the said I. S. should adjuge the said Copy not sufficient to maintain the title of the Defendant that then he would deliver and surrender the possession of the said Land to the Plaintiff without any sute And shewed further that I. S. had awarded the said Copy utterly insufficient c. yet the Defendant did continue the possession of the Land c. And by Godfrey here is not any consideration But by Gawdy the same is a good and sufficient consideration because it is to avoid variances and sutes And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXXVIII Pawlet and Lawrences Case Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. GEorge Pawlet brought an Action of Trespass against one Lawrence Parson of the Church of D. for the taking of certain Carts loaded with Corn which he claimed as a portion of Tythes in the Right of his Wife and supposed the Trespass to be done the seven and twentieth of August 29 Eliz. upon Not guilty it was given in evidence on the Defendants part that the Plaintiff delivered to him a Licence to be married bearing date the eight and twentieth of August 29 Eliz. and that he married the Plaintiff and his said Wife the same day so as the Trespass was before his title to the Tythes And it was holden by the whole Court that that matter did abate his Bill But it was holden that if the Trespass had been assigned to be committed one day after that it had been good but now it is apparent to the Court that at the time of the Trespass assigned by himself the Plaintiff had not Title and therefore the Action cannot be maintained upon that evidence for which cause the Plaintiff was Non-suit CXXXIX Sir John Braunches Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Forfeiture IN the Case of Sir John Braunch it was said by Cook that if a Copy-holder be dwelling in a Town long distant from the Manor a general warning within the Manor is not sufficient but there ought to be to the person notice of the day when the Court shall be holden c. For his not coming in such case cannot be called a wilful refusal Copy-holder So if a man be so weak and feeble that he cannot travel without danger so if he hath a great Office c. these are good causes of excuse It was also holden that if a Copy-holder makes default at the Court and be there amerced although that the amercement be not estreated or levyed yet it is a dispensation of the forfeiture Gawdy Iustice If the Copy-holder be impotent the Lord may set a Fine upon him and if he will not pay the Fine then it is reason that he shall forfeit his Land. Egerton Sollicitor Warning to the person of the Copy-holder is not necessary for then if the Lord of a Manor hath one Copy-holder of it dwelling in Cornwal and another in York c. the Lord ought to send his Bayliff to give notice of the Court to them which should be very inconvenient and by him continual default at the Court doth amount to a wilful refusal And by the whole Court general warning within the Parish is sufficient 1 Cro. 353. 505. 506. for if the Tenant himself be not Resient upon his Copy-hold but elsewhere his Farmer may send to him notice of the Court And it was further given in evidence that Sir John Braunch had by his Letter of Attorney appointed the Son of his Farmer his Attorney to do the services for him due for his said Copy-hold And it was holden that such a person so appointed might essoin Sir John but not do the services for him for none can do the same but the Tenant himself CXL Wilkes and Persons Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. JOhn Wilkes and Margery his Wife and Thomas Persons brought Trespass Quare clausum fregit herbam suam messuit foenum suum asportavit Trespass ad damnum ipsius Johannis Margeriae Thomae And exception was taken that it was not the Hay of the Wife nor she was not damnified by it but her Husband Wray Iustice the Declaration is good enough 1 Cro. 96. Record for although it be not good for the Hay yet clausum fregit herbam messuit makes it good And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs CXLI Atkinson and Rolses Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the case by Atkinson against Rolfe the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant in consideration of the love which he â—ore unto A. his Father did promise that if the Plaintiff would procure a discharge of a Debt of I. S. which his said Father owed to the said I. S. that he would save the Plaintiff harmless against the said I. S. And declared further that he had discharged the Father of the Defendant from the said Debt and is become bounden to the said I. S. in an Obligation for the payment of the said Debt upon which Obligation the said I. S. hath sued the Plaintiff and hath recovered and had execution accordingly and so hath not been saved harmless c. It was objected that the Declaration was not good because the Plaintiff hath not shewed in his Declaration that he had given notice to the Defendant of the said Obligation or of the suit brought against him but that was not allowed but the Declaration was holden to be good notwithstanding the exception Shuttleworth if I be bound to make to you such an assurance as I. S. shall devise I am bound
amount to a Re-entry And afterwards to prove a Re-entry it was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part that the Defendant put in his Cattel in the Field where the Brick-kill was and that the Cattel did estray into the place where the Defendant had supposed that the Plaintiff had entred And by Anderson Iustice the same is not any Re-entry to revive the Rent because they were not put into the same place by the Lessee himself but went there of their own accord And such also was the opinion of Iustice Periam CL. Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levyed a Fine with proclamation and died It was moved by Fenner if any estate passed to the Son by the Covenant for it is not a discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson The estate passeth until c. and he cited the case of one Pitts where it was adjudged that if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grant the same in Fee and an Ancestor collateral releaseth with warranty and dieth That the same is a good Bar for ever CLI Staffords Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe case was Attachment upon a Prohibition More 599. that the Parson of the Church of B. did libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for Ttithe-milk of eight Kine depasturing within such a Field within his Parish The Defendant said that he and all those c. had used time out of mind c. to pay every year a certain sum of mony to the Parson c. for the Tithes of the same Field which plea the Iudges of the Ecclesiastical Court would not allow and therefore the party had now a Prohibition and an Injunction against the Iudges Doctors Proctors c. And afterwards the same Parson libelled again for the same Tithes against the same Parishioner and in both libels there was no difference but that in the later libel it was for a less number of Kine and now the Parishioner upon this matter prayed an Attachment upon the Prohibition which was granted unto him by the Court for otherwise a Prohibition should be granted to no purpose CLII. Samford and Wards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SAmford brought a Ravishment of Ward against Ward Ravishment of Ward and counted hat one A. Ancestor of the Infant whose Heir he is was seised of certain Lands in Fee and held the same of the Bishop of Winchester in Socage and died his Heir within the age of 14 years and that the custody of the Infant did belong unto him as his prochein Amy by force of which he seised him and was possessed c. The Defendant saith that the Land was holden of him by Knights service absque hoc that it is holden of the Bishop of Winchester as the Plaintiff hath counted And upon the Issue was joyned And it was moved by Serjant Puckering on the Plaintiffs part that the truth of the Case was that all the Land descended is holden in Socage and no part in Knights service but that part of it is holden of another in Socage And prayed the opinion of the Court if that matter shall trench to the Issue as the same is joyned And the Court was of opinion that it did not for if all be holden in Socage it is not material if part of it be holden of another so as it be holden in Socage CLIII Stamp and Hutchins Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was the Obligor makes his Executors and dieth 1 Cro. 120. the Executors become bounden to the Obligee for the payment of the said Debt and the Obligee doth deliver back the Obligation of the Testator to them and afterwards another Creditor of the Testator sues the Executors who pleaded that they have fully administred upon which they are at issue and the said especial matter was found by verdict And by Shuttleworth and Walmesley The Iury have found for the Plaintiff and that the Defendants have not fully administred And yet they agreed the case of 20 H. 7. 2. The Executors paying to the Creditors of the Testator a Debt with their own goods they may retain so much of the goods of the Testator but that case is not like to this for here the Executors have not made any payment or satisfaction of the Debt nor disbursed any mony c. nor other things but only have made an Obligation to pay a sum of mony at a day to come before which day it may happen that the Obligation be cancelled or released but it may more fitly be compared to the case of 27 H. 8. 6. where an Executor had compounded with a Creditor of the Testator for the payment of 20 l. for a debt of 40 l. and had an Acquitance testifying the payment of the 40 l. where it was holden that the other 20 l. is Assets And by Rhodes this making of an Obligation by Executors Administration Assets although the Obligation in which the Testator was bounden be delivered to the Executors and cancelled is not any administration nor payment of the said debt due So if the Executors pledge the goods for the payment of such a debt yet they shall be accounted Assets until payment be made which Periam denied And Periam and all the other Iustices held clearly Retainer by administrations that if in such case the Executors make a sufficient Obligation to the Creditor of the Testator and sufficiently discharge the Testator without fraud or covin that they may retain the goods of the Testator for so much and the goods retained shall not be said Assets And this case is all one with the case of 20 H. 7. for here they have discharged the Testator and the Executors do remain charged with the same to the Creditor and it is so fully administred as if the Executors had expresly paid the debt And it is not like to the case of 27 H. 8. cited before for there although they have discharged the Testator yet they have not charged themselves otherwise it is in the principal case and although they have appointed ulteriorem diem for the payment of the said debt yet the same is not material But the Lord Anderson conceived that if the Creditor doth deliver unto the Executors the Obligation as an Accquittance or discharge and in consideration thereof they promise to pay the debt the same is not any administration as to the said debt And by some of the Serjants If the plea stand good to prove fully administred then Executors in such case may make an Obligation to pay the debt 40 years after and so defraud the other Creditors which is not reasonable If a Feoffment in Fee
parties as if the condition were to go to Rome And as to the Request he conceived that it ought to be shewed specially and certainly for it is for the benefit of the Covenantee for without request the Action doth not lie which Clench granted And it was holden by the whole Court that the bar shall not help the insufficient Declaration No more if the Defendant plead Non Assumpsit yet the defect in the Declaration of a Request not duly shewed remaineth Gawdy The bringing of the Action is a Request Clench A Writ of Debt is a Praecipe for which there licet saepius requisitus is sufficient but a Writ of Covenant is not so CLXXI. Piers and Hoes Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass it was found by special verdict Trespass 1 Cro. 131. 1 Roll. 854. that A. seised of Land in the right of his Wife being her Ioynture by a former Husband he and his Wife made a Feoffment to a stranger and his Heirs Habend to the use of the stranger and his Heirs during the life of the Wife only Shutleworth The same is a forfeiture for if the same Feoffment had been without any use expressed Forfeiture then it should be to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs and by consequence a forfeiture and as the case is here it is also a forfeiture for during the life of the Wife the use is expresly to the use of the Feoffee and his Heirs and the remainder of the Fee-simple is to the use of the Feoffor scil the Husband and his Heirs Popham I conceive that here is a forfeiture Owen 64. 2 Cr. 200 201. 3 Cr. 167. Hob. 373. for here are several limitations limitation of the estate unto one and of the use unto another And the words for the life of the Wife do not refer to the estate but to the use with proximum antecedens And he resembled the same to the case of Leonard Sturton in which he was of Councel A man granted Lands Habend unto the Grantee to the use of the Grantee and the Heirs of his body the same is no estate tail in the Grantee but only an estate for life for the Limitation of the use cannot extend the estate Cook contrary The case is that A. Wife of one Piers being Tenant for life of the Ioynture of the said Piers took to Husband Hoe they both by Deed grant totum suum Messuagium to one Clarke Habendum to him and his Heirs for the life of the Wife only I conceive that here is not any forfeiture for it is but one intire sentence And if there be a double construction of a deed that which is most reasonable shall be taken so as wrong be not done Construction of Deeds and therefore these words for the life of the Wife shall refer unto both scil the estate and the use and their intent was not to commit a forfeiture as appeareth by the words of the Deed for they grant solum messuagium and that was not but for the life of the wife ad solum usum of the Feoffee and his Heirs during the life of the Wife and violence should be offered to this word solum if the Feoffee or his Heirs should have ultra the life of the Wife and the word tantum cannot otherwise be expounded but that the estate for life only shall pass from them And he cited the Case of 34 E. 3. Avowry 258. A. gives Lands unto B. in tail and for default of such issue to the use of C. in tail rendring Rent the same render shall go to both the estates So a Lease for life to A. the remainder to B. to the use of C. the same use goeth out of both the estates and not only out of the Remainder so here upon the same reason Regula these words for the life of the wife shall refer to the first estate as well as to the use And in such Cases the rule of Bracton ought to be observed viz. Benignae faciendae sunt interpretationes verborum ut res magis valeat quam pereat As the Case in 6 H. 7. 7. in a Cessavit the Plaintiff counted that the Tenant held by Homage Fealty Sute at Court and certain Rent and in the doing of the services aforesaid the Defendant had cessed and in not doing of Homage and Fealty a man cannot cesse by two years But it was holden that the said Cessavit should be referred to such services only in which one might cease and that is Sute of Court and Rent And if pleadings shall have such favourable construction a multo fortiori shall a Deed 4 E. 3. Wast 11. A man leased for life and by the same deed granted power unto the Lessee to take and make his profit of the said Lands in the best manner should seem good to him without contradiction of the Lessor or his Heirs yet by those words it is not lawful for him to do wast for there it is said that in construction of Deeds we ought to judge according to that intent which is according to Law and Reason and not to that which is against reason See 17 E. 3. 7. accordingly so in the principal Case the words in the Deed of Feoffment shall be so expounded that the estate be saved and not destroyed Popham contrary The Cases put by Coke are not like to the Case in question For where the Rent is out of both estates the same is but reason for the Rent is in respect of the Land and because he departs with both estates it is reason the Rent issue out of both and the like reason is of the Case of an use for if a man makes a Lease for life to A. the Remainder over to B. the same shall be to their use respectively and if he do express the use the same shall be accordingly and shall bind both estates but there Clark hath two estates one by the common Law and the other by the Statute 3 Cro. 167. But the words subsequent for the life of the wife only cannot refer to both estates A. gives Lands to one his Heirs for forty years the same is but a plain Term for years But if a Feoffment in Fee be made to one his Heirs to the use of another for forty years there the Fee passeth to the Feoffee and the Term to Cestuy que use Gawdy conceived that it is not any forfeiture for these words during the life of the wife only were put in the Deed to express the intent of the parties and therefore the same shall not be void and he conceived that they were put in to exclude the forfeiture and therefore they shall serve for that purpose And afterwards it was resolved by all the Iustices except Gawdy that it was a forfeiture for by the Feoffment the Fee-simple passeth and that to the use of the Feoffor the estate and the use are several things and
demanded the Rent at the Temple Church and for not payment thereof re-entred Dyer 142. Towse The re-entry of the Lessor was not lawful for by the said Reservation the Rent was not due until the twelfth day after Michaelmas for before that he cannot have an Action of Debt or distrein for it Conditions expounded liberally for the party who is to perform it and these words dierum solutionis are greatly material for conditions are odious in Law and if the words thereof be doubtful they shall be construed for the avail of him who is bound by it As in the case of 28 H. 8. 17. If I be bound to you upon condition to pay to you before the Feast of St. Thomas twenty pounds if there be in one year two Feasts of St. Thomas the latter Feast shall be my day of payment Wray This Rent is not due until the last day of the twelve days for neither debt or distress lieth for it then the day of payment mentioned in the condition ought to be the last day of the last twelve days and dict spatium shall be construed the same number of days and not the same days 4 Len. 91. And at last it was resolved and adjudged that the entry of the Lessor was not congeable but he ought to expect the latter day of the twelve days CXCIX Sir George Farmer and Brooks Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that time out of mind Prescription Owen 67. 1 Cro. 203. 8 Co. 125. c. there had been a Manor called Tocester and also there had been there a Town called Tocester and that all the Messuages Lands and Tenements within the said Town had been holden of the said Manor and that he is Lord of the said Manor and that he and all those whose estate he hath in the said Manor have used to have a Bake-house and a Baker to bake white bread and house bread for all the Inhabitants and Passengers there which bread hath been of a reasonable Assize and price and sufficient for all the Inhabitants and Passengers there but doth not say wholsom and that time out of mind c. no person had or used any Bake-house there but by the appointment of the said Lord of the Manor for the time being But that now the Defendant had erected a Bake-house unto the Nusance of the Plaintiff The Defendane shewed that at the time he had set up his Bake-house there were three Bakers there and shewed how that he was Apprentice to the Trade and that at the time he set up the said Bake-house for the benefit of all persons as it was lawful for him to do Morgan The matter only is if this prescription made by the Plaintiff be good or not It is to be considered if all prescriptions at the Common Law are one and if all prescriptions be guided by one rule and line And I conceive that prescription at the Common Law is but one And there are two points in prescriptions Vsage and Reasonableness but they are not guided by one line for some prescriptions are against strangers and then there ought to be consideration and recompence Some prescriptions against privies as between Lord and Tenant for there the Tenure is sufficient volenti non fit injuria For the first see 5 H. 7. 9. where in Trespass the Defendant doth justifie that the place where is his Free-hold and that he had a Foldage and that he and all those whose estate he hath c. have used that if any man depasture his Sheep with the Sheep of the Defendant for the day time that it was lawful at night to take all the Sheep and put them in his fold all the night and in the morning to put them out and the same was holden a good prescription for which the Plaintiff traversed the prescription And for the other see 11 H 7. 13 14. 21 H 7. 40. betwixt Lord and Tenant that every Tenant for every pound-breach should forfeit three pounds and see the Prior of Dunstables case 11 H. 6. 19. Br. prescription 98. The Prior declared that he and his Predecessors time out of mind c. had had a Market in D. every week one day and that Butchers and others who sold victuals should sell the same in the high street upon stalls of the Prior to them assigned and that the Prior should have one penny for every stall every day and shewed that the Defendant had sold in his house whereby the Prior had lost the advantage and profit of his stalls there And the same was holden a good prescription And on the other side the Defendant did prescribe that he and all house-holders of D. had used to sell in their houses The same was holden a naughty prescription See 43 E. 3. 5. and see also Suit ad moliendum upon prescription without tenure for peradventure he had not any Mill there before and now it is an ease to the neighbours Vide Register 105. where the Writ is Cum querens habeat ratione Dominii sui apud R. talem libertatem quod nullus in eadem villa uti debeat seu consuever Officio sine Mysterio tinctoris sine licentia ipsius querentis the same is good by way of prescription but is void by way of grant And there the Defendant is forbid to use the trade of his Dye-house whithin his Manor without his licence which appeareth upon the Writ which is in the Register which Register was made by the Iudgment and advise of the grave Iudges of the Law and there is remedy given for the like case as in the case at the Bar. And see F. B. 122. b. Sectam ad furnam and although such a manner of prescription should bind a stranger yet here our case is stronger for the Defendant is our Tenant And Hill. 15 Eliz. Rot. 166. an express Iudgment was given in such case for the Plaintiff Buckley contrary although here be a loss to the Plaintiff yet there is not a wrong as the case in 12 H. 8. 3. If I have an acre of Land adjoyning to your acre and my acre is drowned I may make a sluce to carry away the water and although that by so doing your acre is drowned yet I shall not be punished for it because it is lawful for me to make a trench in my own Land and then if it be any Nusance to you you may make a trench in your ground and so carry away the water until it come to a River or ditch See the case 11 H. 4. of Schoolmasters 200. for it is damnum absque injuria And it is against the liberty of the Common-wealth 1 Cro. 112 113. that liberty of Contracts be not free but restrained with Priviledges to one only Vide 22 H. 6. 14. If one erect a Mill neer to my Mill no Action lieth against him for it is for the use of the Kings Subjects
Godfrey in arrest of Iudgment That it is apparent upon the Declaration That the Trespass was done in the time of their Predecessors of which the Successor cannot have action and actio personalis moritur cum persona See 19 H. 6. 66. But the old Church-wardens shall have the action Cook contrary and that the present Church-wardens shall have the action and that in respect of their office which the Court granted And by Gawdy Church-wardens are a Corporation by the Common Law. See 12 H. 7. 28. by Frowick That the New Church-wardens shall not have an action upon such a Trespass done to their Predecessors contrary by Yaxley See by Newton and Paston That the Executors of the Guardian in whose time the Trespass was done shall have Trespass CCXLIX Hauxwood and Husbands Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared for disturbing of him to use his common c. and shewed that A. was seised of certain Lands to which this Common was appendant Prescription 1 Cro. 153. for the term of his Life the Remainder to B. in tail and that the said A. and B. did demise unto him the said Lands for years c. Pepper The Declaration is not good for it is not shewed how these particular estates did commence See 20 E. 4. 10. By Piggot Lessee for life and he in the Remainder cannot prescribe together and he in the Remainder cannot have common Also he declares That Tenant for life and he in Remainder demised to him whereas in truth it is the demise of Tenant for life and the Confirmation of him in the Remainder also he doth not aver the life of Tenant for life Popham He needs not to shew the commencement of the particular estates for we are a stranger to them the Prescription in them both is well enough for all is but one estate and the Lease of both See 27 H. 8. 13. The Lessee for life and he in the Reversion made a Lease for life and joyned in an action of wast and there needs no averment of the life of the Tenant for life for he in the Reversion hath joyned which Gawdy granted as to all And said the particular estates are but as conveyance unto the action Wray conceived the first Exception to be material c. CCL Sweeper and Randals Case Rot. 770. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and carrying away his goods by Sweeper against Randal upon Not guilty pleaded i Cro. 156. The Iury found That one John Gilbert was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff at Will who sowed the Land and afterwards the Plaintiff agreed with the said Gilbert to surrender to him the said Land and his interest in the same and the said Gilbert entred and leased to the Defendant who took the Corn. It was moved if these words I agree to surrender my Lands be a present and express surrender Gawdy It is not any surrender for Tenant at will cannot surrender but it is but a relinquishing of the estate if it be any thing Surrender but in truth it is not any thing in present but an act to be done in future Wray I agree A. demiseth the Manor of D. at will it is no Lease no more shall it be here any Surrender or any relinquishing of the estate Clench conceived That the intent of the Party was to leave his estate at the time of the speaking otherwise those words were void for he might leave it at any time without those words Gawdy If such was his intent the Iury ought to find it expressly and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCLI Ward and Blunts Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 146. IN an Action upon the Case of Trover of certain Loads of Corn at Henden in Middlesex and the conversion of them The Defendant pleaded That before the conversion he was seised of certain Lands called Harminglow in the County of Stafford and that the Corn whereof c. was there growing and that he did sever it by force of which he was possessed and the same casually lost and that the same came to the hands of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff casually lost the same and the same came to the hands of the Defendant at Henden aforesaid and he did convert the same to his own use as it was lawful for him to do upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Atkinson The Plea is good for the conversion is the point of the action and the effect of it For if a man take the same and do not convert he is not guilty And here the Defendant doth justifie the conversion wherefore he cannot plead Not guilty The general issue is to be taken where a man hath not any colour but here the Defendant hath colour because the Corn whereof c. was growing upon his Land which might enveigle the Lay people and therefore it is safest to plead the special matter But admit that it doth amount but to the general issue yet there is not any cause of Demurrer but the Plaintiff ought to shew the same to the Court and pray that the general issue be entred and the Court ex officio ought to do it Egerton the Queens Solicitor contrary The Plea in Bar is not good The Plaintiff declares of a Trover of his goods ut de bonis suis propriis and the Defendant pleads That he took his own goods which is not any answer to the Plaintiff See 22 E. 3. 18. In Trespass of taking and carrying away his Trees The Defendant pleads That they were our Trees growing in our own soil and we cut them and carryed them away and the plea was challenged wherefore the Defendant pleaded over without that that he took the Trees of the Plaintiff So 26 Ass 22. and 30 E. 3. 22. Another matter was The Plea in Bar is That before the time of the Conversion the Defendant was seised of the Land and sowed it and that after the Corn was severed but he doth not say that he was seised at the time of the severance and then it might be that he had severed the Corn of the Plaintiff c. and that was holden by the Court to be a material exception wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But as to the first Exception the same was disallowed For the Court ex Officio in such case ought to cause the general issue to be entred but the Plaintiff ought not to demur upon it CCLIV Cheiny and Langleys Case Hill. 31. Eliz. Rott 638. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe case was That Tenant for life of certain Lands leased the same for years by Indenture with these words I give grant 1 Cro. 157. Leases bargain and sell my interest in such Lands for twenty years To have and to hold
Will he cited Chicks case 19 Eliz. 357 and 23 Eliz. 371. Dyer At another day it was argued by Cook That both the Houses pass and the words take the profit do not restrain the general words before viz. All my Lands and Tenements but rather expounds them sci such profits that they might take of a Reversion cum acciderit for it may be that the Brother shall die within ten years And he cited the case 34 H. 6. 6. A man seised of diverse Reversion upon estates for life devises them by the name of omnium terrarum tenementorum which were in his own hands and by those parols the Reversion did pass and yet the Reversion to speak properly was not in his hands and if the Brother had died in the life of the devisor they had clearly passed and then his death or life shall not alter the case And he resembled the case to the case in 39 E. 3. 21. The King grants to the Abbot of Redding That in time of vacation the Prior and Monks shall have the disposition of all the possessions of the said Abbey ad sustentationem Prioris Monachorum 3 Cro. 290. and if in the time of vacation they shall have the Advowsons was the question for it was said That advowsons could not be to their sustentation But yet by the better opinion the grant of the King did extend to Advowsons for it shall be intended such sustentation as Advowsons might give Godfrey Our Case is not like to the case of 34. H. 6. for there the Devisor had not any thing in possession and therefore if the Reversion did not pass the devise should be utterly void Gawdy conceived that the house in possession only passed for the devise extends to such things only whereof the Profits might be taken but here is not any profit of a Reversion Clench and Wray contrary The intent of the devise was to perform the Will of his Father and also of his own Will and in case the house in possession was not sufficient to perform both the Wills all shall pass and therefore the devise by favorable construction is to be taken largely so as the Wills might be throughly performed and also the devise is general and further all his Lands and Tenements which are not restrained by the Subsequent words to take the profits for to have and to hold and to have and to take the profits is all one CCLV. Slugge and the Bishop of Landaffs Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SLugge libelled against the Bishop of Landaff in the Ecclesiastical Court because where he was presented by the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester to the Church of Penner the Bishop did refuse to admit him and now the Bishop sued a Prohibition and shewed Prohibition Quod non habetur talis Rectoria cum cura animarum in eadem diocesi sed perpetua vicaria And by Popham a Prohibition doth not lye but the matter ought to be determined in the Ecclesiastical Court and when he who is presented to the same Church whether it be a Church or not shall be tried in an action of trespass and the like matter was ruled Mich. 14. Eliz. betwixt Weston and Grendon who was presented by the Queen and it was holden that because institution and admission do belong to the Ecclesiastical Court and not to the Kings Court that no Prohibition should lye and therefore he prayed a Consultation And note That the Defendant in the Prohibition did not demur formally upon the suggestion for the Iudges use if the suggestion be not sufficient to maintain the Prohibition to grant a Consultation without any formal demurrer upon the Suggestion if the insufficiency of the Suggestion be manifest Trial. which was granted by the whole Court. Cook That a Consultation ought not to be granted for whether there be such a Rectory or not shall be tried here So 2 H. 4. 30. Prior or not Prior 49 E. 3. 17 18. Wife or not Wife but never accoupled in loyal matrimony by the Bishop Ante. 53. 54. 44 E. 3. So within or without the Parish 50 E. 3. 20. So 45 E. 3. Quare Impedit 138. In a Quare Impedit no such Church within the County Afterwards at another day Popham put the case Slugge was presented to the vicaridge of Penner the Bishop refused to admit him and admitted one Morgan Bletthen unto the Parsonage of Penner at the presentment of the Lord St. John Slugge sued the Bishop for contumacy per duplicem querelem The Bishop said Non habetur talis vicaria upon which matter he sued a Prohibition and he conceived That the Prohibition did not ly for a Vicar is but he that gerit vicem Personae to supply his place in his absence so as the same is a spiritual matter which ought not to be tried here Also the libel is to have Admission and Institution and the other matter ariseth by their Plea sci Quod Rectoria de Penner est Ecclesia cum cura animarum absque hoc quod habetur talis Vicaria and so it is but an incident to the principal matter wherefore it shall be tried there and he prayed a Consultation Cook We have shewed That in the time of E. 3. one L. was seised of the Manour of Penner to which the Church of Penner is appendant and we alledge presentments from the time and we convey it to the Lord St. John which now is and they would now defeat us by this surmise That there is no such Church with cure of Souls which is triable here Popham the libel doth contain nothing but contumacy in the Bishop in that he hath not admitted Slugge and the other matter comes in the Replication and afterwards by assent of the parties a Consultation was granted quoad institutionem of Slugge only but that they should not proceed further CCLVI. Fennick and Mitfords Case Pasch 31 Eliz. Rot. 154. In the Kings Bench. Moâ—e 284. 2 Co. 91. THe Case was A man seised of Lands in Fee levieth a Fine to the use of his wife for life the remainder to the use of his eldest son the heirs males of his body the Remainder to the use of the right heirs of the Conusor The Conusor makes a Lease for a thousand years to B. the eldest son dieth without issue male having issue a daughter the Conusor dieth the wife afterwards dieth the eldest son enters and leaseth the Lands to the Plaintiff Atkinson That upon this conveyance a Reversion was left in the Conusor although by the fine all is conveyed out of the Conusor and so as it hath been objected the use limited to the right heirs of the Conusor is a new thing For it is to be observed When a man is seised of Lands he hath two things the Land or the Estate and secondly the use which is the profits and if he make a Feoffment without consideration by that the estate and possession passeth
Mich. 31. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae by Richard Sutton against Robert Holloway and Thomas Dickons Sâ—vil 99. Owen 96. Co. 1 Inst 227. a 3 Cro. 77. upon not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That the said Thomas Dickins had not any thing in the Lands in question at the time of the making of the Lease upon which the Action is brought scil Who leased by Indenture to the Plaintiff for certain years who entred and afterwards the said Thomas Dickins contra Indenturam suam praedictam intravit upon the Plaintiff and If the same should be a good Lease by Estoppel was the question the Iury having found the truth of the matter scil That the Lessor had not any thing at the time of the demise Walmesley objected That the Iury ought not to find the Indenture because it was not pleaded for the Plaintiff doth not declare upon any Indenture Hob. 227. but the Exception was not allowed but in old time the Law was such 22 E. 3. but at this day the Law is otherwise See Scholastica's Case 14. Eliz. Plowd 411. But where a Release or other writing ought to be pleaded there it ought to be shewed to the Court. VValmesley In rei veritate the Lease is void for a man cannot let Land in which he hath not any thing but in respect of the parties themselves the Lessors and Lessee both are concluded to say That is no Lease for none of them can say to the contrary But here the Iury which is a third person Estoppel is not estopped to say the truth but they may find the special matter and the truth of the Case and the Estoppel hath not place there but the truth of the matter appearing to the Iudges the Iudges ought to adjudge upon the same scil If a man may make an effectual lease of Lands in which he hath not any thing At another day it was moved by Shuâ—l Although that the Iury be not estopped yet the parties themselves are estopped for the Law makes the Estoppel betwixt the parties and the Law will not permit a man to say any thing against his own Deed being indented nor any matter contained in it Periam and Anderson clearly for the Plaintiff That it is a Lease by Estoppel and by Periam It hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench That the Iury in such case are compellable upon pain of Attaint to find the Estoppel VValmesley Here the Estoppel is out of Doors for the truth of the matter disclosed by the Verdict not by the parties only maketh the Estoppel he much replied upon the case of Littleton 149. a. A woman seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Husband who alieneth to another in Fee the Alienee leaseth to the Husband and Wife for their lives now the Wife is remitted and seised in Fee as before here if the Alienee i. e. the Lessor brings an Action of Wast against the Husband and Wife the Husband cannot bar the Plaintiff by the truth of the matter scil the Remitter of his Wife for he is estopped to say against his own Feoffment and his retaking of the particular estate to himself and his Wife But if in an Action of Wast the Husband make default at the Grand Distress and the Wife prayeth to the received she may well shew the whole matter So here the Iury VVindham The Plaintiff ought to have demurred upon the Evidence Periam What if the Defendant will not joyne with the Plaintiff in the Demurrer VVindham there the Court ought to over-rule them if the parties had demurred upon the Evidence we should have adjudged upon that Evidence that a man cannot lease lands in which he hath not any thing And here the Estoppel could not be pleaded for the Defendant hath pleaded the general Issue but if he had pleaded Non demisit then the Estoppel should have holden place CCLXXXVII Mills and Snowballs Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Iury did surmise at the Bar that he was a Tenant in Ancient demesne and had his Charter in his hand Priviledge of Exemption from Juries 1 Cro. 142. and prayed to be exempted from the Iury and discharged but the Court did not regard it but caused him to be sworn And Windham said that he might have his remedy against the Sheriff and Nelson Prothonotay said if he had made default and lost Issues he might shew his Charter in the Exchequer upon the Amercement estreated and there he should be discharged In that Case it was holden by the Court That if a Feoffment be made of a House and the Deed be delivered in the House without other circumstance the same doth not amount to a Livery of seisin but if he do any act by which the intent of the Feoffor appeareth that the Feoffee should have Livery and Seisin Livery of seisin as if the parties go of purpose to the place intended to pass to the intent that the Deed may be delivered in that kind the same doth amount to a Livery by Anderson and the whole Court. CCLXXXVIII Bradstocks Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco RObert Bradstock seised in Fee of certain Lands made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself in tail Estates and for want of such Issue to the use of John Bradstock his Brother in tail and for want of such Issue to the use of Henry Bradstock another Brother in tail Conditions Provided always That if the said John or Henry do go about to avoid any estate or demise by Copy made or to be made of the Premisses or any part thereof that then his estate should cease Robert died without Issue John entred and levyed a Fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. of the Land And the opinion of the whole Court was That this Fine was not any offence against the said Proviso for these words made or to be made do not extend to estates made or limited by the said Feoffment but only to estates before made and to be made afterwards CCLXXXIX Long and Hemmings Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Quare Impedit by Long against Hemming and the Bishop of Gloucester or the Church of Frombillet upon the pleading the Issue was Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 209. If Tho. Long Father of the Plaintiff did enfeoff the Plaintiff of the Manor of From. to which the Advowson of the said church was appendant before he granted the Advowson to one Strengtham who granted it to the Def. or not And the Iury gave a special Verdict scil That the Abbot of S. was seised of a capital Messuage in Frombillet of one hundred Acres of Land there And that there was a Tenancy holden of the said capital Messuage by such Services and that the said capital Messuage had been known time out of mind by the name of the Manor of Frombillet and that the Advowson was
appendant to it and conveyed the said capital Messuage and Advowson to the King by the dissolution and from the King to the said Thomas Long who so seised without any Deed did enfeoff the Plaintiff of the said Manor and made Livery and Seisin upon the Demesnes And that the said Thomas Long by his Deed made a grant of the said Advowson to the said Strengham and afterwards the Free-holder attorned to the Plaintiff And by the clear opinion of the whole Court here is a sufficient Manor to which an Advowson may be well appendant and that in Law the Advowson is appendant to all the Manor but most properly to the Demesnes out of which at the commencement it was derived and therefore by the attornment afterwards within construction of the Law shall have relation to the Livery the Advowson did pass included in the Livery And the grant of the advowson made mesne between the Livery and the attornment was void and afterwards Iudgment was given and a Writ to the Bishop granted for the Plaintiff CCXC. Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banâ—o Debt A Made a Bill of Debt to B. for the payment of twenty pounds at four days scil five pounds at every of the said four days and in the end of the Deed covenanted and granted with B. his Executors and Administrators that if he make default in the payment of any of the said payments that then he will pay the residue that then shall be un-paid and afterwards A. fails in the first payment and before the second day B. brought an action of Debt for the whole twenty pounds It was moved by Puckering Serjeant Sâ—y 31. 32. 1 Cro. 797. That the Action of Debt did not lye before the last day encurred And also if B. will sue A. before the last day that it ought to be by way of covenant not by Debt But by the whole Court the action doth well lye for the manner for if one covenant to pay me one hundred pounds at such a day an action of Debt lyeth a fortiori Owen 42. 1. 2 Rol. 523. when the words of the Deed are covenant and grant for the word covenant sometimes sounds in covenant sometimes in contract secundum subjectum materiae CCXCI. Lancasters Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco Roll. Tit. Covenant pl. 72. AN Information was against Lancaster for buying of pretended Rights Titles upon the Statute of 32 H 8. And upon not guilty pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment because the Informer had not pursued the Statute in this that it is not set forth that the Defendant nor any of his Ancestors or any by whom he claimed have taken the profits c. and the same was holden a good and material Exception by the Court although it be layed in the Information that the Plaint himself hath been in possession of the Land by twenty years before the buying of the pretended Title for that is but matter of argument not any express allegation for in all penal Stat. the Plaintiff ought to pursue the very words of the Stat. and therefore by Anderson It hath been adjudged by the Iudges of both Benches that if an Information be exhibited upon the Stat. of Vsury by which the Defendant is charged for the taking of twenty pounds for the Loan and forbearing of one hundred pounds for a year there the Information is not good if it be not alledged in it that the said twenty pounds was received by any corrupt or deceitful way or means And in the principal Case for the Cause aforesaid Iudgment was arrested CCXCII Bagshaw and the Earl of Shrewsburies Case Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In the Common Bench. BAgshaw brought a Writ of Annuity against the Earl of Shrewsbury for the arrerages of an Annuity of twenty Marks per annum Annuity granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff Pro Consilio impenso impendendo The Defendant pleaded that before any arrerages incurred he required the Plaintiff to do him Service and he refused The Plaintiff by replication said that before the refusal such a day and place the Defendant discharged the Plaintiff of his Service c. And the opinion of the Court was that the Plea in Bar was not good for he ought to have shewed for what manner of Service to do the Plaintiff was so retained and for what kind of Service the Annuity was granted and then to have shewed specially what Service he required of the Plaintiff and what Service the Plaintiff refused Another matter was moved If the discharge shall be peremptory and an absolute discharge of the Service of the Plaintiff and of his attendance so that as afterwards the Defendant cannot require Service of the Plaintiff And by Walmesly Iustice it is a peremptory discharge of the Sevice for otherwise how can he be retained with another Master and so he should be out of every Service VVindham contrary For here the Plaintiff hath an Annuity for his life and therefore it is reason that he continue his Service for his life as long as the Annuity doth continue if he requirreth But where one is retained but for one or two years then once discharged is peremptory and absolute CCXCIII Matheson and Trots Case Mich. 31 32. Eliz. In the Common Bench. BEtwixt Matheson and Trot the Case was Sir Anthony Denny seised of certain Lands in and about the Town of Hertford 2 Len. 190. holden in Socage and of divers Mannors Lands and Tenements in other places holden in chief by Knights-service and having Issue two Sons Henry and Edward by his last Will in writing devised the Lands holden in Hertford to Edward Denny his younger Son in Fee Devises and died seised of all the Premisses Henry being then within age After Office was found without any mention of the said Devise the Queen seised the Body of the Heir and the possession of all the Lands whereof the said Sir Anothony died seised and leased the same to a stranger during the Minority of the Heir by force and colour of which Lease the Lessee entred into all the Premisses and did enjoy them according to the Demise And the Heir at his full age sued Livery of the whole and before any entry of the said Edward in the Land to him devised or any entry made by the said Henry the said Henry at London leased the said Lands by Deed indented to I.S. for years rendring Rent by colour of which the said I.S. entred and paid the Rent divers years to the said Henry And afterwards by casualty the said Henry walked over the Grounds demised by him in the company of the said I. S. without any special entry or claim there made I.S. assigned his Interest to I.D. who entred in the Premisses and paid the Rent to the said Henry who died and afterwards the Rent was paid to the Son and Heir of Henry
of her Dower of all his Lands and dyed and the said A. took to Husband the Defendant And that after betwixt the Plaintiff and Defendant colloquium quoddam habebatur c. upon which conference and communication the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to pay to him the said one hundred pounds promised to make to him a discharge of the said one hundred pounds and also of the Dower of his Wife and shewed further that notwithstanding that the said Pett was ready and offered the said one hundred pounds and Dower also yet c. Vpon which there was a Demurrer in Law It was moved by Tan. that here is not any cause to have a prohibition for the agreement upon the communication is not any cause for it doth not appear that it was performed Coke A Prohibition lieth for the Wife cannot have both money and Dower for that was not the meaning of the Devisor and therefore it hath been holden that if a man deviseth a Term for years to his Wife in satisfaction and recompence of her Dower if she recovereth Dower she hath lost her Term Also here is modus and conventio which alters the Law scil mutual agreement So if the Parson and one of the Parishioners agree betwixt them that for forty shillings per annum he shall retain his Tithes for three years c. as it was in the Case betwixt Green and Pendleton c. it is good CCCXIX. Martingdall and Andrews Case Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In Banco Regis Action upon the case for Wast IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that one Mildmay was seised of a House in A. and that he and all those whose estate c. time out of mind c. have had a way over certain Lands of the Defendants called C. pro quibusdam averiis suis and shewed that the said Mildmay enfeoffed him of the said House and that the Defendant stopt the said way to his damage c. And it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the title to the way is not certainly set forth i.e. pro quibusdam averiis suis quod omnes Justiciarii concesserunt But Gawdy Iustice conceived that the same was no cause to stay Iudgment For it appeareth to us that the Plaintiff hath cause of Action although that the matter be incertainly alleadged and of this incertainty the Defendant hath lost the advantage having surceased his time by pleading to it as 20 E. 3. Trespass for taking and carrying away of Charters the Defendant pleaded Not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff to the damage c. And Error was brought because the Plaintiff had not set down in his Declaration the certainty of the Lands comprized in the Charters But non allocatur for the Defendant ought to have challenged that before and also 47 E. 3. 3. In a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiff declared of a Covenant by which the Defendant covenanted with the Plaintiff to assure to him all his Lands and Tenements which he had in the Counties of Gloucester and Lincoln and declared that at a certain day he required the Defendant to make him assurance of all the Lands c. And the Writ of Covenant was general quod teneat conventionem de omnibus terris quas habeat in c. And it was objected as here that the Writ wanted certainty as how many Acres or such a Mannor but non allocatur for here the Plaintiff is not to recover Land but only Damages and the Writ was awarded good Fenner Iustice the Cases are not like to the Case at Bar for in the said Cases the certainty is not needful but for the taxing of the Damages but here the certainty of the number of the Cattel is part of the title CCCXX Beale and Taylors Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon Evidence to a Iury Leases 1 Cro. 222. it was holden by Gawdy and Clench Iustices that if a Lease for years be made and the Lessor covenants to repair during the Term if now the Lessor will not do it the Lessee himself may do it and pay himself by way of Retainer of so much out of the Rent which see 12 H. 8. 1. 14 H. 4. 316. Retainer of Rent A Lease for years by Indenture and the Lessor covenants to repair the Houses and afterwards the Lessor commands the Lessee to mend the Houses with the Rent who doth it accordingly and expends the Rent in the charges c. So 11 R. 2. Bar. 242. The Lessor covenants that the Lessee shall repair the Tenements when they are ruinous at the charge of the Lessor In debt for the Rent the Lessee pleaded that matter and that according to the Covenant he had repaired the Tenements being then ruinous with the Rent and demanded Iudgment if action Jones 242. Yelv. 43. c. and good Fenner Iustice contrary for each shall have action against the other if there be not an express Covenant to do it Quaere If the Lessor covenant to discharge the Land leased and the Lessee of all Rent-Charges issuing out of it If a Rent-charge be due if the Lessee may pay it out of his own Rent to the Lessor ad quod non fuit responsum CCCXXI. Offley and Saltingston and Paynes Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. OFfley and Saltingston late Sheriffs of London Escape 1 Cro. 237. brought an Action upon the Case against Payne because that he being in Execution under their custody for fifty three pounds in which he was condemned at the Suit of one Spicer made an escape the debt not satisfied by reason whereof they were compelled to pay the money The Defendant confessed all the matter but further pleaded that after the Escape Spicer had acknowledged satisfaction being after the Escape upon Record of the sum recovered upon which there was a Demurrer Owen Serjeant argued that the acknowleding of satisfaction being after the Escape was not any Plea for when the Plaintiffs Sheriffs have paid the money recovered there was no reason that Spicers acknowledging satisfaction should stop the Sheriffs of their Remedy against Payne It was holden by the Iustices that the Plaintiffs in this Action ought to shew that they had been impleaded by him who recovered for they cannot have this Action before they are sued For perhaps the Plaintiffs who recovered must be contented to hold themselves to the Defendant and to be satisfied by him It was said by Glanvil Serjeant that by the Escape the Debt was cast upon the Sheriffs and the Defendant discharged and that it was the Case of Sir Gervas Clyfton who being Sheriff suffered him who was in Execution and in his custody to go and see a Play and the same was adjudged an Escape and the party could not be in Execution again And then he said that this acknowledgment of satisfaction could not be any Bar to the
The last words of the Limitation do not distinguish or disjoyn it but respect the estate precedent And by Clench Iustice If the use limited to Ambrose shall depend only upon the Limitation of his death the same should be void for then he should not he in esse to take But the other Iustices were of a contrary opinion and that the use is good 7 H. 4. Gawdy Although that here be three things yet but two times for the words are not or at such of the said days or times as shall first happen for that would alter the case But here these words ought to be intended as if they were spoken before in the Limitation of the estate to the Daughters and cannot divide the former Limitation and he said that if by reason that the Limitation upon the death which is certain it shall vest in Ambrose presently then if after the other Limitation shall fall then his Remainder which vested in him upon the said certain Limitation should be devested and should now accrue to him upon the other Limitation which should be absurd and inconvenient c. It was adjorned CCCXXXI Thomas and Wards Case Trin. 32. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Thomas against Ward Ejectione firme 1 Cro. 102. upon a Lease made to him of the Manor of Middleton Cheney by one Chambers the Defendant pleaded that long time before the Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing the Bishop of Rochester was seised and leased the same to the Defendant the Plaintiff by Replication said that the said Lease was upon condition viz. The Lessee by the Indenture of the said Lease did covenant that he would not put out or disturb any of the Tenants inhabiting within the said Manor out of their Tenancies doing their duties according to the custom of the said Manor and shewed that the Defendant had put out one Ann Green a Tenant dwelling there upon a Tenement parcel of the said Manor late in the possession and occupation of the said Ann and that the Bishop had re-entred for the condition so broken and made a lease to the Lessor of the Plaintiff upon which Replication the Defendant hath demurred in Law Tanfeild argued for the Defendant that the Bishop had no cause to re-enter for there is not any condition in the Case but only a Covenant for it comes in only on the part of the Lessee and they are words of Covenant only whereas every condition ought to be the words of the Lessor and the Bishop hath sufficient remedy by Action of Covenant But if the words had been indifferent and absolute without depending on the Lessor or Lessee then it had been otherwise as 3 E. 6. Dyer 65. Non licebit to the Lessee dare concedere vel vendere statum vel terminum without the Licence of the Lessor under pain of forfeiture the same is a good condition but here it is meerly a Covenant and it cannot be both Haughton Although the words sound in Covenant and be the words of the Lessee yet the Lease being made by Indenture the same is the Deed of both and every word in it is spoken by both parties and although that he may have an Action of Covenant yet he cannot thereby overthrow the Lease as by Entry by condition broken and yet by the words it seems the meaning of the Indenture was that by the breach of this Covenant the estate should be defeated for so are the words sub poena forisfactur And here by way of Action he cannot have the benefit of the whole Covenant and therefore he shall have it by way of condition And see the case betwixt Browning and Beston Plow 132. If it happen the Rent to be behind that then the Lessee Covenants that although the Rent be not demanded that the said Lease should be utterly extinct void and of no effect and 24 Eliz. there was a case betwixt Hill and Lockham where by the Indenture of Lease the Lessee Covenanted to grind all his Corn at the Mill of the Lessor and afterward in the end of the said Indenture the Lessee covenanted to perform all the Covenants sub poeâ—a sorisfactur and by the opinion of the whole Court the same was a condition And see 21 H. 6. 51. where in an Obligation where A was bound to B. the condition is written in this manner Praedict B. vult concedit That if the said A. doth stand to the Arbitrament of such a one that then c. the same is a good condition although they are the words of the Obligee and the Deed of the Obligor and so here is a good condition And such was the opinion of Wray and Gawdy and Fenner did not contradict it Wherefore Tanfeild said Admit here it is a condition yet here is not any breach of it sufficiently set forth for the breach is assigned because he had put out a woman unam tenentem inhabitantem out of certain Lands parcel of the said Manor late in the possession and occupation of the said woman and that might be that she was but Tenant at Will and the Covenant doth refer only to Copy-holders And it may be also that she had disseised one of the Tenants of the Manor in which case the putting out of such a Tenant being in by wrong is no breach of condition Also it is not averred in facto that Ann was Tenant of any part of the Mannor Also the Replication is That the said Defendant had ousted the said Ann where she had done her duty fecit debitum suum before the Ouster and that might be that she had done her duty once but not after and therefore he ought to have said that she had done her duty always before her putting out and this word duly being single is too general for it may be understood of curtesie where the words in the Indenture are Doing their duty according to the custom of the Manor And also it might be that Ann Green was Tenant and Inhabitant but was not put out of the Land which was parcel of the Manor And Wray said that these Exceptions were incurable And therefore Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCCXXXII Harvy and Thomas Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. Rot. 414. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Leases 1 Cro. 216. Husband and Wife seised of Lands in the Right of the Wife the Husband alone makes a Lease by word for years Afterwards the Husband and Wife levy a Fine and after the Wife and Husband both dye It was holden clearly by the whole Court that the Conusee should avoid the Lease CCCXXXIII Sly and Mordants Case Trin. 32. Eliz. Rot. 314 In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 191. 2 Len. 103. 3 Len. 174. Dy. 250. 1 Cro. 198 199. that whereas he was seised of certain Lands the Defendant had stopped a Water-course by which his Land was drowned and found for the Plaintiff It
chargeth the Defendant with cutting of Wood without the assent and assignment of the Lessor so he would compel us to prove more than we ought for if he did it with their assent only or by their assignment only it is sufficient but if the Covenant had been in the copulative both was necessary And for the nature of Copulatives he cited the Case where two Churchwardens bring an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleads That the Plaintiffs are not Churchwardens upon which they are at Issue The Iury find That the one was Church-warden and the other not and for that the Plaintiffs could not have Iudgment for if the one of them be not Churchwarden then the Plaintiffs are not Churchwardens for the copulatives ought not to be disjoyned And he cited the case lately ruled in the Common Pleas betwixt Ognel and Underwood concerning Crucifield Grange A. leased unto B. certain Lands for forty years B. leased part of the same to C. for ten years A. grants a Rent-charge out of the Lands in tenura occupatione B. It was resolved That the Lands leased to C. should not be charged with that Rent for although it was in tenura B. yet it was not in his occupation and both are exquisite because in the copulative So here the Lessee may cut Wood with the assent of the Lessor without any assignment Also here the substance of the covenant cannot charge the Defendant for although it be in the Negative yet it is not absolute in the Negative but doth refer unto the covenant precedent for the words are That the Lessee shall not cut Woods aliter quam according to the intent of the Indenture where the covenant precedent is not that the Lessee shall not cut Woods but in the Dole but that the Lessor might cut down any Trees in the Dole leaving sufficient for the Lessee which covenant in it self doth not restrain the Lessee to cut down any Trees in any part of the Lands demised nor abridgeth the power which the Law giveth to him by reason of the demise Then when this last covenant comes i. e. That the Lessee will not cut aliter then according to the meaning of the Indenture without the assent c. the same doth not restrain him from the power which the meaning of the Indenture gives and so no breach of covenant can be assigned in this For by virtue of the Lease the Lessee of common Right may take necessary Fuel upon any part of the Land leased Also this first covenant being in the Affirmative doth not abridge any Interest as 28 H. 8. 19. The Lessor covenants That the Lessee shall have sufficient Hedge-boot by assignment of the Baily It is holden by Baldwin and Shelley That the Lessee may take it without assignment because there are no Negative words non aliter So 8 E. 3. 10. A Rent of ten pounds was granted to Husband and Wife and if the Husband overlive his Wife that he shall have three pounds Rent and if the Wife do over-live the Husband she shall have forty shillings there it was holden that the Rent of ten pounds continued not restrained by the severance of any of them And although peradventure it appeareth here that the meaning of the parties was That the Lessee should not cut down any Wood but in the Dole yet forasmuch as such meaning doth not stand with the Law it shall be rejected as it was holden to be in the case betwixt Benet and French where a man seised of divers Lands devised parcel of it called Gages to the erecting of a School and another parcel unto B. in fee and all his other Lands unto one French in Fee The devise of Gages was holden void because too general for no person is named and it was further holden that it passed by the general devise to French and yet that was not the meaning of the Devisor Also the Plaintiff is not Assignee but of parcel of the Reversion for if the Reversion is granted to him for years Owen Rep. 152. 1 Co. 215. and such Assignee cannot have an Action of Covenant for a Covenant is a thing in Action and annexed to the Reversion so that if the Reversion doth not continue in its first course as it was at the time of the creation of the Covenant but be altered or divided the Covenant is destroyed and therefore it was holden 32 H. 8. betwixt Wiseman and Warringer where a Lease for years was made of one hundred Acres of Lands rendring ten pound Rent and afterwards the Lessor granted fifty Acres of it that the Grantee should not have any part of the Rent but all the Rent was destroyed So in our case here the Grantee hath but parcel of the estate a Term for years and so is not an Assignee intended as the case betwixt Randal and Brown in the Court of Wards â— Co 96â—â—â—â— Randal being seised of certain Lands covenanted with B. that if he pay unto him his Heirs and Assigns five hundred pounds that then he and his Heirs would stand seised to the use of the said B. and his Heirs Randal devised the Land to his Wife during the minority of his Son the Remainder to his Son in Fee and died having made his Wife his Executrix Brown at the day and place tendred the money generally the Wife having but an estate for years in the Land took the money It was holden that the same was not a sufficient tender for the Wife is not Assignee for she hath an Interest but for years and here the Son is to bear the loss for by a lawful Tender the Inheritance shall be devested out of him and therefore the Tender ought to be made to him and not to his Wife Also as the case is here he is no Assignee for although Charles Grice and his Wife hath the Reversion to them and the Heirs of the body of Charles and levy a Fine without Proclamations nothing passeth but his own estate and then the Conusee hath not any estate Raph. Rep. 91. â— Câ—o. 804. â—05 but during the life of Charles and then when a man is seised to him and his Heirs during the life of another he hath not such an estate as he can devise by the Statute and then when he deviseth it to his Wife for years it is void c. It was adjorned CCCXL Smith and Hitchcocks Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assumpsit â— Câ—o. 201. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas the Defendant was indebted to him 19 Maii 30 Eliz. The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear to sue him until such a day after promised at the said day to pay the debt The Defendant pleaded how that 29 Maii 29 Eliz. he was indebted unto the Plaintiff in the said sum for assurance of which afterwards he acknowledged a Statute to the Plaintiff upon which he had Execution and had levied the money absque
hoc that he was indebted to the Plaintiff antea vel post the said day aliquo modo upon which the Plaintiff did demur It was argued that the Traverse was not good for the consideration in Assumpsit is not traversable because it is but conveyance and amounts to the general Issue as in debt upon the sale of a Horse it is no Plea for the Defendant to say that no such Horse was sold to him Patridge If the conveyance be the ground of the Suit it is traversable an Action upon the Case against an Hostler it is a good Plea that he is not an Hostler 2 H. 4 7. See 26 H. 8. Br. Traverse 341. In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas the Defendant habuit ex deliberatione of the Plaintiff certain goods the said Defendant in consideration of ten shillings Assumpsit eidem querenti promisit salvo Custodire c. Non habuit ex deliberatione is a good Plea. Godfrey The Defendant doth not answer the point of our Action which is the Assumpsit but only by way of Argument 11 E. 4. 4. In Trespass upon the Statute of 5 R. 2. by the Master of a Colledge and his confreers the Defendant doth justifie by reason of a Lease made by a Predecessor of the Plaintiff and his Confreers by their Deed under their Common Seal the Plaintiff Replicando saith That at the time of the making of the Lease there was no such Colledge and it was holden no Plea for it is no answer but by Argument Gawdy Iustice In all cases where the Defendant may wage his Law there the conveyance is traversable Wray The cause of the Action is the Assumpsit therefore the consideration is not traversable for it is not the point with which the Plaintiff is charged And it is common here that the Declaration in such Action upon the Case Traverse in consideration of divers sums of money without any more certainty is good which should not be good if the consideration were traversable but the consideration is to be given in Evidence and it is also common that in an Action upon the Case in Trover and Conversion the Trover is not traversable for the Conversion is the point of the Action Fenner Iustice The debt here is no cause of the Action but only the Assumpsit In debt upon Arbitrament the Arbitrament is traversable So in debt for Rent upon a Demise the Demise is traversable Antea 189. for the Arbitrament and Demise is the cause and ground of the Action At another day it was moved again and Gawdy mutata opinione said that consideration Executory is traversable As where one in consideration that he may marry my Daughter or of service promiseth to pay the same consideration is traversable contrary of a Consideration executed And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCXLI Estons Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Court of Wards ESton was seised of Lands in Fee holden of the King in chief 1 Cro. 243. and took a Wife seised of other Lands holden in Socage they have Inne and the Husband dieth and afterwards the Wife dieth Owen Serjeant conceived That the Queen should not have the Wardship of the Land of the Wife or the primer seisin of it And if the Husband had survived his Wife being Tenant by the Curtesie the Queen should not have Primer seisin of it after his decease Wray If the Father be seised of Lands holden in Soccage and the Mother of Lands holded in Knights service and the Husband over-lives his Wife being Tenant by the Curtesie the King shall have all Anderson denied that and he conceived That the opinion of Stamford is not Law and yet see 13 H. 4. 278. Where the Father is seised of Lands in chief and the Mother of other and the Father dieth and afterwards the Mother dieth both shall be in ward And it was said That if there be Grandfather Father and Son and the Father dieth seised of Lands holden in Socage and afterwards the Grandfather dieth seised of Lands in Knights service the Lands in Socage shall not be in ward Anderson held strongly That the Queen should have Primer seisin of the Lands of the Mother Wray contrary Quaere CCCXLII Ellis Hartops Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Court of Wards ELlis Hartop was seised of divers Lands whereof part was holden of the King in Knights service and devised two parts thereof to W. Denham and his Heirs to the use of T. his brother and his wife and afterwards to the use of the said T. and his Heirs males T. died in the life of the Devisor and afterwards a Son is born First it was agreed that a Devise might be to the use of another Then when Cesty que use dyeth in the life of the Devisor the Devisee shall take it and when a Son is born it shall go to him But if the use be void then the Devisee shall have it to his own use for every devise doth imply a consideration Coke was of opinion That the Son takes by descent when Cestuy que use to whom Land is devised doth refuse the use the Devisee cannot take it for he shall not have it to his own use for if the use be void the devise is also void And the use is void for Cestuy que use died in the life of the Devisor which see Bret and Rygdens case A man seised of three Acres bargains and sells one of them without shewing which and that before the Statute of 27 H. 8. The Bargainee dyeth before Election no Election descends to the Heir for then he should be a Purchasor And by Wray and Anderson The devise is void and it is all one with Brett and Rigdens case And by Anderson a man deviseth Lands to the use of one which use by possibility is good and by possibility not good If afterwards Cestuy que use cannot take the Devise shall be to the use of the Devisor and his Heirs CCCLXIII Weston and Garmons Case Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assize 1 Cro. 226. ASsize was brought of a Rent of fifty pounds per annum and the Plaintiff made his plaint to be disseised of his Free-hold in H. E. and H. W And shewed that John Vaughan and Amy his Wife who before was the wife of one Weston and Mother of Sir Henry Weston the Plaintiff in the Assize was seised of the said Manors of H.W. and H.E. lying in Barton and Kinton in Fee. And 18 Eliz. a Fine was levied betwixt Robert Vaughan and Miles Whitney Complainants and the said John Vaughan and Amy his Wife and Francis their Son Deforceants of the said two Manors inter alia per nomen of the Manors of H.E. and H.W. and of fifty Messuages three hundred Acres of Lands two hundred Acres of Meadow cum pertinentiis in the said Towns by which Fine the said Deforceants did acknowledge the right of the said Manors and Tenements to be
good as a new devise in Reversion upon the precedent Condition and not as a Remainder quod Windham concessit but Periam was very strong of opinion That it is a Limitation Two Ioyntenants of a Term A. and B. A. grants his part to B. nothing passeth by it for as a Grant it cannot be good Owen 102. 1 Cro. 314. 1 Inst 186. for as one Ioyntenant cannot enfeost his Companion no more can he vest any thing in him by grant for he cannot grant to him a thing which he hath before for Ioyntenants are seised and possessed of the whole all which was granted per Curiam and Anderson said That if Lands be granted to A. and B. and the Heirs of A. B. cannot surrender to A. for a Surrender is as it were a grant And as a Release it cannot enure for a Release of a Right in Chattels cannot be without a Deed. CCCLXXXIV Hollingshed and Kings Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt HOllingshed brought Debt against King and declared That King was bounden to him in a Recognizance of two hundred pounds before the Mayor and Aldermen of London in interiori Camera de Guildhall London upon which Recognizance the said Hollingshed heretofore brought a Scire facias before the said Mayor c. in exteriori Camera and there had Iudgment to recover upon which Recovery he hath brought this Action and upon this Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law because that in setting forth of the Recognizance he hath not alledged That the Mayor of London hath Authority by Prescription or Grant to take Recognizances and if he hath not then is the Recognizance taken Coram non Judice and so void And as to the Statute of West 2. cap. 45. It cannot be taken to extend to Recognizances taken in London which see by the words De his quae recordat sunt coram Cancellario Domini Regis ejus Justiciariis qui Recordum habent in Rotulis eorum Irrotulatur c. And also at the time of the making of that Statute 1 Cro. 186 187. London had not any Sheriffs but Bayliffs and the said Statute ordains that Process shall go to Sheriffs c. But the whole Court was clear of a contrary opinion for they said We will know that those of London have a Court of Record and every Court of Record hath an Authority incident to it to take Recognizances for all things which concern the Iurisdiction of the said Court and which arise by reason of matters there depending Another matter was objected for that the Recognizance was taken in interiori Camera but the Court was holden in exteriori Camera and therefore not pursuant But as to that it was said by the Lord Anderson That admit that the Recognizance was not well taken yet because that in the Scire facias upon it the Defendant did not take advantage then thereof he shall be bounden by his said admittance of it as if one sue forth a Scire facias as upon a Recognizance whereas in truth there is not any Recognizance and the party pleads admitting such Record and thereupon Iudgment is given against him it is nor void but voidable Fleetwood Recorder of London alledged many Cases to prove that the Courts of the King are bounden to take notice Priviledges of London That they of London have a Court of Record for if a Quo warranto issueth to Iustices in Eyre it behoves not them of London to claim their Liberties for all Courts of the King are to take notice of them And at last after many motions the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff And it was said by Anderson and in manner agreed by the whole Court That if depending this Demurrer here the Iudgment in London upon the Scire facias be reversed yet the Court here must proceed and not take notice of the said Reversal CCCLXXXV Bedingfeild and Bedingfeilds Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower DOwer was brought by Anne Bedingfeild against Thomas Bedingfeild The Tenant out of the Chancery purchased a Writ De circumspecte agatis setting forth this matter That it was found by Office in the County of Norfolk that the Husband oâ— the Demandant was seised of the Manor of N. in the said County and held the same of the Queen by Knights Service in chief and thereof dyed seised the Tenant being his Son and Heir of full age by reason whereof the Queen seised as well the said Manor as other Manors and because the Queen was to restore the Tenements tam integre Primer seisin c. as they came to her hands it was commanded the Iudges to surcease Domina regina inconsulta It was resolved per Curiam That although the Queen be entituled to have Primer seisin of all the Lands whereof the Husband of the Demandant dyed seised yet this Writ did not extend unto any Manors not found in the Office for by the Law the Queen cannot seise more Lands than those which are contained in the Office And therefore as to the Land not found by the Office the Court gave day to the Tenant to plead in chief And it was argued by Serjeant Gawdy for the Tenant That the Demandant ought to sue in the Chancery because that the Queen is entituled to have her Primer Seisin and cited the case of 11 R. 2. and 11 H. 4. 193. And after many motions It was clearly agreed by the Court That the Tenant ought to answer over for the Statute De Bigamis Cap. 3. provides that in such case The Iustices shall proceed notwithstanding such seisin of the King and where the King grants the custody of the Tenant himself 1 H. 7. 18 19. 4 H. 7. 1. A Multo fortiori against the Heir himself where he is of full age notwithstanding the possession of the King for his Primer seisin By the Statute of Bigamis after the Heir was of full age the Wife could not be endowed in the Chancery But now by the Prerogative of the King such wives may be endowed there Si viduae illae voluerint and after many motions The Court awarded That the Tenant should plead in chief at his peril for the Demandant might sue at the common Law if she pleased CCCLXXXVI Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Exchange The Husband was seised of Lands in the right of his Wif the Husband and his Wife both joyned in exchange of the Lands with a stranger for other Lands which exchange was executed the Husband and the Wife seised of the Lands taken in exchange aliened the same by Fine It was holden by Rhodes and Windham Iustices That the Wife after the death of her Husband might enter into her own Lands notwithstanding that Fine And Rhodes resembled it to the case reported by my Lord Dyer 19 Eliz. 358. The Husband after marriage assured to his Wife a Ioynture they both levy a Fine 1 Inst 36.
his Parishioner all demands in his Lands his Tithes thereby are not extinct and afterwards a Consultation was granted CCCCXII Lee and Curetons Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 902. In the Kings Bench. Debt 1 Cro. 153. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded Non est factum and it was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given and afterwards the Defendant brought Error and assigned for Error that the Declaration was per scriptum suum obligat Error without saying hic in Guria prolat to which it was answered by Coke that the same was but matter of form for which a Iudgment ought not to be reversed for that the Clark ought to put in without instruction of the party and so it was holden in a case betwixt Barras and King 1 Cro. 768. 778. 3 Cro. 22. M. 29 30 Eliz. Another Error was assigned because the Iudgment is entred de fine nihil quia perdonat where it should be quod capiatur although the Plea were pleaded after the General pardon and for that cause the Iudgment was reversed for if the pardon be not specially pleaded the Court cannot take notice of it as it was holden in Serjeant Harris Case CCCCXIII Lacy and Fishers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN a Replevin the taking is supposed in S. which Land is holden of the Manor of Esthall the Defendant made Conusans as Bailiff of the Lord of the Manor aforesaid and issue was taken upon the Tenure Trial. and it was tryed by a Iury out of the Visne of Esthall only Tanfield The trial is good for the issue ought not to have been tried by both Visnes S. and Esthall for two things are in issue If it be holden or not 2. If it be holden of the Manor of Esthall for which cause the Visne ought to be from both places and the opinion of the Court was That for the manner of it it was not good as if an issue be joyned upon common for cause of vicinage it shall be tried by both Towns See 39 H. 6. 31. by Littleton and Danby and the case in 21 E. 3. 12. was cited in a per quae servitia the Mannor was in one county and the Lands holden in another county the Tenant pleaded that he did not hold of the Conusor and that he was tried by a Iury of the County where the Land was See 2 H. 4. Gawdy denied the Book cited of 21 E. 3. to be Law and the reason wherefore the Visne shall come from both places is because it is most likely that both the Visnes may better know the truth of the matter than the one only Another Exception was taken Exposition of Stat. 21. H. 8. cap. 19. because the Conusans as it seems is made according to the Statute of 21 H. 8. 19. and yet the party doth not pursue the said Statute through the whole Conusans for by the Statute in Avowry or Conusans the party needs not to name any person certain to be Tenant to the Land c. nor to make Avowty or Conusans upon any person certain and now in this Conusans he hath not made Conusance upon any person certain but yet he hath named a person certain to be Tenant c. and in as much as this Conusans is not made either according to the Common-Law or according to the Statute it cannot be good But that Exception was dissallowed by the Court for if the Statute remedieth two things it remedieth one and the Conusance made in form as above was well enough by the opinion of the whole Court. CCCCXIV Diersly and Nevels Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded Not-guilty 2 Roll. 682. and if he might give in evidence That at the time of the Trespass the Freehold was to such an one and he as his servant and by his Commandment entred was the question and it was said by Coke That the same might so be well enough and so it was adjudged in Trivilians Case for if he by whose commandment he entreth hath Right at the same instant that the Defendant entreth the Right is in the other by reason whereof he is not guilty as to the Defendant and Iudgment was given accordingly CCCCXV. Savage and Knights Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 546. In the Kings Bench. Error Ante 185. 1 Cro. 106. 2 Cro. 109. 654. Sty 91. Yelv. 164. Sty 115. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in Leicester in Debt Tanfield assigned for Error because in that suit there was not any Plaint for in all inferior Courts the Plaint is as the Original at the Common Law and without that no Process can issue and here upon this Record nothing is entred but only that the Defendant summonitus fuit c. and the first Entrie ought to be A. B. queritur versus C c. Clench Iustice a Plaint ought to be entred before Process issueth forth and this Summons which is entred here is not any Plaint and for that Cause the Iudgment was reversed CCCCXVI Rawlins Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking his Close by Rawlins with a continuando It was moved by Coke that the Plaintiff needed not to shew a Regress to have Damages for the continuance of the first Entry scil for the mean profits and that appears by common experience at this day Gawdy Iustice whatsoever the experience be I well know that our books are contrary and that without an Entry he shall not have damages for the continuance if not in case where the Term or estate of the Plaintiff in the Land be determined and to such opinion of Gawdy the whole Court did incline but they did not resolve the point because a Regress was proved See 20 H. 6. 15. 38 H. 6. 27. CCCCXVII Harris and Bakers Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Accompt Damages 3 Len. 192. Collet and Andrews Case 2 Len. 118. 3 Len 149. IN an accompt damages were given by the Iury and it was moved that damages ought not to have been given by way of damages but the damages of the Plaintiff shall be considered by way of Arrearages but see the Case H. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas betwixt Collet and Andrews and see 10 H. 6 18. In Accompt the Plaintiff shall count to his damage but shall not recover damages vide 2. H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 26. The Plaintiff shall not recover damages expresly but the Court shall adâ— quoddam incromentum to the Arrearages Coke It hath been adjudged that the Plaintiff shall recover damages ratione implicationis non Retentionis CCCCXVIII Mich. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe words of the Statute 32 H. 8. cap. 37. of Rents are that the Executor of a Grantee of a Rent-charge may distrain for the arrearages of the said Rent incurred in the life of the Testator so long as the Land charged doth continue in
case 39 Eliz. and Damports case 45 Eliz. And this Act of 13 Eliz. is general in respect of time for it extendeth to all time after from henceforth and to all persons to whom such Leases shall be made the words the Statute are scil To any person or persons in respect of persons who shall lease all spiritual persons General in respect of the end which is the maintenance of learning which extends to the common profit c. Drew Serjeant That this act of 13 Eliz is general in respect of restraint only and extends only to spiritual persons and therefore ought to be pleaded for otherwise the Court shall not take notice of it As the Statute of 23 H. 6. of Sheriffs ought to be pleaded which see in the Case of Dive and Manningham Plowden 64 65. Co. 1 Inst 45. And although the Statute ought to be pleaded Yet this Lease is not void against the Warden who made it but against his Successor although no rent be reserved upon it notwithstanding that the perclose of the Statute be utterly void and of none effect to all intents constructions and purposes So upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. concerning Leases made by Bishops the Law had been so taken in the case of the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfeild upon a Grant of the next Avoidance That although it doth not bind the Successors yet it shall bind the Grantor himself So here this Lease being made by the present Warden and Fellows of the Colledge aforesaid although it be not sufficient to bind the Successor yet it shall bind the Warden who made the Lease Puckering contrary And as to the case of 13 E. 4. 8. the reason there is because there is an Exception in the said Statute of divers Grants made by King H. 6. and therefore the said Act ought to be specially pleaded And see 34 H. 6. 34. by Prisoit But in this Act of 13 Eliz. there is not any Exception and although it be a general Act with a Restraint yet such an Act ought not to be pleaded and therefore 27 H. 8. 23. in an Action upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. for taking of Lands to Ferm by spiritual persons he need not make mention of the Statute And afterwards the Iustices did advise upon this point whether the Lease be so void that it be void against a stranger So as the Defendant who doth not claim under the Colledge and who hath no title to the Land may avoid it And Periam Iustice denied the Case put by Puckering A. morgages Lands to B. upon a usurious contract for one hundred pounds and before the day of payment B. is ousted by C. against whom B. brings an Action C. cannot plead the Statute of Vsury for he hath no title For the estate is void against the Mortgagor Another Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Plaintiff had declared upon a Lease by the Warden and Fellows without naming any name of the Warden 13 E. 4. 8. 18 E. 4. 8. In Trespass the Defendant doth justifie because that the Free-hold was in the Dean and Chapter and he as Servant and by their commandment entred And Exception was taken to that Plea because he hath not shewed the name of the Dean scil the proper name So if a Lease be made by Dean and Chapter in these words Nos Decan Capituli the same Lease is void which was granted by the Court and 12 H. 4251. A Provost granted an Annuity by the name of Provost of such a Colledge without any name of Baptism and afterwards the Grantee brought a Writ of Annuity against the Successor of the said Provost and by Hull The Writ is well enough but the Christian name ought to be set down in the Writ So here because that the name of Baptism of the Warden is not in the Declaration the same is not good But the opinion of the whole Court was That the Declaration is good enough and they did rely especially upon the Book of 21 E 4. 15 16. Where Debt is brought by the Dean and Chapter without any Christian name and the Writ holden good Anderson It stands with reason That for as much as the Colledge was incorporated by the name of Warden and Fellows and not by any Christian name that they may purchase and lease by such name without any Christian name and may be impleaded and implead others by such name and as the Fellows in such case need not to be named by their Christian names no more ought the Warden But of a Parson Vicar Chauntry Priest it is otherwise for in such case the name of Baptism ought to be added It was also objected That because the Letter of Attorney was to enter in the Manor and all the Lands and Tenements of the Colledge in such a Town and to seal the Indenture of Lease in the name of the Lessors and to deliver it to the Plaintiff as their Deed now the Attorney in executing of this Warrant hath not pursued it for he hath only entred into the Lands but it is not found that he entred into the Manor and so the Lease is void And it was said by Puckering That if I lease two Acres in two several Counties rendring for the one Acre 10 s. and for the other Acre 10 s. and make a Letter of Attorney to make Livery in both if the Attorney entreth into one Acre and makes Livery the same is void for the Attorney hath not pursued his authority for peradventure I would not have leased the Acre whereof Livery is made for such rent of 10 s. being perhaps of greater value but with the other Acre which was of lesser value and so the mis-executing of my warrant shall prejudice me Windham Perhaps if one entire Rent had been reserved out of both Acres it may be that by the Livery in one Acre all is void But by Puckering one entire Rent cannot be reserved upon such a Lease of two Acres in several Counties Walmesley denied the Case put by Puckering for the authority is executed well enough for it doth not appear upon the Verdict but that the Colledge was in possession at the time of the Lease made and then there needed not any such Entry but the bare sealing and delivery of the Attorney is good enough And also it doth not appear by Verdict That the Colledge hath any Manor and therefore it shall be so intended and then the Case is no other but that A man leaseth a Manor and certain Lands in D. and makes a Letter of Attorney to make Livery of them where he hath nothing in the Manor and the Attorney makes Livery of the Land without medling with the Manor the same is a good Livery and the authority duly executed But if it had been expresly found that the Colledge had such a Manor there then the Entry in the Land only without medling with the Manor and the Livery made accordingly should not be good But
firmae against Leonard Lovelace and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment That the Declaration was not good because the granting of Letters of Administration is set forth in this manner viz. Administratio commissa fuit Querenti per Willielmum Lewen Vicarium generalem in spiritualibus Epi. Roff. without averring that at the time of the granting of the Letters of Administration the Bishop was in remotis agendis for a Bishop present in England cannot have Vicarium But as to that it was said by the whole Court That the Vicar general in Spiritualibus amounts to a Chancellor for in truth the Chancellor is Vicar general to the Bishop Another Exception was because the Declaration is not Epi. Roff. loci illius Ordinarii but that was not allowed for all the presidents and course of the Court is That by way of Declaration such allegation needs not but by way of Bar it is necessary Another Exception was taken because the Plaintiff hath declared of an Ejectment and also quod bona catalla ibidem invent cepit c. And here in the Verdict the damages as well for the Ejectment as for the Goods and Chattels are entirely taxed It was adjorned CCCCXXXVI Greeves Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin Replevin the Defendant made Conusans as Bayliff to one Greeves and Rockwood c. and said That A. was seised of the Lands and 6 Eliz. enfeoffed certain persons in fee to the use of his last Will by which he willed that his Feoffees should stand seised of the said Lands Devises Poph. 188. until the said Greeves had levied of the profits of the said Lands the sum of one hundred pounds It was objected against this Conusans that here is no devise for A. at the time of the devise had not any Feoffees but the Exception was disallowed by the Court And they cited the case of 15 Eliz. Dyer 323. Lingens case A. made a Feoffment in fee to his use and afterwards devised that his Feoffees should be seised to the use of his Daughter that the same was a good devise of the Land. See 29 H. 8. Br. Devises 48. CCCCXXXVII Kempton and Coopers Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleaded Bar. 3 Len. 194. that before this he had brought an Ejectione firmae against the now Plaintiff and recovered and had Execution c. Iudgment if Action c. And by Periam Windham and Anderson Iustices the same is a good Bar and the conclusion of the Plea is also good Iudgment if Action without relying upon the Estoppel CCCCXXXVIII Leigh and Okeley and Christmass Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. OLiphe Leigh Fermor of the Queen of a Wood called Meerherst Wood in Warplesden in the County of Surrey brought an Action of Trespass against Henry Okeley and Robert Christmass for breaking of the said Wood and therein entring and cutting down of two hundred loads of Wood and carrying away the same c. The Defendants pleaded That before the time in which the Trespass was supposed c. That King H. 8. was seised of the Manor of Warplesden Custom whereof the said Wood was parcel of which Manor a Close called Withybod containing eleven Acres eidem bosco adjacent was parcel and that the said Wood is and time out of mind c. was closed and separated with Hedges and Ditches from the said eleven Acres which said Hedges and Ditches per totum tempus praedict fuerunt adhuc sunt praedict bosco spectant pertinent And that the said eleven Acres are and time out of mind weâ—â— customary Lands parcel of the Manor aforesaid and demised and demisable in Fee-simple And that the said King H. 8. at a Court holden 38 H. 8. by his Steward demised the said eleven Acres by copy to John Goring and his Heirs and that within the said Manor there is this Custom That every Copyholder Tenant of the said eleven Acres c. hath used and accustomed per se vel servientes suos per eorum praecept succidere capere asportare subboscum in praedict bosco in quo c. pro reparatione praedictarum sepium defensionum inter praedict boscum in quo c. and the said eleven Acres c. quandocunque eaedem sepes defensiones in decasu extiterint and shewed further That at the time of the Trespass c. the said Hedges and Fences were in decay and so justified Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was argued by Godfrey That the Prescription is not good for it appeareth that this customary Land is contigue adjacens to the said Wood i. where the Trespass was done And of common Right the making of the Hedge doth appertain to the Owner of the Wood And the Prescription is no more but to take Wood in the Lands of another adjoyning to my Land to make the Hedges of the same Land in which the Wood groweth which cannot be a good Prescription for it sounds in charge and not to the profit of him who Prescribes Which see 22 E. 3. Prescription 40. Trespass against an Abbot because where the Plaintiff was Farmor of the King of his Hundred of D. and by reason thereof he might make Attachment and distrain for the Debts of the King within the said Hundred and where for a certain debt of the King he distrained the Beasts of one A. and the Abbot made Rescous to which the Abbot said That he was Lord of the Manor of D. within which Manor there was this custom c. That if any Distress be taken within the said Manor that the same should be put into the Pound of the said Abbot of the same Manor and not driven out of the Manor and there ought the Distress to remain three days so that if the party would agree within the three days that then he should have his Beasts and he said That the Plaintiff would have driven the said Beasts out of the said Manor and that he would not suffer him upon which there was a demurrer because it is not any profit to the Abbot but a charge to keep the Beasts of another Also he said That the King shall not be bound by such a custom as another person shall whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff So here in the principal case There shall be no damage to the Defendant if the Wood be not fenced for if his Cattel escape into the Wood he may justifie it because it is in default of the Plaintiffs inclosure And if the Beasts of the Plaintiff escape into the Lands of the Defendant he may take them Damage Feasant for the cause aforesaid 21 H. 7. 20. A Custom is pleaded That if any Tenants of the Manor shall take the Cattel of any one Damage Feasant and shall therefore distrain them that
appeareth upon his own shewing as it was holden in a Hampshire Case betwixt Sutton and Dowze Sutton and Dowzes Case 2 Len. 55. 3 Len. 155 164. which see Mich. 25 26 Eliz. and in that case the Lease is void for it was made within a year after the Statute of 31 H. 8. the January before and the Statute in April after for he hath not averred that the usual Rent is reserved nor that the Land was usually let to farm for which Leases otherwise made within the year are absolutely void by the said Statute But it will be objected Ante 306. 1 Cro. 707 708. Heydons Case That this matter shall come in of our part and it is sufficient for them to plead the Case but it is not so as it was lately agreed in Heydons Case in the Exchequer where the Case was That the Warden and Canons of the Colledge of Otery leased certain Lands to Heydon for years and he in pleading of his Lease did not shew that the ancient Rent was reserved and therefore naught and so was the opinion of the Iustices of the Common Pleas Lord Cromwel and All-Souls Case in the Case betwixt the Lord Cromwel and All-Souls Colledge upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 6. upon a branch of it by which it was provided that the third part of the Rent reserved upon any Lease should be paid in Corn c. and the Leases made to the contrary should be void and in an Ejectione firmae brought upon such Lease because it was not shewed in the Declaration that the Corn was reserved according to the Statute Iudgment was arrested and we need not to plead the Statute for although the Statute be particular yet because the King hath interest in it it shall be holden in Law a general Act and the Iudges shall take notice of it although it be not alledged by the party as it was ruled in the Lord Barcklays Case 4 Eliz. Plow 231. but if such Rent was reserved yet the Lease cannot be good for the King cannot have his Rent because it is not incident to the Reversion nor passeth by the Grant of the Reversion for it is not a Rent but rather a sum due by reason of contract which see 30 Ass 6. A man leaseth a Hundred rendring Rent or grants a Rent out of a Hundred the same is not a good Rent but meerly void for a Hundred is not Manorable nor can be put in view nor any Assize lieth of such Rent See 9 Ass 24. and in 20 Eliz. in the Case betwixt Corbet and Cleer 7 Co. 5. Corbet and Cleers Case the Dean and Chapter of Norwich leased a Parsonage and common of Pasture rendring Rent 1 E. 6. they surrendred their possessions to the King and afterwards the King granted the Parsonage without speaking of the common of Pasture It was holden that the Patentee of the Parsonage should have all the Rent and no apportionment should be in respect of the Common for all the Rent issueth out of the Parsonage and nothing out of the Common So here 2 Co. 48. for Tithes are not an Hereditament which cannot support a Rent within this Statute for which cause the Lease is void Also he said that the traverse of the Defendant was not well taken for the Plaintiff hath said That time out of mind c. the Abbot and his Predecessors were seised of the Rectory and Manor aforesaid simul semel and ratione inde was discharged c. at the time of the dissolution the Defendant traverseth absque hoc that the Abbot and his Predecessors held discharged of Tithes time out of mind c. which is not good for he hath traversed our conclusion for our plea is an argument wheresoever is unity time out of mind c. there is a discharge of Tithes but in the Abbot was such an Vnity ergo he held discharged of Tithes as 21 E. 3. 22. In a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant saith that the Land in demand is parcel of the Manor of D. which is ancient Demesn and c. to which the Plaintiff saith That it is Frank-fee and the same was not good for he denies the conclusion but he ought to plead to the nature of the Manor that it is not ancient Demesn or that the Land in demand is not parcel of it Another matter was because it is pleaded fuit in tenura occupatione of Goodman and others but he did not shew by what Title Disseisin or Lease or other Title c. Buckley contrary And he said This unity of possession is not any discharge of Tithes by the said Statute and as to the Case cited before of 3 H. 7. 12. where Tenant in tail of a Rent entreth upon the Tenant of the Land now is the Rent suspended and then after when he makes a Feoffment in fee by that Feoffment the Rent is extinguished which was but suspended at the time of the Feoffment and therefore some have holden that if after such Entry he makes a Lease for life of the Land that his Rent or Seigniory is utterly gone in perpetuum for by the Livery all passeth out of him which he said cannot be Law and so it seemed to Gawdy Iustice Then upon such Feoffment with warranty he could not vouch as of Land discharged of the Rent generally but as of Land discharged at the time of the Feoffment which proves that the suspension is not a discharge for it was suspended before the Feoffment and discharged by the Feoffment and so suspension is not a discharge à fortiori in the Case of Tithes for in the case of Common and Rent although they are suspended so as they cannot be actually taken yet they are to some intent in esse As where Lands holden of other Lords are in the hands of the King for Primer seisin by reason of Prerogative and during such seisin of the King the Lord gets seisin the same is a good seisin notwithstanding that it was suspended so as he could not distrain And also in Assize of Land damages as to the Rent out of the Land shall be recouped therefore the rent in some sort is in esse and à multo fortiori this Tithe which is a thing of common Right shall be in esse but goes with the Land A Rent in esse to some purposes and suspended to other and therefore by unity of possession shall not be suspended 35 H. 6. He who hath liberty of Warren in the Lands of another entreth into the Land the Warren is not suspended nor by Feoffment of the Land is extinct and in this Case upon the matter during the unity of possession the Tithes were paid although not in specie Also the Abbot had the Tithes as Parson of B. and the Land as Abbot and therefore no suspension for the Tithes were always in esse although not taken in the manner as Tithes commonly are but by way of Retainer 22
197 p VVright and the Bishop of Norwiches case 218 p VVhisker and Cleytons Case 219 p VVard and Blunts case 251 p VVeston and Grendons case 255 p VVoodshaw and Fulmerstons case 262 p VVindham and Sir Edward Cleeres case 263 p VVickes and Dennis case 271 p VValgrave and Ogdens case 305 p VVard and Knights case 315 p VViseman and VVaringers case 339 p VVeston and Garnons case 343 p VVillis and Crosbies case 373 p VVilliams and Blowers case 402 p VValpoole and Kings case 407 p VViggot and Clarks case 419 p VVangford and Sectons case 423 p VVilmer and Oldfeilds case 424 p VVolman and Fies case 449 p VVillis and VVhitewoods case 454 p VVade and Presthalls case 466 p VVharton and Morleys case 467 p VValgrave and Agars case 469 p Z. ZOuch and Bamfeilds case 102 p REPORTS AND Cases of Law Argued and Adjudged in the Time of Queen Elizabeth From the twenty fourth to the three and thirtieth year of Her Reign I. Borneford and Packingtons Case Hill. 25. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. IN Trespas It was found by special verdict Custom of Free-Bench That the Defendant was seised of the Manor of B. whereof the place where is parcel demised and demiseable by Copy c. And that B. the Granfather of the Plaintiff was seised of the place where c. according to the custom of the said Manor in Fee-simple and that within the said Manor there is this Custom That if any Copy-holder dieth seised his Wife over-living him shall hold all the Land during her Widowhood as Free-bench and shall be admitted Tenant to the Lord 2 Brownl 21. and that the Heir shall not be admitted to it during the life of his Mother And found also another Custom within the said Manor That if any Copy-holder be convicted of Felony and the same be presented by the Homage that then the Lord might seize c. And it was further found that the Grandfather of the Plaintiff took a Wife and died seised having issue A. Father of the Plaintiff The Wife is admitted to her Free-bench A. is convicted of Felony and that is presented by the Homage and afterwards A. died after which the Wife died c. It was argued by Atkinson that A. is not within the danger of this Custom for during the life of his Mother who by a Claimer is Tenant to the Lord and admitted to it she is Copy-holder and it is not like to the Case lately adjudged of possessio fratris without admittance for there the party was admittable and so he was not here And also it appeareth by the Custom as it is found That the Lord upon such matter shall seize and therefore we ought to make construction that this Custom doth not extend to Cases where the Lord cannot seize but in the Case at Bar the Lord cannot seize by reason of this Free-bench And we ought not by any construction to extend a Custom beyond the words in which it is conceived but it shall be taken strictly and not be supplyed by Equity with a Custom in the place of a Seisure But notwithstanding all this afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff II. Hill. 25 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. A Copy-holder doth surrender to the use of one A. upon trust that he shall hold the said Land until he hath levyed certain monies and that afterwards he shall surrender to the use of B the monies are levyed A. is required to make surrender to the use of B. he refuseth B. exhibits a Bill to the Lord of the Mannor against the said A. who upon hearing of the Cause decrees against A. that he shall surrender he refuseth now the Lord may seize and admit B. to the Copy-hold for he in such Cases is Chancellor in his own Court per totam Curiam III. Wade and Bemboes Case Hill. 25. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. IN a Writ of Error by Wade against Bembo upon a Iudgment given in the Court of the City of Bristol the Case was That Bembo was Plaintiff in the said Court against Wade in an Action of Covenant and declared of a Covenant made by word by the Testator of Wade with Bembo and declared also that within the said City there is a Custom That Conventio ore tenus facta shall bind the Covenantor as strongly as if it were made by writing And it was holden by the Court that that Custom doth not warrant this Action for the Covenant binds by the Custom the Covenantor but doth not extend to his Executors and a Custom shall be taken strictly and therefore the Iudgment was reversed IV. The Lord Paget and Sir Walter Ashtons Case 25 Pasch 25. Eliz. in the Kings Bench THe Lord Paget brought an Action of Trespass against Sir Walter Ashton who justified because he is seised of three Messuages to him and his Heirs and that he and all those whose estate he hath c. have had the Woodwardship of the Forrest of C. within which the place where c. and also have had within the said Forrest Estovers without number And that one Rowland Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield was seised of the Forrest aforesaid in the right of his Church and by Indenture betwixt him and Sir Edw. Ashton his Ancestor whose Heir he is setting forth that divers debates had been betwixt the said parties concerning some profits within the said Forrest It was agreed betwixt them that the said Sir Ed. Ashton should release unto the said Rowland all his right in the said Office and Estovers and that the said Rowland shoud grant de novo unto the said Edw. and his Heirs the said Office and one hundred loads of Estovers per annum out of the said Forrest After which the said Ed. according to the said agreement did release to the said Bishop ut supra after which the said Bishop by Indenture reciting the said former Convenants in compl Indenturae praedict Convent did grant to the said Sir Ed. the said Office and Estovers pro easiamento dicti Edwardi haered suorum by assignment of the Officers of the said Forrest and if the assignment he not made within ten days after request that then the said Ed. and his Heirs should cut dow wood where they pleased and averred the things released were of as great value as the things granted And upon this matter the Plaintiff did demurr in Law and it was adjuded for the Plaintiff for here no Inheritance in the things granted passed to the said Sir Ed. but only an Interest for his own life 1. Inst 148. a. 398. b. ib. Dy. 253. 1 Cro. 644. for the grant was to Sir Ed. only without the word Heirs and the reference to the Indentures by which the Bishop hath covenanted to grant the Inheritance nor the words in the grant imply an estate in Fee s. pro easimento dict Ed. haered suorum and that in default of Assignment it should be lawful for Sir Ed. and his Heirs
licence by recovery c. N. Vaux the surviving Feoffee died having issue W. Lord Vaux the purchasor died seised his Son and Heir 14 Eliz. levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. and that Fine was levied to the use of the Conusee c. and that without licence The Lord Vaux within five years after the Fine levied entred for the condition broken and now issued forth a Scire facias against the Conusee for that alienation without licence who made default whereupon issued process to seize the Lands whereupon came Sir Tho. Tresham Fine for Alienation without Licence and shewed the whole matter aforesaid and prayed to be discharged It was said that this Prerogative to have a Fine for alienation without licence had lately beginning upon the original creation of Seignories so as this prerogative is as it were paramount the Seignory and shall go paramount the Condition as well as the Condition is paramount the Alienation but if the disseisor of the Tenant of the King maketh a Feoffment in Fee now upon the entry of the disseisee the person of the Feoffee shall be charged with a Fine but the Land by the re-entry of the disseisee is discharged and such is the opinion of the Lord Frowick in his Reading upon the Statute of Prerogativa Regis and the reason is because the disseisor is not Tenant to the King and so when he aliens it cannot be said an Alienation by the Kings Tenant See 45 E. 3. 6. If the Tenant of the King in chief seaseth for life with licence and afterwards grants the Reversion over without licence Entry for Condition what acts it shall defeat the Tenant for life is not bound to atturn in a Quid juris clamat wherfore it seems that if such Tenant doth attorn the King shall seize presently This Entry for the Condition broken is not to have so violent a retrospect to the first livery to which the Condition was annexed that it shall defeat all things mean between the Creation and the breach of the Condition but it shall defeat all mean things which rise upon the act of the party as Rent Dower c. But charges which accrue by reason of Tenure do remain notwithstanding the Entry for the Condition broken As if such a Tenant of the King maketh a Feoffment in Fee upon condition which is broken the Feoffee dieth seised his Heir of full age the Feoffor re-entereth this re-entry by force of the condition broken hath not so avoided the descent but the King shall have Relief upon the said descent for the Relief is paramount the Livery and the condition So if a Feoffee upon condition disclaim in Avowry Condition shall not avoid an Interest vested by which the Lord brings a Writ of Right Sur Disclaimer and hath Iudgment the Feoffee entreth for the condition broken the said re-entry shall not avoid the interest of the Lord by the Iudgment on the Writ of Disclaimer but he may enter at his pleasure and it was moved by Plowden who argued for Tresham that if the Tenant of the King being Non Compos mentis makes a Feoffment in Fee and dieth his Heir entring upon the Feoffee shall not pay a Fine for the Alienation of his Father but the person of the Father shall be charged with it And at the end of this Term after many Arguments and Motions Iudgment was given for the Queen that she should seize the Land and hold the same for the Fine and that she should not be driven to sue the person of the Feoffee or Conusee And by Manwood chief Baron at the Commom Law in many Manors Tenant in soccage upon every alienation shall pay a Fine nomine relevii a fortiori in the Kings case and therefore he was of opinion That this Prerogative to have a Fine for alienation without licence is by the common Law and not by any Statute XII Caters Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer Chamber A Bill of Intrusion was in the Exchequer against Cater Intrusion 7 Co. 12. 1 Anders 95. who pleaded the Grant of the Queen the Plaintiff replicando said that before the Queen had any thing c. Sir Francis Englefield was seised of the Manor of which c. and he being beyond the Seas the Queen sent her Letters under the Privy Seal Quod ipse in fide legeantiâ quâ dictae Reginae tenebatur indirecte rediret in Angliam praedict tamen Franciscus spretis mandatis dict Reginae venire recusavit for which a Certificate was by the said Queen into the Chancery Quod dictus Franciscus in portibus transmarinis sine licentia dict Reginae remansit And thereupon a Commission was awarded to seize the Lands of the said Sir Francis which was entred in the Replication in haec verba reciting also the Queens Privy Seal and that the said Sir Francis did stay there spretis mandatis c. for which the Queen seised and granted to the Plaintiff And afterwards the Statutes of 13 and 14. Eliz. were made after which the said grant was made to the Defendant upon which matter there was a Demurrer and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff Error And now Cater brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber and it was first assigned for Error because that the Record is entred Inter Johannem Cater present hic in Curia by I.S. Attornatum suum and that cannot be for it is oppositum in objecto that one can be present in Court and also by Attorney simul semel for the Attorney is to supply the default of the personal presence To which it was said by Wray Anderson and Periam that the matter assigned was no Error for there are many Presidents in the Exchequer of such Entries which were openly shewed in Court. 48 E 3. 10. R 2. 20 H 7. 20 H 8. And by Manwood chief Baron it is not so absurd an Entry as it hath been objected for if one hath an Attorney of Record in the Kings Bench and he himself is in the Marshalsey there is an Action against him he is present as Prisoner and also by Attorney and by them notwithstanding that here appeareth a contrariety for such Entry properly is presentem hic in Curia in propriâ persona sua yet because many proceedings are according it is the more safe course to follow them for if this Iudgment be reversed for this cause many Records should be also reversed which should be very perillous An other Error was assigned because it is not alledged in the Replication of what date the Privy Seal was nor that any notice of the said Privy Seal was given to Sir Francis to which it was said that the Privy Seal need not any date especially in this case for the matters which are under the Privy Seal are not issuable See 2 Eliz. Dyer 177. Privy Seal nor any traverse can be taken to it and this Privy Seal is not
at last after many motions it was resolved by all the Iustices Averment â—here superâ—luous that the Averment aforesaid was superfluous ex abundanti for it had been sufficient for the Plaintiff to have assigned the breach of the Covenant in the not repairing the Messuage without any Averment de non appunctuando and if the house in the not repairing of which the breach of Covenant is assigned was appointed to be pulled down the same shall come in on the defendants part to whose advantage it trencheth for such appointment doth discharge the Covenant as to that In the same plea it was moved in stay of Iudgment that one Sharp Solicitor of the said Sir John in the said suit had given eight shillings to the Iurors mean betwixt the Charge and their Verdict and that matter was testified by the oaths of two men upon which the Court examined the said Sharp who upon his oath denied the matter and also the Foreman of the Iury to whom the mony was supposed to be given who upon his oath denied the same And it was moved if receipt of mony by any of the Iurors should make the Verdict void and by Wray it shall not for it is but a Misdemeanor which is punishable on the person of him who takes the mony But Gawdy and Ayliff Iustices the Verdict is void See 24 E 3. 24. 14 H. 7. 1. 20 H. 7. 30. And for that cause the Iudgment was reversed XXII Cordall and Gibbons Case Pasch 26. Eliz. Intr. Trin. 25. Eliz. Rot. 492. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae upon not guilty pleaded the Iury found the special matter viz. that one Hierom Heydon was seised of two Messuages whereof the Action is brought and came to Cordall the Plaintiff and prayed him to send him ten pounds Cordall asked him what assureance he would give him for the re-payment of it he answered that he would mortgage to him the said two Messuages whereupon Cordall lent him the mony and afterwards they both went to the said two Houses and being before the doors of them Heydon called Tenants at will of the Houses and said to them Sirs I have borrowed of this Cordall ten pounds upon these Houses and if I pay this mony at Michaelmas next I must have my Houses again and if not then I bargain and sell these Houses to Cordall and my Will is that you become his Tenants after which Heydon put the said Cordall into the Houses and seeing him in the Houses he put in the Keys of the said Cordall by the Windows c. And it was adjudged by the whole Court that this conveyance by word of mouth was good enough to pass the estate ut supra and the words of bargain and sale in this Case are as strong as of gift and grant See 38 E 3. 11. 43 E 3. 11. 27 E 3. 62. 28 E 3. 11. XXIII Richards and Bartlets Case Pasch 26 Eliz. Intr. Mich. 25 26 Eliz. Rot. 72. In the Kings Bench. DOrothy Richards Executrix of A. her former Husband Assumpsit brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise against Humfrey Bartlet and declared that in consideration of two weighs of Corn delivered by the Testator to the Defendant he did promise to pay to the Plaintiff ten pounds to which the Defendant said that after the Assumpsit the Plaintiff in consideration that the said two weighs were drowned by Tempest and in consideration that the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff for every twenty shillings of the said ten pounds three shillings four pence scil in toto thirty three shillings four pence did discharge the said Defendant of the said promise and averred further that he hath been always ready to pay the said sum newly agreed upon which there was a demurrer And the opinion of the whole Court was clearly with the Plaintiff first because that here his not any consideration set forth in the Bar by reason whereof the Plaintiff should discharge the defendant of this matter for no profit but damage comes to the Plaintiff by this new agreement and the Defendant is not put to any labour or charge by it therefore here is not any agreement to bind the Plaintiff See 19 H. 6. Accord 1. 9 E. 4. 13. 12 H. 7. 15. See also Onlies Case 19 Eliz. Dyer then admitting that the agreement had been sufficient yet because it is not executed it is not any Bar And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXIV Lendall and Pinfolds Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close by Lendal against Pinfold Trespass the Case was that two brake the Close and entred and did the Trespass the Owner of the land brought an Action of Trespass against one of them and had Iudgment and execution accordingly and afterwards brought Trespass against the other Bar. 1 Cro. 667. 2 Cro. 73. 1 Cro. 30. 31. and declared upon the same Trespass And by Ayliff Iustice it is a good Bar and he likened it to the case of one Cobham who brought an Action of Trespass of Assault and Battery and recovered and had execution and afterwards brought an Appeal of Mayhem against the same person upon the same matter the said Recovery and execution is a good Bar c. so here as to the breaking of the close but not as to the Entry But by Wray it is a good Bar for the whole and he likened it to the case of Littleton Pl. 376. A Release to one of the Trespassers shall discharge both Gawdy agreed in opinion with Ayliff XXV Kempe and Hollingbrooks Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN an Ejectione firmae for Tythes the case was upon the Statute of 18. Eliz. Cap. 6. By which it is enacted that no Masters Tithea and Fellows of any Colledge in Cambridge or Oxford shall make any Lease for life or years of any Farm or of any their Lands Tenements or other Hereditaments to the which any Tythes arable Land Meadow or Pasture doth or shall appertain unless the third part at least of the accient Rent be reserved and payed in Corn for the said Colledges c. otherwise every Lease without such Reservation shall be void c. If now the said Statute shall be construed to extend to Leases of such extraordinary pecuniary Tithes which are not natural or paid in kind It was argued that the said Statute is to be intended of Tithes in kind and also of such things to be demised which render Corn Hay c. But the Tithes in London which is the thing demised in our case doth not render any such thing Tithes in London but only mony according to the decree made for payment of Tithes in London in the time of E. 6. And although the words of the Statute be other Hereditaments to the which any Tithes c. Yet the said Statute doth extend to Tithes in gross but they ought to be
prohibition And the Court upon the first Motion conceived a prohibition should pass for if the grant be without deed nothing passed and then hath not Withy cause to claim these Tithes against the said Saunders And notwithstanding that Tithes are quodam modo spiritual things and so demandable in a Court of that nature yet now in divers respects they are become a Lay-fee and lay-things for a Writ of Assise of Mortdauncester and an Assise of novel disseisin lyes of them and a Fine may be levyed of them But it hath been doubted whether Tithes be devisable by Will But at another day the matter was moved and the Court was clear of opinion that a Consultation should be awarded for whether Withy hath right or not right to these Tithes Saunders of common right ought to pay his Tithes and he ought to sever them from the nine parts and whosoever takes them whether he hath right to them or no right Saunders is discharged But Saunders may prescribe in modo decimandi without making mention of any severance and may surmise that the Tithes do belong to I. S. with whom he hath compounded to pay such a sum for all Tithes and afterwards a Consultation was awarded XXX Stacy and Carters Case Trin. 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. STacy brought an Action of Trespass for breaking his Close against Walter Carter And declared of a Trespass in somers-Somers-Land in Tunbridge The Defendant pleaded that heretofore he himself brought an Assise of Novel disseisin against the now Plaintiff and supposed himself to be disseised of his Free-hold in Lee juxta Tunbridge and the Land where the Trespass supposed to be done was put in view to the Recognitors of the said Assise and further averred that the Land where c. and the Land then put in view is one and the same c. upon which there was a Demurrer Exception was taken to the form of the Demurrer because in the perclose and conclusion of the Demurrer these words are omitted Averment Et hoc paratus est verificare But as to that it was said by the Court that the Demurrer was well enough with or without such Averment in the conclusion of it which see oftentimes in the Commentaries c. and in the Book of Entries 146. the greater part of the Demurrers have not any such conclusion Another Exception was taken to the bar because the Defendant pleads that heretofore Walter Carter had brought an Assise against the now Plaintiff c. and that the Land put in view to the Recognitors of the Assise per praefatum Warrhamum Carter c. and the Land where c. is all one c. here is Warrhamum for Walterum and notwithstanding that it was after demurrer and not after verdict it was adjudged amendable and as to the matter of the bar it was said by the Defendants Council that recovery of Lands in one Town by Praecipe quod reddat is not a bar for Lands in another Town but where the recovery is by Assise it is otherwise for there the Plaint is general De lib. ten̄to and the Plaintiff shall recover per visum Juratorum and the view is the warrant of the Iudgment and Execution And therefore if a recovery in an Assise be pleaded in bar Not comprised is not any Plea against it as in the Case of recoveries upon a Praecipe quod reddat but not put in view and so not comprised c. which proves that the Record doth not guid the recovery but the view of the Iurors See 26 E 3. 2. Assise brought of Lands in D. the Tenant saith that he holdeth the said Lands put in view joyntly with A. not named in the Writ c. and sheweth the deed of Ioynt-tenancy which speaks of Tenements in B. and the plea holdeth good because he alledgeth the Ioynt-tenancy and the Lands put in view See 24 E 3. It was said on the Plaintiffs side that recovery in Lee juxta Tunbridge could not extend to Lands in Tunbridge no more than a recovery of Lands in one County can extend to Lands in another County See 23 E 3. 16. Assise of Novel disseisin brought of Lands in N. the Defendant pleads recovery in Assise c. brought before by him against the now Plaintiff of Lands in H. and the same Lands put then and now in view and adjudged no bar See also 16 E 3. 16. in an Assise of Tenements in W. the Tenant pleads a Recovery of the same Lands agaist one A. by Assise brought of Tenements in C. which was found by the Assise and that C. is a Hamlet of W. and the Plaintiff notwithstanding that recovery so pleaded had Iudgment for a recovery of Lands in one Town shall not be a bar in an Assise of Lands in another Town See Br. Tit. Iudgment 66. 10 E 3. And the whole Court was clear of opinion that the plea in bar was not good for in the Assise which is pleaded in bar in the principal Case the Tenant there who is now Plaintiff in this Action of Trespass pleaded Nul tort nul disseisin which is no plea as to the Free-hold in Lee juxta Tunbridge and therefore it cannot be like to the Case which hath been put of 26 E 3. for there the Tenant pleaded that he held the said Lands put in view joyntly for there he agreeth with the Plaintiff in the Lands demanded the which Lands are put in view but if in the Case at bar the Defendant being Plaintiff in the Assise the now Plaintiff being then Tenant had pleaded to the Land put in view in bar and the Plaintiff in the Assise had recovered now in this Action of Trespass the Plantiff in the Assise being Defendant in the Action of Trespass might well plead this Recovery in bar for by his plea in the Assise he hath tyed himself to the view and to the Land put in view but it is not so in the Case at Bar where the Tenant in the Assise pleads nul tort nul disseisin for there he doth not plead expresly to the Land put in view but to the supposal of the Plaintiff sc de libero tenemento in Lee juxta Tunbridge afterwards Wray with the assent of the other Iustices awarded that the Plaintiff should recover his damages See by Wray 44 E 3. 45. in Assise of Tenements in B. the Plaintiff pleads that he himself brought an Assise of the same Tenements and his plaint was of Tenements in E. and the same Tenements put in view and recovered and holden a good Plea because the Tenant hath said that the same Tenements were put in view and that took by Assise upon which the Plaintiff said not put in view and so not comprised XXXI Benicombe and Parkers Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Iury found this special matter that the Grandfather of the Plaintiff was seised and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life
under the Common Seal authorized one A. to enter in the said Waste and in the behalf of the said Mayor and Burgesses to make election of the said moyety Election c. who did so accordingly And upon this matter gives in evidence the parties did demur in Law and the Iury were discharged 12 Co. 86. 87. Dy. 372. b. 281. Noy 29. And it was holden and resolved by the whole Court that the grant to the Mayor c. was utterly void for the incertainty of the thing granted And if a common person do make such a grant it is good enough and there the Grantee may make his choice where c. and by such choice executed the thing shall be reduced into certainty which choice the Grantee cannot have against the Queen which difference was agreed by the whole Court And it was further holden that this grant was not only void against the Queen her self but also against Sir Walter Hungerford her Patentee It was further holden by the Court that if a common person had made such a grant which ought to be reduced to certainty by Election and the Corporation to whom the grant was made ut supra should not make their election by Attorney but after that they were resolved upon the Land they should make a special warrant of Attorney reciting the grant to them in whih part of the said Waste their grant should take effect East West c. or by buttals c. according to which direction the Attorney is to enter c. XXXVII Watts and Jordens Case Trin. 27. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt by Watts against Jorden process continued until the Defendant was Out-lawed and upon the Capias utlagatum he appeared and pleaded to issue which was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given accordingly And now came Jourden and cast in a Writ of Error Error and assigned for Error that he appeared upon the Capias utlagatum and pleaded to issue the Original being determined and not revived by Scire facias upon his Charter of pardon Anderson Iustice was of opinion that it was not Error for the Statute of 18 Eliz. had dispensed with it being after verdict for the words of the Statute are For want of any Writ Original or Iudicial Windham Iustice contrary for the Statute doth not extend but where the Original is imbeselled but in this Case it is not imbeselled but in Law determined and at last the Writ of Error was allowed XXXVIII Trin. 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A. seised of Lands by his Will devised 3 Len 119. that his Excutors should sell his Lands and died the Executors levy a Fine thereof to one F. taking mony for the same of F. If in title made by the Conusee to the Land by the Fine It be a good plea against the Fine to say Quod partes ad finem nihil habuerunt was the question Fines levyed Anderson conceived that it was But by Windham and Periam upon Not-guilty The Conusee might help himself by giving the special matter in evidence in which Case the Conusee shall be adjudged in not by the Fine but by the Devise As by Windham A. deviseth Devise Co. 1 Inst 113. a. that his Executors shall sell a Reversion of certain Lands of which he dieth seised they sell the same without deed and good for the Vendee is in by the Devise and not by the conveyance of the Executors See 19 H. 6. 23. And by Periam the Conusee may help himself by pleading as he who is in by the Feoffment or grant of Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3. XXXIX Albany and the Bishop of St. Asaphs Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ALbany brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of St. Asaph 1 Cro. 119. who justified for Lapse The Plaintiff by Replication said that before the six months expired he presented to the said Bishop one Bagshaw Quare impedit a Master of Arts and Preacher allowed c. The Defendant by way of Rejoynder said that the Church upon the presentment to which the Action is brought is a Church with Cure of Souls and that the Parishioners there are homines Wallici Wallicam loquentes linguam non aliam And that the said Bagshaw could not speak or understand the Welch Language for which cause he refused him and gave notice to the Plaintiff of such refusal and of the cause of it c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. And first it was agreed and resolved by the whole Court that in the computation of the six months in such Cases the Reckoning ought not to be according to the Kalender January February c. but Secundum numerum singulorum dierum Co. 2 Inst 361. Co. 6. 61. b. Yel 100. 2 Cro. 141. Departure allowing eight and twenty days to every month Walmesley Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff and he took exception to the Rejoynder for in that the Defendant had departed from his Bar for in the Bar the Defendant intitles himself to the presentment by reason of Lapse and in the Rejoynder he confesseth the presentment of the Plaintff and pleads his refusal of his Clark and shewes the cause of it sc the want of the Welsh Language which is a Departure And he cited divers Cases to the same purpose 27 H 8. 3. In forfeiture of Marriage the Defendant pleaded the Feoffment of the Ancestor of the Heir to divers persons absque hoc that he died in the homage of the Plaintiff the Plaintiff by Replication said that the said Feoffment was made to the use of the said Ancestor and his Heirs The Defendant by Rejoynder saith that the said Ancestor did declare his Will of the said Lands the same was holden a Departure for he might have pleaded the same in Bar and 21 H. 7. 17 18. 37 H 6. 5. in Trespass the Defendant pleaded that I. S. was seised of the Land where c. being Land devisable and devised the same to him and his Heirs the Plaintiff by Replication said that I. S. at the time of the devise was within age c. The Defendant by Rejoynder said that the custom there is that every one of the age of fifteen years might devise his Lands c. the same was holden a departure But to this Exception the Court took not much regard But as to the matter in Law it was argued by Walmesley that the defect of the Welsh Language assigned by the Defendant in the presence of the Plaintiff is not a sufficient Cause of refusal for notwithstanding that it be convenient that such a Presentee have the knowledge of such Language yet by the Law of the Land ignorance of such Language where the party hath more excellent Languages is not any disability and therefore we see that many Bishops in Wales who have the principal Cure of Souls are English-men and the Welsh
that one Butty was seised of the Land where c. and also of a Messuage with which Messuage the said Land had been usually occupied time out of mind c. and being seised and lying sick commanded a Scridener to be brought to him and the said Scrivener being brought to him he gave him Instructions to make his Will and amongst other things declared unto him that his meaning was that the said Messuage and all his Lands in Westerfield should be sold by his Executors and the Scrivener in making of the Will penned the matter in this manner I will that my house with all the appurtenances shall be sold by my Executors Butty died the Executors sell forty acres of the said Land to the Def. and all this matter was found by special verdict and it was moved by the Plaintiffs Counsel that the sale of this Land by the Executors is not warranted by the Will Another matter was moved scil admitting that the Executors have authority by the Will to sell the Land if the sale of parcel of the Land be good and warrantable As if I make a Charter of Feoffment of ten acres and a Letter of Attorney to make livery of them to the Feoffee if the Attorney makes several liveries of the several acres the same is void But by Cook the Cases are not like for in the Case put he hath a special Commission in which the party to whom and all the other circumstances are set down certainly contrary in the Case at the Bar there the Commission is general c. and peradventure the Executors shall never find a Chapman who will contract with them for the whole More Rep. 222. Co. Inst 113. a. And afterwards upon conference amongst the Iudges Clench Gawdy and Wray it was resolved that by this devise the Lands do pass by the sale of the Executors to the Defendant which sale also by process is warranted by the Will for by Wray these words with all the appurtenances are effectual and emphatical words to enforce the devise and that doth extend to all the Lands especially because it is found that the Testator gave to the Scrivener his Instructions accordingly And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff See 3 Eliz. Plowd 210. Betwixt Sanders and Freeman there the Devise is pleaded in this manner Messuagium cum pertinentiis ad illud spectantibus in perpetuum in villa de Arthingworth XLIII Watkins and Astwicks Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 132. IN an Ejectione firmae it was found by special verdict that one Maynard was seised and made a Feoffment in Fee upon condition of payment of mony on the part of the Feoffor by way of Mortgage at a certain day before which day the said Maynard dyed his Son and Heir being within age Tender to redeem a Mortgage afterwards at the day of payment limited by the Mortgage a stranger at the instance and request of the Mother of the Heir tendred the money to the Mortgagee in the name of the Heir being within age who refused it And it was resolved by the whole Court that the same is not a sufficient tender to redeem the Land according to the Mortgage for it is found by the Iury that the Heir at the time of the tender was within age 2 Len. 213. generally not particularly of six or ten years c. then it might well stand with the verdict that the Heir at such time was of the age of 18 or 19 years at which age he is by the Law out of the Ward of his Mother or any other prochein amy in which Case it is presumed in Law that he hath discretion to govern his own affairs and in this Case the Mother is but a stranger for the Law hath estranged the Mother from the government of the Heir but if the Iury had found that the Heir at the time of the tender was of tender age viz. within the age of fourteen years in which Case by Law he ought to be in Ward in such Case the tender had been good XLIV Leput and Wroths Case Trin. 28. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Replevin by Lepur against Wroth 6 Co. 33. Replevin 3 Len. 132. and declared upon a tortious taking in Burnham in the County of Essex the Case upon the pleading was that Robert Earl of Sussex was seised of the Manor of Burnham in Fee and leased the same to the King for one and twenty years and afterwards the said Earl died by which the said Manor descended to Thomas late Earl of Sussex and he being seised 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary it was Enacted by Parliament That the Lady Frances Wife of the said Earl by virtue of the said Act of Parliament should have hold and enjoy c. during the widowhood of the said Frances for and in consideration of the Ioynture of the said Frances the said Manor Provided always and it is further enacted Construction of Statutes That it should be lawful for the said Earl by his writing indented dimissionem vel dimissiones facere pro termino 21. annorum vel infra de eodem Manerio pro aliquo redditu annuali ita quod super omnes singulos hujusmodi dimissionem dimissiones antiquus redditus consuetus vel eo major amplior reservaretur and that every such demise should be of force and effectual in Law against the said Frances for term of her life if the said term should so long continue And further the said Act gave to the said Frances Distress Avowry Covenant c. against such Lessee and for the said Lessee against the said Dame And afterwards the said Thomas the said former Lease not expired leased the said Manor to Wroth the Defendant for one and twenty years to begin at the Feast of Saint Michael next following and note the Lease was made the third of April before rendring three hundred and forty pounds per annum which was redditus amplior antiquo usuali Popham Attorney general argued that the said Lease did not bind the said Lady Frances and that for two Causes 1. because it is to begin at a day to come 2. because it was made a former Lease being in esse and he argued much upon construction of Statutes to be made not according to the letter but according to the meaning of them And he cited a Case upon the Statute of 2 H 5. 3. by which it is Enacted that in no Action in which the damages do amount to forty marks any person should be admitted to pass in trayl of it who had not Lands or Tenements of the clear yearly value of forty shillings yet the said Statute shall not be by construction extended where in an Action between an English-man and an Alien the Alien prayeth medietatem linguae and yet the Statute is general So in our Case although this private Act doth not seem to provide expresly but for two
things 1. Leases the number of the years 21 non ultra 2. antiquus redditus vel eo amplior yet in reason and good understanding we ought to think that the intent of the Act was that the said Manor should now come to the said Lady Frances surcharged with Leases in Reversion or to begin at a day to come for if by this Act the said Earl might make a Lease to begin three months after by the same reason he might make a Lease to begin twenty years after and also to begin after his death It hath been objected that the Lord Treasurer had a Commission to make Leases of the Queens Lands and that by virtue thereof he made Leases in Reversion I know the contrary to that for every such Lease is allowed by a Bill assigned and not by the ordinary Commission aforesaid the words of our Act are Dimissiones facere pro termino 21. annorum that shall be meant to begin presently As if I lease to you my Lands for one and twenty years it shall be intended to begin presently and he cited the Case betwixt Fox and Collier upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. cencerning Leases made by Bishops That four years of a former Lease being in being the Bishop leased for one and twenty years the same was a good lease notwithstanding the former lease for the lease began presently betwixt the parties And it hath been adjudged that a lease for years by a Bishop to begin at a day to come is utterly void And he cited the Case of the late Marquess of Northampton who by such an Act of Parliament as ours was enabled to make leases of the Lands of his Wife for one and twenty years and of the said Lands an ancient lease was made before the said Act which was in esse and before the expiration thereof he made a lease by virtue of the said Act to commence after the expiration of the former lease and that lease was allowed to be a good lease warranted by the said Statute because that the first lease which was in esse was not made by force of the said Act but if the said former lease had been made by virtue of the said Statute the second lease had been utterly void XLV Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Copy-hold Surrender by Attorney not good A Copy-holder of the Manor of the Earl of Arrundel did surrender his customary Lands to the use of his last Will and thereby devised the Lands to his youngest Son and his Heirs and died the youngest Son being in prison makes a Letter of Attorney to one to be admitted to the Land in the Lords Court in his room and also after admittance to surrender the same to the use of B. and his Heirs to whom he had sold it for the payment of his debts And Wray was of opinion that it was a good surrender by Attorney but Gawdy and Clench contrary 3 Cro. 218. 9 Co. 75. and by Gawdy If he who ought to surrender cannot come in Court to surrender in person the Lord of the Manor may appoint a special Steward to go to the prison and take the surrender c. and by Clench Lessee for years cannot surrender by Attorney but he may make a deed purporting a surrender and a letter of Attorney to another to deliver it XLVI Troublefield and Troublefields Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Dy. 337. b. Co. 1 Inst 15. 2. b. 52. 245. b. 252. 6. Post 51. Entry THe Case was that a Copy-holder did surrender to the use of his Will and thereby devised the Land to his Wife for life the remainder over to his son in tail and died the Wife entred and died a stranger did intrude upon the Lands and thereof made three several Feoffments to three several persons he in the Remainder entred upon one of the said three Feoffees in the name of all the Lands so devised and made a lease of the whole Land And by Clench and Wray it was a good Entry for the whole and by consequence a good lease of the whole Gawdy contrary Note all the Lands were in one County See 16 Eliz. Dyer 337. 9 H. 7. 25. XLVII Parmort and Griffina's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation by Parmort against Griffina a Merchant-stranger the Defendant pleaded Debt that the Obligation was made upon condition for the performance of certain Covenants contained within certain Indentures and shewed what c. and alledged further that in the said Indenture there is a proviso that if aliqua lis vel controversia oriatur imposterum by reason of any clause article or other agreement in the said Indenture contained that then before any sute thereupon attempted the parties shall choose four indifferent persons for the ending thereof which being done the Indenture and Obligation shall be void And in fact saith that Lis controversia upon which the Action is brought groweth upon the said Indenture upon which there was a demurrer in Law. And because the Defendant hath not shewed specially upon what controversie or strife and upon what article certain The Court was clear of opinion that the Bat was not good And also the Court was of opinion Proviso taken strictly that the said Proviso did not extend to subject and submit the breach of every Covenant or Article within the said Indenture to the Arbitrament of the said four persons but only where strife and controversie doth arise upon the construction of any Covenant c. within the said Indenture so as the Defendant ought to have shewed such matter which fell within the Arbitrament by the meaning of the said Indenture and Iudgment was given against the Defendant XLVIII Partridge and Partridges Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower by Partridge against Partridge the Case was Dower that Land was given to the Father for life the reversion to his Son and Heir for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the Father The Father and Son joyn in a Feoffment to the Vncle in Fee scil to the Brother of the Father The Vncle takes a Wife the Father dieth the Son being his Heir in tail the Vncle dieth without issue so as the Land descendeth to the Son as Heir to his Vncle against whom the Wife of the Vncle brought Dower It was moved if the Son being Herein can to his Father and Heir also to his Vncle for the Fee descended be now remitted for then no Dower accrueth to the Wife of the Vncle for the estate of which she demands Dower is gone but if the livery in which the Son joyned with his Father be the livery of the Son Remittâ— the same lies in his way in the impediment and preventing of the Remitter so as during his life he shall be adjudged seised of the Lands in Feesimple by descent from his Vncle Then Dower lyeth for the same
estate is inherited of which the Wife demandeth her Dower And the Court doubted if it were the livery of the Son or not And note that the Feoffment was without deed See Dyer 16 Eliz. 339. XLIX The Queen against the Lord Vaux and others Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer A Bill of Intrusion was brought for the Queen against the Lord Vaux Rich. Vaux Hen. Vaux Intrusion supposing to have intruded into the Rectory Parsonage of Ethelborough in the County of Northampton shewed that in the time of Hen. the fourth the Colledge of Saint Peter of Ethelborough was founded at Westminster in the County of Midd. by the name of Decani capituli and shewed further that the Rectory of Ethelborough was appropriated to the said Colledge and that afterwards by the Statute of 1 E. 6. the said Colledge was dissolved and the said Rectory amongst other possessions of the said Colledge came to the hands of the King and that the Defendants 1. Eliz. intruded into the said Rectory and took one thousand Sheep one thousand Calves and one thousand Loads of Corn bona catalla dictae Dominae Reginae provenientia ex decimis rectoriae praedict apud Westm predict The Defendants pleaded c. That the said Colledge of Ethelborough was founded in Ethelborough Foundation c. per nomen Decani canonicorum fratrum c. who leased the said Rectory so appropriated to one Clark for forty six years in Anno 30 H. 8. who assigned the same to the Defendants by force of which they justified the taking at Ethelborough absque hoc that the said Colledge of Saint Peter in Ethelborough was founded per nomen Decani capituli Ecclesiae Sancti Petri de Ethelborough at Westminster aforesaid absque hoc that they took the said Sheep c. at Westminster c. Vpon which the Queens Attorny did demur in Law. Manwood chief Baron argued that Iudgment ought to be given for the Queen Exception hath been taken to the Information because mention is made in it of a Colledge and it is not shewed what person was the Founder And also an appropriation is alleadged of the Rectory aforesaid to the said Colledge and the Appropriation is not shewed certain who was Patron Ordinary c. as to that he argued that the alledging of the Appropriation and foundation is but matter of surplusage and therefore the insufficiency of alledging the same shall not prejudice the Queen for it had been sufficient to say That the said Colledge of St. Peter was seised of the Rectory aforesaid and then to shew the Statute of Chauntries 1 E. 6. and the same is a good title for the Queen The possession of the Colledge and the Dissolution of it by the Statute For this Bill of intrusion is but in the Nature of a possessory action Colledge in Reputation as an action of Trespass in which case it is sufficient to make title to the possession only without relying upon the right but as to the curious and exact pleading of an appropriation or a foundation it needs not in this case for admit that the Colledge were not well and duly founded yet such pleading is sufficient for a Colledge in Reputation is within the Statute of 1 E. 6. and where the party claims by or under such Foundation there the Foundation ought to be certainly shewed not precisely but conveniently General pleading not as we plead a common Recovery but as we plead the creation of a Bishop scil debito modo praefectus without shewing the particulars of the creation so if an Abbot will plead in discharge of his House of a Corody he ought to shew the Foundation and convenient certainty which see L. 5. E. 4. 118. Robert Milam founded the Abby of Leicester and conveyed the right of Patronage and foundership to the King by Attainder and the same was good pleading without shewing the particulars of the Foundation specially so 3 H. 7. 6. in the Case of the Priory of Norwich the pleading is quod Prioratus de Norwich est de fundatione Episcoporum Norwich for in such case refert quis sit Fundor so the King be not Founder but in our case non refert quis fit Fundor for whosoever be Founder whether the King or a Subject all is one the Statute in both Cases gives the possessions to the King And as to the case of Appropriation the pleading thereof is well if it be conveniently shewed in case where the party who shews it claimes by such Appropriation as 6 H. 7. 14. 11. H. 7. 8. Concurrentibus his quae de jure c. without shewing the particulars of the Appropriation Now in our case the Queen is meerly a stranger to this Appropriation and she doth not claim by it but the possession of the Colledge is the title of the Queen by the Statute of 1. E. 6. and therefore it sufficeth for the Queen to shew that the Colledge was seised c. without making mention of the manner of the Appropriation And as to the traverse of the County he conceived that the County is not traversable in this case for when the Tithes are severed from the nine parts they are presently vested in the party who hath right Traverse and they are things transitory and also the taking of them for the party may take them in any place as well as in his own Parish scil as well at Westminster where the Queen supposeth the taking as at Ethelborough where the Defendant doth justify c. and in such cases the place where is not traversable See â— H. 6. 62 63. by Babbington 35 H. 6. 5. In Trespass of Goods taken in the Parish of Saint Clements in the County of Midd. the Defendant did justify by buying in open Market in the County of Essex there needs no traverse for the Defendant hath made title by an open Market 34 H. 6. 15 16. In Trespass of Battery at D. in the County of Essex the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff made an assault upon him at B. in the County of Kent and the Defendant fled and the Plaintiff pursued him continually unto D. aforesaid at which place the Defendant did defend himself and so the hurt which the Plaintiff had was of his own assault and demanded Iudgment if Action the same is a good Plea without traversing of the County for a Battery may be continued from one County to another And it was observed by Manwood in citing of that case that although prima facie mirum videri potest that a Battery may be continued from Essex into Kent because the River of Thames is betwixt them and yet re intellecta it is plain for one parcel of Land containing thirty Acres of Lands of the Coasts of Essex is within the County of Kent See also 34. H. 6. 5. by Prisot In Trespass of Goods taken at Coventry the Def. doth justify the taking because the Plaintiff gave
the said Goods to the Defendant at London by force of which he took them at London absque hoc that he took them at Coventry and that traverse not holden good for the Defendant by such a gift might justify the taking of the Goods in any place as well as in the place where the gift was made but if in such case the Defendant had pleaded that the Plaintiff delivered the said goods to him at London to deliver them over to A. by force of which he took them at London and delivered them over accordingly in such Cases the Defendant may well traverse the place supposed by the Declaration for by his Plea he hath confessed an immediate delivery of the said goods to him by the Plaintiff and the delivery and the taking all at one time and at one place and it had not been a good plea for the Defendant to say that the Plaintiff delivered to him the said goods at London by force of which he took them at Coventry for the possession is confessed by the first delivery of the goods at London and the supposal of the Plaintiff of a taking in Coventry and the justification of the Defendant of a taking by reason of a delivery at London cannot stand together But if the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff gave to him the goods in London by force of which he took them there there he may take traverse to the place supposed by the Declaration for by the gift it is lawful to the Defendant to take the goods in any place So see 19 H. 6. 35. In false Imprisonment supposed in the County of W. the Defendant doth justify as Sheriff of the County of B. by force of a Writ to him directed to attach the Plaintiff and so he attached him and imprisoned him at C. in the County of B. there the Defendant traversed the County supposed by the Declaration for otherwise he doth not meet with the Plaintiff and the authority of the Defendant doth not extend to the County supposed by the Declaration See also to the same purpose 22 E. 4. 39. by Hussy where the difference is taken when justification is by reason of a Warrant to take goods in any place whatsoever and where in a place certain as to the traverse of the Foundation absque hoc quod praedict Collegium fundatum fuit per nomen Decani Capituli Ecclesiae colleglatae Sancti Petri de Ethelborough apud Westm he hath here traversed that which was not alledged for the placing of the last words of the traverse scil apud Westminst in the end of the traverse seems by common construction to be intended thereby that there is no such Colledge at Westm and not that the Colledge was not founded at Westm for then the traverse should be absque hoc quod collegium praedictum fundatum fuit at Westminster per nomen c. But the most proper traverse that the Defendant could have taken in this case had been absque hoc quod Decanus Capitulum Ecclesiae collegiat de Ethelborough was seised for the Corporation mentioned in the Bill and that which is mentioned in the Bar are not all one but differ in this manner scil in the Bill the Dean and Chapter c. in the Bar the Dean Cannons and Bretheren and perhaps there are two such Corporations and then both cannot be seised and therefore upon the seisin of one of them the traverse shall be taken And afterward Iudgment was given for the Queen L. The Queen against the Bishop of London and Scot. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Quare Impedit 3 Len. 175. THe Queen brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of London and Scot and the Case was that A. seised of an Advowson in gross holden of the Queen in chief aliened the same by Fine without Licence the Church became void the Conusee presented The Queen without office found brought a Quare impedit the question was if the Queen without office found Office trove should present And it was argued by the whole Court that if the Alienation had been by Deed only that there the Queen without office found should not have had the presentment for upon such an Alienation by matter in fact without Licence no Scire facias should issue without office found of the Alienation Scire facias but upon an Alienation without Licence by matter of Record a Scire facias lyeth before office which was granted by the whole Court And in the last case the Queen shall have the mean profits from the time of the Scire facias returned but in the first case from the time of the office found See for that Stamford Prerogative fol. penult 8 E. 4. 4. It was also moved if the Queen intituled to the presentment as above pardoneth to the Conusee all Alienations without Licence and Intrusions if the estate of the Incumbent be thereby confirmed but the Court would not argue that point but it was adjorned until another day LI. Braybrooks Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Pines levyed THe Case of one Braybrook was moved which was Land was given to A. for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to the said Braybrook in Fee B. being in possession levyed a Fine to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. A. dyed if now Braybrook might enter for the forfeiture was the question And it was agreed by the whole Court that by that Fine the Remainder in Fee is not touched or discontinued Co. 1 Inst 251 b. 252. 2 Forfeiture 9 Co. 104. Post 211 212. 1 Cro. 219. 220. but because B. had done as much as in him lay for the disposing of Fee-simple by the Fine and hath taken that upon him the same amounts to a forfeiture And it was also agreed by Anderson and Periam that if Tenant for life in possession leveyeth a Fine c. if the Lessor doth not enter within five years after he shall be bounden Windham contrary for by him it is in the election of the Lessor to re-enter immediatly for the forfeiture or to expect the death of the Lessee LII Willshalge and Davidges Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber WIllshalge brought Error in the Exchequer Chamber Enâ—r upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. Cap. 8. against Davidge upon a Iudgment given in the â—ings Bench Hill. 28. Eliz. and assigned for Error that where Davidge had heretofore brought Debt against the now Plaintiff and declared upon diverse Contracts scil that he had sold to Willshalge such Merchandizes for so many Portugues and such Merchandizes for so many Ducats which in toto amounted to seven hundred pounds Sterling which sum he demanded scil in Sterling many 2 Cro. 88. 3 Cro. 536. Yel 80. 135. 136. and not in Ducats and Portagues according to the Contract And upon the Declaration the said Willshalge had demurred in Law and the Court
upon the Evidence Notwithstanding that the number set down in the plaint be by the plea of the Defendant quodam modo admitted and the lesser number surmised and the contrary not proved shall go in mitigation of the damages and the Iury shall conform their verdict in the right of damages according to the proof of the number notwithstanding that the number set forth in the plaint be not by the Plea denied by the Defendant and so it was put in ure in this Case for the Plaint was of the taking of one thousand Cattle but the proof extended but to eight hundred sixty five Note also in the same Plea it was holden that whereas one Chock was returned upon several Iuries in two several Courts at Westminster and both the Iuries are adjourned to one day now in which of the said two Courts the said Chock was sworn he shall be discharged of his attendance at the other Court the same day LV. Carters Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CArter brought an Action upon the Case against I.S. and declared Assumpsit that A. was possessed of certain Lands for years the Inheritance thereof being in the Wife of the Plaintiff upon which Lease a Rent was reserved The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would procure the said A. to assign the said Lease to the Defendant promised to pay the said Rent to the Plaintiff for all the residue of the Term It was objected that upon this matter the Action doth not lie because that the Plaintiff hath a higher remedy scil an Action of Debt or Distress but the opinion of the whole Court was that the Action did lie for here upon the promise an Action is given to the Husband alone in his own right whereas the Rent is due to the Husband in the right of his Wife in its nature and the Rent is also to be paid for the Land. But upon this Assumpsit it is payable to the person of the Husband And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LVI Kimpton and Bellamyes Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. GEorge Kimpton brought a Replevin against Wood and Bellamy Replevin who make Conusance as Baylies to George Burgain for Damage Feasance The Plaintiff in Bar of the Conusance sheweth That he himself and all those whose estate he hath in one hundred and forty Acres of Land time out of mind c. have had common for all manner of Cattle in six Acres of Lands whereof the place where c. is parcel and so put in his Cattle c. against which the Defendants say that the Plaintiff c. had common in forty Acres of Land whereof the said six Acres are parcel all lying in Communi campo and that the Plaintiff a long time before the taking had purchased two Acres parcel of the said forty Acres c. upon which there was a demurrer in Law It was argued by Serjeant Shuttleworth that the Replication to the Bar to the avowry is not good for in the Bar to the Avowry the Plaintiff hath shewed that he hath common in six Acres and the same shall be intended common in six acres only for common in forty acres cannot be the common in six acres as 35 H. 6. 38. In Debt for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the Plaintiff declared that he leased to the Defendant ten acres of Land rendring the Rent in demand the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff leased to him the said ten acres and also such a Rectory rendring the same Rent the same is no plea without traverse absque hoc that he leased the ten acres only See Dyer 29 H. 8. 32. And the whole Court was clear of opinion that for want of such traverse Traverse the plea is not good for by Periam the Common supposed in the bar to the Conusans out of the six acres cannot be intended the Common supposed in the Replication scil out of the forty acres And by him if in Trespass the Defendant justifie by reason of Common in six acres of Land upon which the parties are at issue and the Defendant in Evidence shews that he hath common in forty acres whereof the said six acres are parcel the same doth not maintain his title but the issue shall be found against him Post 80 81. But by the Lord Anderson because that this Demurrer is general the other party shall not take advantage of that defect of pleading for the want of the Traverse and that by reason of the Statute of 27 Eliz. For Traverse is but matter of form and the want of the same shall not prejudice the other party in point of Iudgment but the Iudges ought to judge upon the substance and not upon the manner and form of the pleading And as to the matter of the Common Extinguishment the Court was clear of opinion that by the purchase of the said two acres the whole Common was gone LVII Knights Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. KNight brought Debt against three Executors and now surmised by his Counsel that one of the Executors is dead pendant the Writ Debt and prayed the opinion of the Court if the Writ should thereby abate or not for by some it is not like where a Writ is brought against two Executors Abatement of Writ for there if any of them dieth pendant the Writ it shall abate for now the plural number is gone for there is but one Executor but in our Case the plural number continues But notwithstanding that the Court was clear of opinion that the Writ should abate Wherefore the Plaintiff seeing the opinion of the Court prayed that upon his surmise aforesaid he might have a new Writ by Iourneys Accounts which was granted to him The Queen and Middletons Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Quare Imped THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against Middleton and counted that W. Lord Say was seised of the Manor of Bedington in the County of Hertford to which Manor the advowson of the Church was appendant ad Ecclesiam praedict praesentavit Coo Clericum suum and afterwards died seised having issue two Daughters Mary married to the Earl of Essex and Ann to the Lord Mountjoy who make partition and the said Manor of Bedington inter alia was allotted to the said Mary for her part and afterwards the said Earl and Mary died having issue Ann who took to Husband the Marquess of Northampton and afterwards 33 H. 8. a Fine was levyed of the said Manor inter c. Querent and the said Marquess and Ann Deforceants by which Fine the said Manor was granted and rendred to the said Marquess for term of his life the remainder to the said Ann his Wife in tail the remainder over to Hen. the eighth in Fee the Marquess is attainted of High Treason by which the King seised and afterwards Ann died without issue after which
Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt KYnter brought debt upon an Obligation the condition was that whereas the Plaintiff had bought of the Defendant a Ship if then the Defendant shall enjoy the said Ship with all the furniture belonging to the same without being disturbed for the said Ship or any furniture appertaining to it that then c. and the Case was that after the sale of the said Ship a stranger sued the Plaintiff for certain monies due for certain Ballast bought by the Defendant for the same Ship and put into the said Ship before the sale of it and in the said suit the Plaintiff obtained a Iudgment and Execution and thereupon the said Ship was seised and all the matter was if Ballast be furniture of a Ship or not And it was moved by Serjeant Gawdy that it was for Ballast is as necessary to a Ship as a Sail but the Court was against him for somtimes a Ship may sail without Ballast for it may be laden with such Merchandizes which are convenient Ballast in themselves as Coals Wheat c. Periam at the first doubted of it and by him if I be bound upon condition ut supra I am bound to deliver the Guns being in it at the time of the sale but yet he conceived that the Plaintiff should be barred because he had not specially shewed that at the time of the sale the Ballast was in the Ship. LX. Pendleton and Gunstons Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. PEndleton informed against Gunston upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. Cap. 5. for that where the said Pendleton had before brought a plaint of Debt against I.S. in the Guild-Hall of Norwich upon which issued out of the said Court an Attachment against the said I.S. by which the Sheriff of Norw being ready by virtue of the said process to attach the said I. S. by his goods there the now Defendant in disturbance of the said process and the execution of it did publish and shew to the Sheriff a conveyance by which he claimed the said goods as conveyed to him by the said I. S c. and averred the fraud c. and it was moved by Serjeant Snagg that the matter of which the Defendant is charged is not within the said Statute because the avowing of the said conveyance doth not go in delay of the execution for no Iudgment is given but only in delay of process but the Court was clear of opinion to the contrary and that by reason of the Statute and the words of it scil delay hinder or defraud Creditors of their just and lawful Actions sutes c. for here is a delay for want of serving the said Attachment the Appearance of I.S. to the sute of the Plaintiff is delayed which mischief is within the remedy of the said Statute And Periam and Rhodes Iustices conceived that such avowing of such conveyance where no sute is depending is within the said Statute which Anderson doubted See the pleading of this Case reported in the second Book of Entries 207 208. 30 Eliz. per quod secta impedita fult c. LXI Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. FEnner Serjeant moved this Case 4 Len. Alien Purchasor An Alien purchaseth Lands in Fee The Queen confirms it to the Alien Office is found if the confirmation shall bind the Queen and it seemed to some that it should for by the Lord Anderson Confirmation when an Alien is enfeoffed he receiveth by the Livery the Fee-simple of which he shall be seised until Office be found and a Praecipe quod reddat lyeth against him And by Fenner an Alien and Denizen Ioynt-tenants are disseised they both shall joyn in Assize vide 11 H. 4. 26. and by him the Kings Nief being an Inheritrix takes a Husband and hath issue Office is found the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesy which see 33 E. 3. Traverse 36. It was argued of the other side that the estate of the Alien is so feeble that a confirmation cannot enure upon it for an Alien cannot take but to the use of the King and cannot be enfeoffed to another use and if he be such use is void for there is not a sufficient seisin in the Alien to carry an use And it hath been adjudged in the Case of one Forcet that where an Alien and the said Forcet were Ioynt-purchasors and the Alien died Forcer had not the whole by the Survivor but that upon an Office found the Queen should have the moyety See Dyer 11 Eliz. 283. LXII Sir Roger Lewknor and Fords Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 17. Co. 5. Rep. 12. b. SIr Roger Lewknor seised of the Manor of Wallingford leased the same to A. for years and died after which it was Enacted by Parliament That the said Manor should from henceforth be deemed and reputed in the Heirs of the body of the said Sir Roger begotten upon Eliz. his Wife the said Sir Roger having three Daughters only without any other issue The Daughters married Husbands and had issue A. assigned his enterest in the said Manor to B. C. and D. and also to one Shelley B.C. and D. assigned their interest to one Sponer one of the Defendants and Shelly assigned his fourth part to Ford another of the Defendants excepting the Woods and Vnderwoods Wast is committed one of the Daughters having issue dieth living her Husband the two surviving Sisters and their Husbands the Term being expired brought a Writ of Wast leaving out the Husband of the third Sister who was Tenant by the Curtesy against Shelley and Sponer who Tenuerunt Shuttleworth Serjeant took Exception to the Writ scil praedictus Rogerus cujus haeredes ipsae funt which shall be intended Heirs general and by the Declaration it appeareth that the Daughters have to them by Act of Parliament an especial inheritance as Heirs in special tail and that by a special conveyance and therefore the Plaintiffs ought to have brought a special Writ according to their Case as where Cestuy que use maketh a lease for years by the Statute of 1 R. 3. and the Lessee committeth Wast now the Feoffees ought to have a special Writ of Wast according to their Case 26 H. 8. 6. but that exception was disallowed and the case cited out of 6 H. 8. is upon another reason for in such case the estate of the Lessee for years is created by the said Statute Another Exception was taken to the Writ for the Writ is tenuerunt which shall be intended prima facie conjunctim tenuerunt and in the Declaration it appeareth that one of the Defendants is assignee of three parts of the Lands demised and the other Defendant of the fourth part and so separatim tenuerunt but that Exception was also disallowed because originally it was one and intirely demised interest and estate and so it remaineth as to the Plaintiffs although it be devised by the Lessee himself
Tanfield contrary I confess that the Father ought to have the marriage of his Son and Heir so long as he is sub potestate patris but here the Father hath committed all his interest power and authority in his Son to the Defendant his Master with whom he hath bound his Son Apprentice for seven years during which term the Father hath not any thing to do with his Son or his Marriage Wray The Action Quare filium haeredem c. is not given to the Father because his marriage belongs to him but because of the Education and such was the opinion of Clench Iustice and the marriage doth not belong properly to the Father For if the Son marrieth himself without the leave of the Father there is not any remedy for the Father And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff LXIV Bullers Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. â—â—â—â—evin EDmund Buller brought a Replevin against two who make Conusans as Baylies to A. for rent arrear reserved upon a lease for life To which the Plaintiff in Bar of the Conusans pleaded that two strangers had right of Entry in the place where 2 Len. 196. c. and that the said two Defendants by their Commandment entred c. and took the Cattle of which the Replevin is brought damage feasant absque hoc that they took them as Baylies to the said A. and upon that Traverse the Defendants did demur in Law. 2 Len. 216. Post 327. Shuttleworth Serjeant the Traverse is not good for by that means the intent of the party shall be put in issue which no Iury can try but only in Case of Recaption See 7 H. 4. 101. by Gascoign If the Bayly upon the distress shews the cause and reason of it he cannot afterwards vary from it but the other party may trice him by Traverse but if he distrain generally without shewing cause then he is at large to shew what cause he will and the other party shall answer to it â— Co. 7â— And it was said by the Court that when a Bayly distreins he ought if he be required to shew the cause of his distress but if he be not required then he is not tied to do it Anderson We were all agreed in the Case betwixt Lowin and Hordin that the Traverse as it is here was well taken The Number Roll of that Case is M. 28 29 Eliz. 2494. LXV Hudson and Leighs Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HUdson recovered against Leigh in an Action of Battery for which a Capias pro fine issued against Leigh and also a Capias ad Satisfaciendum returnable the same Term at one and the same Return Process As to the Capias pro fine the Sheriff returned Cepi and as to the Capias ad Satisfaciendum non est inventus And for this contrariety of the Return the Court was of opinion that the Sheriff should be amerced but it was moved by the Council of the Sheriff Return of the Sheriff that the awarding of the Capias pro fine was meerly void for the Fine is pardoned by the Parliament And it is also Enacted That all process awarded upon such Fines shall be void and then the Capias pro fine being void it matters not how or in what manner it be returned for the Court shall not respect such process nor any return of it and then the Court not having resepect to that Return there is not any contrariety for the Capias ad Satisfaciendum only is returned and not the Capias pro fine And at another day it was moved again the Battery was supposed Junij 1586. and Iudgment given the thirteenth of February the same year upon which issued Capias pro fine Escape 5 Co. â—â— and before the Return thereof the Parliament ended which pardoned such Fines and made all process thereupon void And it was said by the Court that if the Sheriff in such Case takes the party by a Capias pro fine now upon that taking he is in Execution for the party and if the Sheriff let him go at large he shall answer for the escape And in that case the Capias pro fine was well awarded and the Court ought to regard it and the Defendant lawfully taken by virtue of it and also in execution for the party in Iudgment of Law and afterward when the Parliament came and Enacted ut supra although the process be made void thereby the same ought to be meant as to the interest of the King in the Fine and the vexation of the Subject by it but not as to the Execution of the party but the Sheriff shall answer for that Execution And it was also holden by the Court that if the Plaintiff sueth an Elegit then upon the Capias pro fine executed the Defendant shall not be adjudged in Execution for the party for he hath made his Election of another manner of Execution scil of the Land and he shall never resort to an Execution of the body 13 H 7. 12. And as our case is there was an Elegit obtained but it was not on Record nor any Record made of it and therefore the election of the Execution remained to the Plaintiff And as to the point aforesaid that such process shall be void as to the King only not as to the party See now 5 Ja. C. 6. part 79. Sir Edward Phittons Case LXVI Potter and Stedals Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trepass by Samuel Potter against Stedal the Case was Trespass Tenant for life of Land leased parcel thereof to hold at Will and being in possession of the residue levyed a Fine of the whole the Lessor entred into the Land which was let at will in point of forfeiture in the name of the whole it was holden the same is a good entry for the whole Ante 56. But if the Disseisor leaseth for years part of the Land whereof the disseisin was committed Entry 1 Inst 252. and the disseisee afterwards entreth into the Land which continueth in the possession of the Disseisor in the name of the whole the same Entry shall not extend to the Land leased for here the Lessee is in by title but in the other Case not for when Tenant for life leaseth it at will and afterwards levies a Fine the same is a determination of the Will. 16 Eliz. Dyer 377. 1. In the same plea it was holden that if there be lessee for life the remainder for life the remainder in fee Lessee for life in possession levyeth a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to his own use upon that Fine a Fee-simple accrues LXVII Leigh and Hanmers Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt upon a Recognizance THomas Leigh Esquire brought an Action of Debt upon a Recognizance in the nature of a Statute Staple against John Hanmer Esquire before the Mayor and Aldermen
of Lond. in Camera Guild-hall Civitatis prâ—ed and demanded 1500 pounds upon such Recognizance acknowledged 20 November 20 Eliz. and upon default of the said Hanmen Owen 25. according to the custom of London used in course of Attachment attached six hundred pounds in the hands of one W. Bolton of Grays-Inn in part of satisfaction of the said debt of one thousand five hundred pounds and now within the year came the said Hanmer ad disonerandum debitum praedicti had a precept of Scire facias against the said Thomas Leigh and after pleaded and demanded Dyer of the said Recognizance and had it quod ipse restitutionem of the said 600 pounds in manibus dict W. Bolton attachiat habere debet And upon the whole Record the Case was thus Rowland Leigh Esquire being seised of certain Manors and other Lands in the County of Glocest had issue Eliz. his Daughter and Heir inheritable to the said Lands and by Indent dated 20 Maii 19 Eliz. granted Custodiam regulam gubernationem educationem maritagium dict Eliz. to the said Thomas Leigh after which the said Thomas Leigh by Indenture 14 Martii 29 Eliz. granted and assignâ—d the said custody Dyer 190 191. rule government education and marriage and all his interest therein and the said Indenture to Sir John Spencer after which the said Sir John Spencer and Thomas Leigh by their Indenture the 26. of August 20 Eliz. granted and assigned to the said John Hanmer the said custody rule government education and marriage oâ— the said Eliz. and all their interest in the same and all the recited Indenturs by which last recited Indenture 29 August the said John Hanmer covenanted with the said Leigh that Thomas Hanmer Son and Heir apparent of the said John Hanmer maritaret in uxorem duceret dictam Elizabetham ad vel antequam dicta Eliz. dictus Tho. Hanmer perimplerint suas separales aetates 14 annorum si dicta Eliz. ad id condestendere agreare vellet and afterwards before the said Tho. Hanmer and the said Elizabeth suas separales aetates 14 annorum perimplevissent sc 8 die Sept. 20 Eliz. the said Tho. Hanmer took to wife the said Eliz. the said Tho. Hanmer then being aetatis 13 annorum and no more and the said Eliz. then being of the age of nine years and no more and Tho. Hanmer aforesaid over-lived c. And pleaded further that the said Tho. Hanmer after he attained his full age of fourteen years and before any agreement or assent by the said Tho. Hanmer to the marriage aforesaid betwixt the said Tho. Hanmer and the said Eliz. had at or after idem Thomas Hanmer came to his age of fourteen years scil 10 die Sept. Anno 22 Eliz. ad dictum matitagium disagreavit maritagium illud renunciavit and all this matter was pleaded in Bar as performance of the Covenant contained in the Indenture of defeazance made upon the Recognizance whereupon the Action is brought And concluded his plea unde petit judicium si dictus Tho. Leigh actionem suam praedâ—ct c. Et quod ipse idem Johannes Hanmer restitutionem dict 600 li sc ut praefert aâ—achiat habere valeat And all the question here was if this marriage had by this manner and afterwards renounced as is aforesaid be such a marriage as is intended in the Covenant so as the said Covenant be satisfied by it And it was argued before the Mayor Recorder and Aldermen of London in their Guild-Hall by Angier of Grays-Inn on the part of Leigh the Plaintiff and he in his Argument did much rely upon the definition of marriage by Justinian in his Institutions Nuptiae maris faeminae conjunctio individua continens viae societatem and the marriage here in question is not according to the said difinition for the persons parties to this contract are not persons able by Law to make such contract because that non attigerunt annos nubiles Ergo nuptiae esse non possunt but only sponsalia a step unto marriage And there is also rendred one reason of the said definition upon the word individua individuam dico quia non nisi morte aut divortio separandum but the marriage now in question might be dissolved without death or divorce as it is in our case by disagreement And see Jurisprudentiae Romanae Lib. 1. Cap. 33. Societas consortium omni vita inter marem faeminam ad concubitum which is societatis hujus consummatio And as every Act doth consist upon three things 1. Inceptio 2. Progressio 3. Continuatio so is it in the Case of marriage but in this case when Thomas Hanmer took the said Eliz. to Wife that is but an inception but the progression and consummation of it is cut off by the disagreement and he much relyed upon the words of the Covenant sâ— dicta Eliz. ad id condescendere agreare vellet so as there is not any liberty left to the Defendant for the agreement or disagreement of the Son but he ought to agree at the peril of his Father but if Eliz. will not agree then the Defendant is not at any mischief for in such case the Covenant doth not extend to him and also here the Father is bound that his Son a stranger to the Obligation should marry the said Elizabeth which he ought to procure at his peril or otherwise he shall forfeit his Bond. Egerton Solicitor of the Queen argued to the contrary This marriage as much as concerns this Covenant is to be considered according to the reason of the common Law and not according to the rules and grounds of the Canon or Civil Law not as a marriage to right but as a marriage in possession and marriage in possession is sufficient always in personal things and causes especially where the possession of the Wife is in question 2 Roll. 585. but where the possession of the Husband is in question there marriage in right ought to be and where marriage in possession fals in averment there it shall not be tried by the Bishop as in the Case of a marriage of right where never accoupled in loyal matrimony is pleaded but by the Country for in case of Wife in possession never accoupled in matrimony is no Plea Postea 181. 12 Len 170. 171. â—3 Len. 129. but not his Wife which see 12 E. 3. br 481. A. brought an Action of Trespass against B. and C. B. pleaded that C. is Wife of the Plaintiff and demanded Iudgment of the Writ the Plaintiff by Replication said never accoupled in Lawful matrimony but it was not allowed but was driven to say not his Wife for if C. was the Wife of the Plaintiff in possession or by Reputation it is sufficient to abate the Writ see also 49 E. 3. 18. by Belknap the right of the Espousal is always to be tried by the Bishop but the possession of the marriage not as in Assize by A. and
one of them dieth her Heir within age and in Ward to the King The Church voideth and the King is disturbed in his presentment he shall have a Scire facias upon such composition notwithstanding that he be a stranger to it See F.N.B. 34 H. And by all the Iustices if one recover in Debt upon a simple contract and before execution the Plaintiff is out-lawed in an Action personal the King shall sue execution And see 37 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt upon an Obligation it was surmised to the Court that the Plaintiff was out-lawed And the Kings Attorney prayed delivery of the Obligation c. LXXXV Moile and the Earl of Warwicks Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Quare Impedit A Quare Impedit was brought by Walter Moile against Ambrose Earl of Warwick and the Archbishop of Canterbury And now came the Serjeanes of the Queen and shewed an Office to entitle the Queen to have a Writ to the Bishop containing such matter viz. That one Guilford was seised of the Manor of D. to which the Advowson of the Church was appendant and that Manor was holden in chief by Knights service and that Guilford and his Wife levied a Fine thereof to the use of themselves for their lives the remainder over in tail to their eldest Son and that Guilford is dead but who is his next Heir ignorant And it was shewed by the Council of the other side that the truth of the Case was that the said Guilford was seised of the said Manor in the right of his Wife and so levied the Fine in which Case the said coveyance is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. for it was for the advancement of the Husband not of the Wife which Anderson granted Vide Dyer 19 Eliz. 354. Caverlies Case but that is not in the Office And it was moved at the Bar that the Office is imperfect because no Heir is found But Anderson the Office is sufficient for the King to seise although it be insufficient for the Heir c. And it was agreed by the whole Court Office trove that the Court ought not to receive the Office although one would affirm upon oath that it is the very Office but it ought to be brought in under the Great Seal of England and also the Court shall not receive it without a Writ and yet Nelson Prothonotary said that the Statute of Huy and Cry of Winchester was brought into the Court without a Writ under the great Seal A Record not to be brought into Court without a Writ 63. and that was out of the Tower And in that Case also the Iustices held that if a Record be pleaded in the same Court where it abides the other party against whom it is pleaded may plead Nul tiel Record as if the said Record had bin remaining in another Court which all the Prothonotaries denied that always it had been used to the contrary At another day the Case was moved again The Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit counted that Richard Guilford was seised of the said Manor c. in the right of Bennet his Wife and so seised they both levied a Fine thereof to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo who rendred it to the Husband and Wife for their lives the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband and they so being seised the Husband alone levied a Fine to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine the Conusee rendred to the Husband and Wife in tail the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband the Husband died seised the Wife entred and leased the said Manor to the Plaintiff and then the Church did become void And now the Queens Serjeants came and shewed unto the Court an Office which came in by Mittimus In which Writ the perclose is Mandamus vobis quod inspectis c. pro nobis fieri faciatis quod secundum leges consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae faciend Statuetis And the Office did purport that the said Richard was seised of the said Manor and held the same of the Queen as of her Castle of Dover by Knights service in chief and levied the Fine ut supra and that the said Richard died sed quis sit propinquior haeres dict Ric. penitus ignorant and upon that Office prayed a Writ to the Bishop for the Queen And two Exceptions were taken to the Office First because it is not found by the said Office that the said Richard died seised 1 Cro. 895. in which Case it may be for any thing that appeareth in the Office that the said Richard after the said Fine had conveyed his estate in the said Lands unto others or that he was disseised c. See 3 H. 6. 5. If it be not found of what estate the Tenant of the King died seised the Office is insufficient But see there by Martin that such an Office is good enough for the King but not for the Heir to sue his Livery upon it And by Anderson Periam and Rhodes that defect in the Office is supplyed by the Count for there it is expressly alledged that the said Richard died seised Secondly because no Heir is found by the said Office. To which it was said by the Lord Anderson that peradventure at the Common Law the same had been a material Exception But we ought to respect the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. of Wills. And therefore as to the Wife the Queen is entitled to Primer seisin because the conveyance was made for her advancement And by Windham the Queen in this Cale shall not have Primer seisin for by the Statute the Queen shall not have Primer seisin but in such Case where if no conveyance had been made the Queen should have had Primer seisin but in this Case for any thing that appears before us if this conveyance had not been made the Queen should not have had Primer seisin forasmuch as no Heir is found and if he died without Heir there is no Primer seisin because there is not any in rerum natura to sue livery Rhodes Periam and Anderson contrary Admitting that Richard died withou Heir the Queen shall have Primer seisin against the Wife of Richard notwithstanding the escheat Walmesley Serjeant If the Tenant of the King by Knights service in chief dieth seised of other Lands holden of a common person by Knights service without Heirs the King shall not have Primer seisin of such Lands holden of a Subject which Windham granted But by Anderson the Lord is put to sue an Ouster le mayne of the Land holden of him And afterward Exception was taken to the Count because the Plaintiff hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail that is of Bennet the Wife of Richard to whom
hands after the Iudgment and prayed execution thereof upon which the Defendant did demur in Law. Vide 2â— H. 6. 40. 41. In debt against Executors of forty marks the Defendant pleaded that he had fully administred and it was sound that the Defendant at the day of the Writ brought had of the goods of the dead twenty marks and no more and gave damges five marks There the Plaintiff had Iudgment for the twenty marks of the goods of the dead and the five marks of their own goods And as to the other twenty marks that the Plaintiff should be amerced 33 H. 6. 24. Where Executors plead that they have nothing in their hands which is found accordingly Afterwards goods of the Testator came to the hands of the Executors Now the Plaintiff upon a surmise shall have out of the same Record a Scire facias to have execution of the said goods Scire facias to have Execution of Assets come to Executors hands after â—iens enter maynes pleaded But see 4 H. 6. 4. contrary for there it is said that upon the matter the original is determined and so no Record upon which a Scire facias can be grounded And see Fitzh abridging the Case Scire facias 25. by the verdict and the Iudgment the Original is abated Vide 7 E. 4. 9. by Moile according to 33 H. 6. and so 46 E. 3. 9. by Belknap And the Lord Anderson demanded of the Prothonotaries the manner of the entry of the Iudgments given in such Cases who said that their Entry is in this manner i. e. Quod querens recuperet that which is expresly found by the verdict but nothing of the residue for of that no mention is made at all And the Court seemed to be of opinion that where upon nothing remaining in their hands pleaded It is found that some part of the sum in demand is in the hands of the Executors there the Plaintiff upon a surmise of goods come to the hands of the Executors shall have a Scire facias 3 Cro. 272. Hob 199. 1 Cro. 318. 319 592. 8 Co. 134. contrary where upon such issue it is found fully for the Defendants that they have nothing in their hands LXXXVIII Fordleys Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Tender pleaded 9 Co. 79. Dy. 25. a. 1 Inst 207. Post 69. 70. a. FOrdley brought debt upon an Obligation the Condition was that if the Defendant viz. the Obligor deliver unto the Plaintiff the Obligee at a such a day and place twenty pounds or ten Kine at the then choice of the Obligee c. that then c. The Court was clear of opinion that the Defendant in pleading the performance thereof ought to tender to the Plaintiff as well the twenty pounds as the ten Kine and for default thereof Iudgment was given against the Defendant See the Number Roll T. 29 Eliz. 1. part 324. vide 14 E. 4 4. b. LXXXIX Barker and Pigots Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco EDward Barker brought Debt against Rich. Pigot Executor of the Will of E. Executrix of the Will of R. The Defendant pleaded that he had fully administred the goods of his Testator E. upon which they were at issue Debt which was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that here is not any issue joyned which answers to the Action for the Action is brought against the Defendant in the quality of the Executor of an Executor and the verdict extends to the Defendant but is Executor of the said E. for it is found by it that the Defendant hath fully administred the goods of his Testatrix without any enquiry of the Administration of the goods of the first Testator R. in which capacity the Defendant is charged So as here the Writ charges the Defendant in the quality of an Executor of an Executor and in respect of the first Testator and the issue and verdict doth concern the last Testator Execution must follow the nature of the Action And the whole Court was clear of opinion that although that now after verdict Fee-tail be saved and no Iudgment shall be given upon it yet here the Court shall give Iudgment as upon a Nihil dicit in which case the Execution of the Iudgment shall not fall upon the goods of the last Testator according to the verdict but shall follow the nature of the Action which was brought against the Defendant as Executor of an Executor XC Thacker and Elmers Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco THacker recovered in an Assize of Novel disseisin against Elmer certain Lands in Hackney and had execution Re-disseisin and the Judgment in it 1 Cro. 323. Elmer entred upon Thacker and ousted him and Redisseised him Thacker re-entred and afterwards brought a Redisseisin And it was moved whether Thacker against his Entry might have a Redisseisin And the opinion of the whole Court was that he might well maintain the Writ for he is not thereby to recover any Land but the Defendant of that Redisseisin being convicted shall be fined and imprisoned and render double damages Vide Book of Entries 502. the Iudgment in a Redisseisin is Quod recuperet seisinam suam of the Land. XCI Blaunchflower and Fryes Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco BLaunchflower brought debt upon a Bond against Elinor Frye as Executrix of one Andrew Frye her late Husband who pleaded Debt that this Writ was brought 9 July 27 Eliz. whereof she had notice the first of October after within which time one Lawrence had brought an Original Writ against the said Elinor as Administratrix of the said Andrew And after the bringing of the Writ the Bishop of Bath and Wels committed Administration of the goods of the said Andrew to the said Elinor which Elinor confessed the Action upon which Iudgment was given for the said Lawrence beyond which she had not goods upon which the now Plaintiff did demur in Law. And by Anderson the Recovery pleaded in bar shall not bind the Plaintiff because it appeareth unpon the plea of the Defendant that the Administration was committed after the Writ purchased which matter if the Defendant had pleaded Administration granted pendant the Writ Lawrence could not have had Iudgment to recover As where there are three Executors and debt is brought against two of them if they do not plead that matter in abatment of the Writ but plead c. or confess the Action so that the Plaintiff hath Iudgment to Recover that Recovery shall not bind a stranger who hath cause of Action against them but that he may well falsify it and yet it was said that in such Case the Defendant by the obtaining of the Letters of Administration had made the Writ good against her vid. 13 H. 4. Fitz. Executors 118. Administration committed before the Writ purchased shall abate the Writ brought against the Defendant as Executor but such Administration obtained
the Obligation which was made for the further assurance of the duty And here the Defendant ought to have pleaded the tender and see 14. E. 4. 4. A. is bound unto B. that where he hath granted to the said B. a Rent-charge out of such Land now if the said B. shall enjoy the said Rent according to the form and effect of the said Grant that then c. there he needs not to plead any tender for the Rent is not payable in other manner than it was before contrary if the Condition had been for the payment of the Annuity And of that opinion was the whole Court that he ought to have pleaded a tender Another matter of the Award was that the said Audar should yield up surrender relinquish to the Plaintiff all such Houses and Tenements which he had in his possession by reason of the custody of the said Plaintiff As to that the Defendant pleaded that he had yielded up c. All such Houses c. generally without shewing which in certain And for that cause the Court was clear of opinion that the Plea was not good which see 9 E. 4. 16. If I be bounden upon condition to enfeoff the Obligee of all Lands Tenements which were to I.S. in pleading the performance of that Condition I ought to shew what Lands and Tenements in certain for they pass out of me by the Feoffment See also 12 H. 8. 7. 13 H. 8. Non damnificatus generally where no Plea. 19. Another point of the Award was That the said Audar should acquit and discharge and save harmless the Plaintiff of such an Obligation to which the Defendant pleaded that Querens non fuit damnificatus and that Plea was holden insufficient for he ought to have shewed how he had discharged him and it is not sufficient to answer only to the damnification as if I be bounden to convey unto you the Manor of B. in pleading the performance of the condition it is not sufficient to shew that I have conveyed the said Manor but to shew by what manner of conveyance viz. by Fine or Feoffment c. 22 E. 4. 43. If the condition be to discharge the Plaintiff c. then the manner of the discharge ought to be shewed but if it be to save harmless only then non damnificatus generally is good enough 40 E. 3. 20. 38 H. 6. 39. The condition of an Obligation was that the Obligor should keep without damage the Obligee of such a sum of mony against B. to whom he was bounden for the payment of it and the said Obligor pleaded that at such a day c. the said B. at his request delivered the Obligation to the Plaintiff in liew of an acquittance without that that the Plaintiff was damnified by the said Obligation before the delivery of it and it was holden by the Court that if the Defendant had pleaded that he had kept the Plaintiff without damage and had not shewed how that the Plea had not been good See 22 E. 4. 40. The Lord Lisles Case And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XCVI Heydons Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. RAlph Heydon pretending title to certain Land entred into it and made a Lease of it to try the title Vpon which his Lessee brought an Ejectione firmae in which the parties were at Issue And now at the day of the Enquest the Iurors were called and but five of them appeared whereupon the Defendant came and shewed to the Court that the said Heydon by his Friends and Servants had laboured the Iury not to appear and that for the further vexation of the Defendant who had four Verdicts in affirmance of his title that the said Heydon to procure the Iury not to appear had surmised to them that he and the Defendant were in course of an agreement whereas in truth no such communication of agreement had any time passed betwixt them And all this was openly deposed in Court as well upon the oath of the Defendant himself as upon the oath of one of the Iurors upon which the Court awarded an Attachment against the said Heydon to answer the contempt And also granted to the Defendant that he might sue a Decem tales with proviso for his own expedition XCVII Smith and Kirfoots Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Debt upon Arbitrament SMith brought Debt upon an Arbitrament against Kirfoot and declared that the Defendant and he imposuerunt se in arbitrium ordinationem judicium Johannis Popham ar arbitratoris indifferenter electi de jure titulo inturesse in quibusdam Messuagijs c. Who taking upon him the burthen of the Arbitration ordinavit that the said Defendant should pay unto the Plaintiff ten pounds in plenam satisfactionem c. and thereupon he brought his Action It was moved by Walmesley Serjeant that the Declaration is not sufficient for it appeareth that the Arbitrament set forth in the Declaration is utterly void because whereas ten pounds is awarded to the Plaintiff nothing is awarded to the Defendant and so the Award unequal and so void But the Court was clear of opinion that notwithstanding that such an Arbitrament be void in Law yet it may be for any thing that appeareth that the award is good enough 1 Cro. 904. â— Cro. 354. 355. For the Plaintiff is not to shew in his Declaration all the Award but such part only of it which doth entitle him to the thing c. and if the Defendant will impeach the Award for any thing that is to come in on his part vide ac Book of Entries 152. 123. vide For the Arbitrament 39 H. 6. 12. by Moile 7 H. 6. 41. XCVIII Arundel against Morris Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco RIchard Arundel sued an Audita Querela against Morris and it was comprehended in the Writ That Morris had recovered against him a certain Debt and that he was taken by a Capias ad satisfaciendum Audita Querela at the suit of the said Morris by Hickford Sheriff of the County of Gloucester who let him go at large c. And they were at issue upon the voluntary escape it was found for the Plaintiff It was objected in arrest of Iudgment that the Writ of Audita Querela is not good for the words are that the Plaintiff captus fuit virtute brevis nostri judicialis whereas this word judicialis is not in the Register but only brevis nostri de capiendo But by the whole Court the Writ is good for the word judicialis is but a word of surplusage and shall not make void the Writ And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XCIX Brook against King. Mich. 29 30. Eliz. IN Debt upon an Obligation by Brook against King the Defendant pleaded that the Bond was endorced with such condition viz. Debt That it the said Defendant King shall procure one I.S. to make reasonable recompence to the
Plaintiff for certain Beasts which he wrongfully took from the Plaintiff that then c. And he said in facto That the said I. S. had stolen the said Beasts from the Plaintiff Condition against Law. and thereof he was endicted c. and so the condition being against the Law the Obligation was void upon which the Plaintiff did demurr in Law. And it was argued by the whole Court That where the condition of an Obligation shall be said against the Law and therefore the Obligation void the same ought to be intended where the condition is expresly against the Law in express words and in terminis terminantibus Post 103. and not for matter out of the condition as it is in this case And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff C. Hawks against Mollineux Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Replevin by Hawks against Mollineux who avowed for Damage-fesant The Plaintiff in Bar of the Avowry pleaded that Sir Gervase Paston Knight was seised of a Messuage and twenty Acres of Land And that always those whose estate Repleviâ— Yelv. 185. Prescription c. have used to have Common in the place where c. for all their Cattel commonable in this manner viz. If the said Land be sowed by assent of the Commoner then no Common until the Corn be mowed and when the Corn is mowed then Common until the Land shall be sowed again by assent of the Commoners And this Prescription was found by Verdict and exception was taken to this prescription because against common right so as a man cannot sow his Land without the leave of another But the exception was disallowed by the Court for the prescription was holden to be good by the whole Court for by the Law of the Land the Owner of the Land cannot plow the Land where another hath Common but here is a benefit to each party as well for the Owner of the Land against the Commoner as for the Commoner against the Tenant of the Land for each of them hath a qualified Interest in the Land. CI. Baldwin and Cocks Case Intr. Pasch 29 Eliz. Rot. 1410. In Communi Banco Replevin Owen 52. Post 225. 1 Inst 225. 2. BAldwin was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Cocks and upon the pleading the Case appeared to be this That Sir Richard Wayneman was seised of the place where c. and leased the same to one Truepeny and one Eliz. Reade for term of 21 years if the said Truepeny and Eliz. or any child or children betwixt them begotten should live so long Eliz. within the term died without issue If now the term for 21 years be determined was the Question And the Lord Anderson conceived that the estate for years is not determined by the death of Elizabeth And it was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant that upon the matter the term is determined And he put the Case of the Lord Bray 3 Eliz. Dyer 190. Where the Lord Bray sold unto four great Lords the marriage of his Son and Heir to the intent to be married at the appointment and nomination of the said Lords the Lord Bray died one of the said Lords before any marriage 5 Co. 9 1 Brown. 31. 46 47. 80. 101. 2 Br. 83. 148. or appointment or nomination died the Son is married by the appointment c. of the surviving Lords That marriage is not within the intent of the Covenant and adjudged that upon that marrriage no use shall accrue And also he cited this Case adjudged in the Kings Bench. The administration is committed to one durante minore aetaâ—e of two Infants one of them becomes of full age the power of the Administration is determined which Walmesley Serjeant granted for it is but an authority but here in the Case at Bar is a matter of interest And by Anderson all the construction of this lease and grant rests upon this point if this word Or either shall be taken as disjunctive as it is in its nature or as a conjunctive and if it be taken as a disjunctive if it make the whole sentence in the disjunctive as if the limitation had been if the Husband or Wife or any Child c. And Fenner put this Case out of 17 E. 3. as he cited it Land is given to I. S. in Fee so long as A. B. hath issue of his body A. B. dieth without issue his Wife priviment enâ—â—ent Now the estate is determined and upon birth of the issue after shall not revive which Rhodes and Anderson denied for in many Cases the Law shall respect the existency of the child in the mothers belly And see 7 Eliz. Plow 289. where a Copulative shall be taken in the disjunctive as a covenant with B. to make a lease for years of such Lands to the said B. and his Assigns Exposition of words in deeds 244. Post 251. 1 Roll. 444. the same shall be construed or his Assigns And it was clearly agreed by the other parties that if the words had been If Truepeny Elizabeth or any child or children c. so long c. upon the death of any of them the interest is determined And by Rhodes Periam and Windham in the principal Case the lease shall endure as long as any of the persons named in the Proviso shall live and so seemed to be the meaning of the parties And Anderson haesitavit in the words of the limitation i. the Habendum to the said Truepeny and Eliz. for 21 years a festo Sancti Johannis Baptist post terminum annorum the expiration of a former term if the said Truepeny and Elizabeth or any child c. And he conceived that the limitation did go to the commencement of the lease only and not to the expiration or determination as if the lease should not begin if they all were not alive at the commencement of the lease And all the other Iustices were clear of the contrary opinion for by them this limitation shall go and shall be referred to the determination of the Lease and not to the commencement of it Anderson If any cause should be for which the lease should endure untill the years be encurred notwithstanding the death of the Husband or Wife it was because the lease was intended a common advancement to both for it should be in vain to name the Wife in the lease if the lease should cease by the death of the Husband And afterwards after many arguments on both sides it was adjudged that by the death of Elizabeth the lease was not determined for the disjunctive before Child makes all the limitation in the disjunctive CII Zouch and Bamfields Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco THe Case between the Lord Zouch and Bamfield was now argued by the Iustices And Rhodes the puisne Iustice argued 1 And. 165. 3 Co. 88. that the Lord Zouch the Demandant should be barred Four Exceptions have been taken to the bar First because it is not shewed in
the bar that the moyety of those sixty messuages c. of which he pleads the Fine was parcel of the Manor at the time of the Fine levyed for the pleading is that the Grandfather of the Demandant was seised of the said Manor unde medietas praedictorum 60. messuagiorum c. a tempore cujus contrar memoria c. was parcel and so seised de manerio praedict unde c. Finis se levavit and he conceived that the pleading notwithstanding that was good enough for he hath said as much in effect contrar cujus memoria hominum non existit in the present tense which amounts to this that men cannot remember c. but that this moyety was parcel of the said Manor As 10 H. 7 12. In an Assise of Common the Plaintiff makes his title that he was seised of a Messuage and Carve of Land in D. to which the said Common is appendant and that he and all his Ancestors and all those whose estate he hath c. have used to have Common c. Exception was taken to the title because the Plaintiff doth not shew in his title that he is seised of a Messuage c. for if he hath aliened the Messuage the Common passeth so if he be disseised c. but the Exception was not allowed for it appeareth upon the words of the title that the Plaintiff is seised i. all those whose estate he hath in the present tense which words do shew and declare possession and seisin in the Plaintiff the time of the plea pleaded so in this case the substance of the words in which the defect is assigned is ut supra That men cannot remember but that this moyety was parcel of the Manor and then the words after unde c. reddidit Manerium praedict unde c. shall have the same construction as before Periam conceived that the Bar is nought for the cause aforesaid for it is not so pleaded that we can adjudge upon it that the said moyety was parcel of the Manor at the time of the Fine levyed and then the Fine cannot extend unto it And the reason alledged by my brother Rhodes shall not help that matter for the said words cannot be construed otherwise but that no man can remember but the said moyety was parcel but not that it is parcel or at the time of the Fine levyed was parcel Vide 32 H. 6. 24. In Trespass the Defendant pleaded That A. was seised of the Manor of D. whereof the place c. is parcel he ought to say expresly that the place where was parcel of the Manor at the time of the trespass supposed Windham conceived that the plea was good and that it appeareth well upon this plea that the said moyety was parcel of the said Manor at the time of the Fine levyed for he pleads that the Grandfather of the Demandant was seised of the Manor of N. Unde medietas praedictorum c. a tempore cujus contrar memoria hominum non existit sic scisitus existens Finis se levavit sic scisitus i. e. seised of the Manor in such sort as the Manor is set forth before and that is good pleading especially by way of bar which if it be good to a common intent is well enough and the word unde c. so often repeated after shall be idle and to no purpose if the Law shall not give such a construction Anderson to the same purpose And he much relyed upon the reason of Windham and so seised Another Exception was taken to the Bar Averrment because in pleading of the Fine it is not averred that the Conusor at the time of the Fine levyed was of full age out of prison c. And as to that Rhodes took the difference between the pleading upon the Statute of 1 H. 3. where these disabilities are within the purview of the said Statute and upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. where in the body of the Statute no mention is made of them but afterwards in an especial Exception by it self and he cited the opinion of the Iustices especially of the Lord Dyer in the Case reported by Plowd 5 Eliz. 365. betwixt Stowel and the Lord Zouch Periam to the same intent and upon the same reason and further he said that although the Statute of 32 H. 8. contains in its purview the same disabilities Yet this Fine is pleaded upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. and therefore the pleading of the same shall not be directed nor waged by the Statute of 32 H. 8. which doth not alter the pleading of a Fine which was before nor the reason of it for it is not properly a Statute nor do Fines receive any strength or virtue by it but is but a construction of the said former Statute And he put the Case betwixt Hide and Umpton where Umpton mean betwixt the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. Declared his Will of all his Lands which devise if it be good for two parts of the Land devised it was doubted or that the devise should be void for the whole afterwards came the Stat. of 34 H. 8. and cleared the doubt for to that intent it was made and in the said Statute there is a Proviso that the said Statute shall not extend to the Will or the Devise of Tho. Umpton or shall be prejudicial or hurtful to any person or persons for any Lands c. contained or specified in the said Will or Devise but that the said Will and Devise shall stand remain and be in the same case in force and effect in the Law as the same was before the making of this Act. Now notwithstanding that Proviso the Will of Umpton was holden good but for two parts for so the Statute of 34. H. 8. construed the Statute of 32 H. 8. So in our Case the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Fines construes the Statute of 4 H. 7. to extend to Fines levyed by Tenant in tail therefore the estate tail shall be adjudged in Law to be bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. and not by 32 H. 8. which is rather a Iudgment upon the said Statute of 4 H. 7. than any new Statute Windham to the same intent and he relyed upon the reason aforesaid And further said if one will plead a Lease made by Tenant in tail upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. he need not to aver the full age of the Lessor and yet that quality of full age is within the purview of the said Statute First all Leases to be made c. by any person being of full age c. and so is the common use of pleadings And of the same opinion was the Lord Anderson for the said Exception for the reasons and upon the difference aforesaid Another Exception was taken to the Bar because it is not alledged that the said Fine was engrossed in the same Term in which it was levyed And as to that it was holden by Rhodes that
Ancestor of the Demandant was pleaded in Bar by the name of W the Demandant in avoidance of it would have said that the name of his Father was R. to have avoided the Fine but to that he was not received And 3 E. 3. 32. scil Averment 42. In a Formedon the Tenant pleaded Ne dona pas The Demandant by Replication said That a Fine was levied of the same Lands between the Father of the Demandant and one T. by which Fine the Father of the Demandant did acknowledge to T. the Lands come ceo c. and the said T. gave by the said Fine to the Father of the Demandant the Land in tail Where it is said by Stone that since the gift is proved by as high a Record a man shall not aver against such matter in avoidance of the said Fine c. and yet the party against whom it was was a stranger to the Fine And see 38 E. 3. 7. The Lord shall not be received against a Fine levied by his Tenant to aver the dying seised of his Tenant in his Homage And as to the Issue in tail he conceived that the Averment doth not lie for him for the Issue in tail is as much privy as the Heir of a Tenant in Fee-simple And see 33 E. 3. scil Estoppel 280. In a Formedon the Tenant voucheth the Demandant Counter-pleaded that the Vouchee nor any of his Ancestors had any thing in the Land in demand after the seisin c. to which the Tenant said that to that the Demandant should not be received for the Father of the Demandant after the gift levied a Fine to the Ancestor of the Vouchee of the said Land in demand sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and the same was holden a good bar to the Counter-plea And it was said by the Iustices That although the Statute of West 2. of Donis conditionalibus doth not avoid the Fine as to the fore-closing of the Issue in tail of his Formedon yet it remaineth in force as to the restraining of the heir in tail to aver a thing against the Fine as well as against the heir in Fee-simple and in all Cases where he against whom a Fine is pleaded claims by him who levieth the Fine he shall not have the same Averment but where he claims by a stranger to the Fine there he shall have it well enough see 33 H. 6. 18. If my Father Tenant in tail or in Fee grant the Land by Fine and afterwards I make Title to the same Land by the same Ancestor and the Fine is pleaded against me I shall not be received to say that those who were parties to the Fine had not any thing at the time of the Fine levied but such a one an estranger whose estate c. but it is a good Plea for me to say that after the Fine such a one was seised in Fee and did enfeoff me vid. 22 E 3. 17. before 33 E. 3. Estoppel 280. And Dyer 16 Eliz. 334. The Father is Tenant for life the Remainder in Fee to his Son and Heir levieth a Fine to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. with warranty and takes back an estate by the same Fine in that case it was holden that the heir should not be received to aver continuance of the possession and seisin either ante finem tempore finis or post finem in the Tenant for life for it is a Feoffment upon Record and makes a discontinuance of the Remainder and Reversion The only Book in our Law to maintain the Averment is 12 E. 4. 15. by Brian who although he was a reverend Iudge in his time yet he erred in this that if Tenant in tail be disseised and levieth a Fine unto a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. that the Issue in tail may well say that partes ad finem nihil habuerunt but Coke and Lit. were clear of a contrary opinion and see in the same year fol. 12 by Fairfax and Littleton that if Tenant in tail where the Remainder is over to a stranger levieth a Fine sur conusans dodroit come ceo c. he in the Remainder may aver continuance of seisin against that Fine for he is not party nor heir to the party c. And the Stat. of 4 H. 7. goes strongly to extort such Averment out of the mouth of the Issue in tail for the words concerning the same point are saving to every person or persons not party nor privy to the said Fine their exception to avoid the said Fine by that that those which were parties to the said Fine nor any of them had ought in the Land at the time of the said Fine levied And it is clear that the Issue in tail is privy to his Ancestor whose heir to the tail he is which see agreed 19 H. 8. 6. 7. And he vouched the Case of one Stamford late adjudged Land was given to the eldest Son in tail the Remainder to the Father in tail the eldest Son levied a Fine sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and died without Issue in the life of his Father and afterwards the Father died the second Son shall inherit but if the eldest Son had survived the Father and afterwards died without Issue the second Son should have been barred Periam to the same intent It should be very dangerous to the Inheritances of the Subjects to admit of such Averments and by such means Fines which should be of great force and effect should be much weakned and he put many Cases to the same purpose as were put before by Rhodes Iustice and he shewed how that Fines and the power of them were much weakned by the Statute of non-claim whereof followed as the preface of the Statute of 4 H. 7. observeth the Vniversal trouble of the Kings Subjects and therefore by the said Statute of 4 H. 7. Fines for the good and safety of the Subjects were restored to their former Grandure and authority which should be construed by us who are Iudges strongly and liberally for the quiet and establishment of present possessions and for the barring and extinguishing of former rights and so did the Iudges our Predecessors which see in the Argument of the said Case between Stowel and the Lord Zouch So see such liberal construction 19 Eliz. Dyer 351. Where if Land be given to Husband and Wife in special tail and the Husband alone levieth a Fine and dieth having Issue the Issue is barred And it hath lately been adjudged by the advice of all the Iudges of England upon the Statute of 1 Ma. viz. All Fines levied whereupon Proclamations shall not be dayly made by reason of Adjournment of any Term shall be of as good force and strength to all intents and purposes as if such Term had been holden and kept from the beginning to the end thereof and not adjourned and the Proclamations shall be made in the following
because without summons but where summons issueth and the same is entred upon the Roll there may the vouchee at the Return appear in person or by Attorny at his Election And that was the clear opinion of all the Iustices and also of the Prothonotaries CV Keys and Steds Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Formedon by Keys against Sted the Case was the Sted and his Wife were Tenants for life Formodon 2 Len. 9. the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee and the Writ of Formedon brought against Sted only who made default after default whereupon came his Wife and prayed to be received to defend her right which was denied her by the Court for this Recovery doth not bind her and it is to no purpose for her to defend her right in that Action which cannot here be impearched Whereupon he in the Remainder came and prayed to be received and the Court at first doubted of the Receit forasmuch as if the Demandant shall have Iudgment to recover he in the Remainder might falsify the Recovery because his estate upon which he prayeth to be received doth not depend upon the estate impleaded scil a sole estate whereas his Remainder doth depend upon a joynt estate in the Husband and Wife Falsifier of Recovery not named in the Writ But at the last notwithstanding the said Exception the Receit was granted See 40 E. 3. 12. CVI. Liveseys Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Writ of Right IN a Writ of Right against Thomas Livesey of the Mannor of D. de duabus partibus Custodiae Forrestae de C. the Tenant did demand the view and he had it and return was made and now the Writ of Habere facias visum was viewed by the Court and it was Visum Manerii duarum partium Custodiae c. And it was holden by the Court not to be a sufficient view for the Forrest it self ought to be put in view scil the whole Forrest View and not duae partes tantum as where a Rent or Common is demanded the Land out of which the Rent or Common is going ought to be put in view and there a Writ of Habere facias visum de novo issued forth CVII Germys Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco GErmy brought Debt upon a Bond against A. as Executor Debt 2 Len. 119. and the Case was That the Testator of A. by his Will did appoint certain Lands and named which should be sold by his Executors and the moneys thereof arising distributed amongst his Daughters when they have accomplished their ages of one and twenty years the Lands are sold if the moneys thereof being in the hands of the Executors until the full age of the Daughters shall be assets to pay the debts of the Testator And by the clear opinion of the whole Court Assets Post 224. the same shall not be assets for that this money is limited to a special use CVIII Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Action of Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant saith that the Plaintiff shall not be answered for he is out-lawed and shewed the Outlawry in certain by the name of I. S. of D. in the County of c. The Plaintiff shewed that at the time of the sute begun against I.S. upon whom the Out-lawry was pronounced the said I.S. now Plaintiff was dwelling at S. absque hoc that he was dwelling at D. Vide 21 H. 7. 13. And it was holden a good Replication to avoid the Out-lawry without a Writ of Error by Anderson 10 E. 4. 12. For if he were not dwelling at D. then he cannot be intended the same person See 39 H. 6. 1. CIX Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IT was agreed by the whole Court and affirmed by the Prothonotaries That if in Account the Defendant be adjudged to account and be taken by a Capias ad computandum and set to mainprize pendent the Account before the Auditors and doth not keep his day before them that now a Capias ad computandum de novo shall issue forth against him CX Glosse and Haymans Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. JOan Glosse brought an Action of Trespass vi armis Trespass vi armis against a Servant for carrying away his Masters goods Owen 52. Morâ— 248. against John Hayman who pleaded the general Issue and the Iury found this special matter That the Plaintiff was a Grocer in Ipswich and there held a Shop of Grocery quod illa reposuit fiduciam in the Defendant to sell the Grocery Wares of the Plaintiff in the said Shop And further found that the said Defendant being in the said Shop in form aforesaid cepit asportavit the said Wares and did convert them c. It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this Action vi armis upon this matter doth not lie but rather an Action upon the Case But the Court was clear of opinion that the Action doth well lie for when the Defendant was in the Shop aforesaid the Goods and Wares did remain in the custody and possession of the Plaintiff her self And the Defendant hath not any Interest possession or other thing in them and therefore if he entermeddle with them in any other manner than by uttering of them by sale according to the authority to him committed he is a Trespassor for he hath not any authority to carry the Wares out of the Shop not sold but all his authority is within the Shop And Rodes put the Case of Littleton 25. If I deliver my Sheep to another to manure his Land or my Oxen to plow his Land and afterwards he kills them I shall have an Action of Trespass against him And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXI Martin and Stedds Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. RIchard Martin Alderman of London brought an Action upon the Case against Stedd and declared That whereas the Queen by her Letters Patents dated the 27. of August anno 24. of her Reign had granted to the Plaintiff the Office of Master of the Mint through all England to exercise the said Office secundum formam quarundam Indent betwixt the said Queen and the said Plaintiff conficiendam and that in January following the said Indenture was made by which it was agreed betwixt the said Queen and the Plaintiff that the money in posterum should be made in such manner c. according to the true Standard and declared that he had duly and lawfully made all the money according to the said Standard Yet the Defendant machinans c. had slanderously spoken and given out speeches in these words Mr. Martin hath not made the money as good and fine as the Standard by an half penny in the ounce and so he hath saved four thousand pounds It was objected against this Declaration by Walmesley Serjeant that here the Plantiff hath declared upon
petit quod inquiratur per patriam praedict Brett similiter It was moved that the parties should replead for this matter upon which they are at Issue scil the appearance is not triable by Iury but by the Record And the Court was clear of opinion that the parties should replead for the cause aforesaid And it was moved by the Lord Anderson that if A. be bound to appear in the Kings Bench at such a day and A. at the said days goe to the Court but there no process is returned then the party may go to one of the chief Clerks of the Court and pray him to take a Note of his appearance And by Nelson we have an acient form of entry of such Appearance in such Cases Ad hunc diem venit I. S. propter indemnitatem suam Manucaptorum suorum petit quod comparentia sua in Curia hic recordetur And see for the same 38 H. 6. 17. And afterwards the Lord Anderson inspecto Rotulo ex assensu sociorum awarded a Repleader And so by Nelson it hath been done oftentimes here before and put in ure The same Law is where at the day of appearance no Court is holden or the Iustices do not come c. he who was bound to appear ought to have an Appearance recorded in such manner as it may be and if the other party pleadeth Nul tiel Record it behoveth that the Defendant have the Record ready at his peril for this Court cannot write to the Iustices of the Kings Bench for to certifie a Record hither CXV Baxter and Bales Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt not extinct by administration BAxter brought Debt upon a Bond as Executor of I. against Bale who pleaded that the Plaintiff after the death of the Testator was cited to appear before the Ordinary or his Commissary to prove the Will of the said I. and at the day of his appearance he made default upon which the Ordinary committed Letters of Administration to the Defendant by force of which he did administer so the debt is extinct c. but the whole Court was clear of opinion that the debt was not extinct for now by the probate of the Will the administration is defeated and although the Executor made default at the day which he had by the Citation before the Ordinary yet thereby he is not absolutely debarred but that he may resort to the proving of the Will whensoever he pleaseth But if he had appeared and renounced the Executorship it had been otherwise and the debt is not extinct by the Administration in the mean time CXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Franchise the parties are at Issue upon a matter triable out of the Franchise And it was moved if now the Record should be sent into the Common Pleas and there tryed and after trial sent back into the Franchise Which Periam and Anderson utterly denied and by Periam there is no reason that we should be their Ministers to try Issues joyned before them And it is not like 2 Len. 37. where in a Liberty or Franchise a Forrein Voucher is to warrant Lands in such cases we shall determine the Warranty but that is by a special Statute of Glocester cap. 12. And Nelson Prothonotary said that such an Issue was tryed here of late Quod nota CXVII The Earl of Arundel and the Lord Dacres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. At Serjeants Inne PHilip Earl of Arundel and the Lord William Howard his Brother marryed the Daughters and Co-heirs of the late Lord Dacres And now came Francis Lord Dacres as heir male of the said Family and claimed the Inheritance c. And after long sute betwixt both parties they submitted themselves to the award of Gilbert Lord Talbot and of Arthur Lord Grey of Wilton and Windham and Periam Iustices And before them at Serjeants Inne the matter was well debated by the Council learned on both sides and as unto Greistock Lands parcel of the Lands in question the Case was That Tenant in tail makes a Feoffment in fee unto the use of himself for his life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son with divers Remainders over with a Proviso that if any of the Entailees do any act to interrupt the course of any entail limited by the said Conveyance that then the use limited to such person should cease and go to him who is next inheritable And afterwards Tenant in tail dieth his eldest Son to whom the use in tail was first limited entreth and doth an Act against the said Proviso and yet held himself in and made Leases the Lessees enter the Lessor dieth seised his Heir being within age and in ward to the Queen It was holden by Shutleworth Serjeant Yelverton Godfrey Owen and Coke who were of Council with the Heirs general of the Lord Dacres that here is a Remitter for by this Act against the Proviso the use Remitter and so the possession doth accrue to the enfant Son of him to whom the use in tail was limited by the Tenant in tail Then when the Tenant in tail after his said Feoffment holds himself in this is a disseissin for a Tenancy by sufferance cannot be after the cesser of an estate of Inheritance But admit that he be but a Tenant at sufferance Hâ—b 255. Dy. 54. yet when he makes Leases for years the same is clearly a disseisin and then upon the whole matter a Remitter and although the Enfant taketh by the Statute yet the right of the tail descending to him afterwards by the death of his Father doth remit him as if Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son inheritable to the first intail notwithstanding that the eldest Son takes his Remainder by the Statute and so be in â—â— force thereof yet when by the death of his Father the right of the Entail descends to him he is remitted CXVIII Butler and Ayres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower BUtler and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Thomas Ayre Son and Heir of Bartholmew Ayre first Husband of the said Margaret Wife of the Plaintiff and demanded Dower of Lands in A. and B the Tenant pleaded never seised que Dower and the Iury found that the said Bartholmew was seised during the Coverture de omnibus tenementis infra script preterquam the Tenements in sic ut dicta Margareta dotari potuit Exception was taken to this Verdict because that this preterquam c. doth confound the Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the preterquam is idle and surplusage for it is of another thing than that which is in demand and the seisin of the first Husband of Lands in A. and B. is confessed and the preterquam works nothing Another matter was objected because here the Iury have assessed damages
and damages and in an Action upon the Case brought upon that promise the Plaintiff was barred for here is not any consideration for they bailed the Servant of their own head without the request of the Master and the matter which is alledgged for consideration is executed before the Assumpsit and the promise was not before the enlargment and the said bailment was not at the instance Claytons Rep. 45. 1 Cro. 756. or request of the Master And the Case of one Hudson was cited adjudged in the Kings Bench The Defendant in consideration that he was Administrator and natural Son of the Intestate and that the goods of his Father have come to his hands promiseth to pay the debt to the Plaintiff And in an Action upon the Case upon that promise the Defendant pleaded he made no such promise and it was found that no goods came to the hands of the Defendant And it was holden that the consideration that he was Administrator and Son to the Testator was not of any force to maintain the Action and afterwards in the principal Case the Iudgment was affirmed And it was moved by Coke that Iudgment should not be given against the Executor of his own goods if he had not goods of the Testator for the charge doth not extend beyond the consideration i. e. That the goods of the Testator came to the hands of the Defendant But Wray Iustice was of opinion that Iudgment shall be of his proper goods as in Case of confession Kemp Secondary if the Action be brought upon Assumpsit of the Testator Iudgment shall be of the goods of the Testator but of the promise of the Executor of his own goods but the Original Iudgment which is now affirmed was general CXXII Savel and Woods Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 71. 3 Len. 203. 265. Post 128. THe Case was That a Parson did Libel in the spiritual Court against a Parishoner for Tythes of such Lands within his Parish the Defendant came into the Kings Bench and surmised and that he and all those whose estate he hath in the Lands out of which the Tythes are demanded have used to pay every year five shillings to the Parish Clark of the same Parish for all the Tythes out of the same place And it was argued by Coke that that could not be for a Parish Clark is not a person corporate nor hath succession But if he had prescribed that they had used to pay it to the Parish Clark to the use of the Parson it had been good Also he ought to shew that the Parson ought of right to find the Parish Clark c. And he cited the Case of Bushie the Parson of Pancras who libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tithes The Defendant to have a prohibition did prescribe that he and all those c. had time out of mind c. used to pay to the Vicar c. and at last a Consultation was awarded because it was triable in the Ecclesiastical Court for both parties as well Vicar as Parson are spiritual persons and the modus decimandi is not in question but cui solvend And at another day it was agreed by the Iustices that of common right the Parson is not tied to find the Parish Clark for then he should be said the Parsons Clark and not the Parish Clark But if the Parson be tied to find such a Clark Challenge and such a sum hath been used to be paid to the Parish Clark in discharge of the Person the same had been a good prescription and so by way of composition and by Clench Tythes are to be paid to spiritual Persons but a Parish-Clark is a Lay-person And afterwards the Court granted a Consultation CXXIII Higham and Reynolds Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant 1 Maii 28 Eliz. cut down six posts of the house of the Plaintiff at D. The Defendant doth justifie because that the Free-hold of the house 10 Aprilis 27 Eliz. was to I. S. and that he by his commandment the same day and year did the Trespass c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law because the Defendant did not traverse without that that he was guilty before or after And the opinion of Wray was that the traverse taken was well enough because the Free-hold shall be intended to continue c. Vide 7. H. 7. 3. But all the other three Iustices were of a contrary opinion to Wray But they all agreed that where the Defendant doth justifie by reason of his Free-hold at the day supposed in the Declaration there the traverse before is good enough And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Defendant CXXIV Knight and Footmans Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass by Knight against Footman the Case upon the pleading was that one Margaret had issue two Sons Richard and Thomas Surrender of Copy-hold Land. and surrendred to the use of Richard for life and afterwards to the use of Thomas in Fee they both Thomas being within age surrender to the use of one Robert â—ap John in Fee who is admitted Richard dieth Co 1 Inst 248. Thomas dieth having issue A. who is also admitted and enters into the Land and if his entry be lawful or that he be put to his plaint in the nature of a Dum fuit infra aetatem was the Question And Wray was clear of opinion that it was And if a man seised of Copy-hold Land in the right of his Wife or Tenant in tail of a Copy-hold doth surrender to the use of another in Fee the same doth not make any discontinuance but that the issue in tail and the Wife may respectively enter 1 Cro. 372. 380. 391. 483. 717. More 596. and so was it holden in the Serjeants Case when Audley who afterwards was made Chancellor of England was made Serjeant and afterwards it was adjudged that the entry of the Enfant was lawful CXXV Sir Wollaston Dixies Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information was in the Exchequer against Sir Wollaston Dixie upon the Statute of Vsury upon not guilty pleaded Information upon the Statute of 13. Eliz of Usury The Informeâ— gave in evidence an usurious Contract upon a bargain of Wares The opinion of the Court was that the Information being exhibited for the loan of money that the Evidence was not pursuing nor leading to the Issue And yet the Iury against the opinion of the Court upon that evidence found the Defendant guilty And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Evidence did not maintain the Information nor prove the Issue ex parte Querentis and it was said there are three things within the Statute i. three words i. bargain loan and cheivizance and these three are several things and therefore if the Information be conceived upon loan and the Informer giveth in Evidence a corrupt
bargain for cloth as it is in this Case the same doth not maintain the Information So if the Information be granted upon usurious contract by way of mortgage and giveth in Evidence an usurious loan ut supra But if the Information had been conceived generally upon an usurious agreement and giveth in Evidence a loan the same is good enough for every loan is an agreement Manwood There cannot be any loan without bargain nor any forbearing without bargain for he contracts or bargains to do it viz. to lend or forbear Bargain of forbearing is where the first day of payment is not kept and the parties have agreed for a further day for payment c. And it appeareth in this Case that it was a bargain to forbear a sum of mony which should have been paid before And the Information here is upon a bargain by way of loan where was a bargain for forbearing Fuller this word Bargain in the Statute cannot be intended a bargain for wares or such things and so distinct from the other two things c. If in Information upon loan an usurious contract had been given in Evidence that would not maintain the Information And it was moved in this Case if the time of the loan or forbearance of the money shall be accounted according to eight twenty days to every month or by the months in the Kalender viz. January February c. And it seemed to some according to the days as in case of the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusants and others conceived contrary in both Cases And Fuller said That in the Case of policy of Assurance made to warrant a Ship one was bound to warrant a Ship for twelve months the truth was she did not perish within the time of the twelve months being accounted according to eight and twenty days but being accounted by the Kalender as January Feb. c. it perished c. and it was said and holden that he had not forfeited his Bond. Gent Baron If I lend one a hundred pounds without any contract for Interest and afterwards at the end of year he gives me twenty pounds for the loan thereof the same is within the Statute for my acceptance makes the offence without any bargain or contract And by Clarke Baron the place where the Defendant accepted excessive Interest ought to be shewed in the Information but not the place where the contract for the loan or forbearance was made for the same is not needful See the Case betwixt Stradling and Morgan Plowd 200. for the setting down of the place in the Declaration where the Extortion was committed The Information here is by way of corrupt bargain and loan The Defendant took at Dertford such a sum where the taking is layed apud Dertford but no place of the corrupt bargain or of the loan And by Gent. If I lend to Beesie for a year and afterwards he takes further forbearance of another year beyond the rate the same is within the Statute but in all Cases the place where the corrupt bargain was made ought to be certainly alledged Manwood Baron the Information is not good for the incertainty of the place where the corrupt bargain was made and although there are many Presidents on the Informes part it is not to purpose for they were admitted without exception and then they passed sub silentio and so of no force There are three things or rather degrees of offences within the Statute In usury within the Statute there ought to be corrupt loan cheivisance or shift 1. corruption 2. he ought to take more than eight pound for one hundred pounds 3. it ought to be for lending or forbearing There was a Case in this Court in the time of this Queen that the Defendant had taken more than ten pounds in the hundred pounds but in the Information no corruption in the bargain was alledged and therefore Iudgment was given against the Informer But in the Case at Bar corruption is set forth in facto and therefore as to that the Information is good enough As unto the forbearing giving of days of payment the same is alledged in the Information but not according to the Statute for the Statute is in the disjunctive but the Information is in the copulative here in our Case the issue is Not guilty under which general issue all the points of the Statute are included and ought to be tried as unto the corruption the same is not sufficiently laid for no place is assigned where the corrupt bargain was made ergo no visne for it to be tried ergo no trial can be ergo no issue for it ergo this point of the Statute doth not come in issue nor can it be tried upon the general issue Not guilty Also he held that all the Offence ought to be within the year for if one make a corrupt bargain for this year and ten years after he takes excessive usury the same is not within the Statute to inform upon it And in truth there is no such offence without corrupt bargain so as he conceived that the word Lending is a strange word but where the Statute is forbearing or giving day of payment in the Information it is giving and forbearing in the copulative that is good enough for the one word enforceth the other and is not double Also the Information hath not shewed whose money it is and therefore it is not good And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Informer and a Writ of Error thereupon brought in the Erchequer Chamber And it was argued by Popham Attorney General that Iudgment ought to have been given for the Queen and the Informer for the shewing of the place where the corrupt bargain was made needs not to be alledged in the Information for the offence punishable by the Statute is the receipt of excessive usury and not the contract And it was the Case of one Bird 20 Eliz. where the Plaintiff shewed the place of the Receipt and not of the contract and yet had Iudgment for the Queen without any exception to it before Iudgment or Error after for the contract is but inducement to the receipt and it shall be tried where the taking was therefore it is not necessary to shew the place of the bargain And it was adjorned CXXVI Saliard and Everats Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer THomas Saliard and Hen. Everat being Recusants convicted Recusants Owen Rep. 37. and not having paid twenty pounds for every month a Commission issued forth to enquire of their Goods and Lands in the County of Suffolk to levy thereon the Debt and penalty due to the Queen And now the Commission being returned the parties appeared and by their Council shewed that some of their Lands returned in the Commission are Copy-hold and prayed as to those Manus Dominae Reginae amoveantur and that upon the Statute of 29 Eliz. cap 5. concerning Recusants viz. that upon default of payment of penalties c.
which process issued out of the Exchequer to take and seize all the goods and two parts as well of all the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases and Farms of such Offender as of all other the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments liable to such seisure or to the penalties aforesaid by the true meaning of this Act leaving the third part c. And Popham Attorney General moved If a Recusant hath more than a third part of his Lands in Copy-hold land if this Copy-hold as to the surplusage shall be liable to the penalty Manwood chief Baron conceived that the Copy-hold is liable in this Case by the Statute although not directly by express words yet within the intent of it and that by reason of these words all other the lands c. liable to such seisure c. Walmes Serjeant Copy-hold is not liable to a Statute Merchant or Staple also if the Queen hath the Copy-hold how shall the Lord have the services which the Queen cannot do Also a Copy-hold is not an Hereditament within this Statute which extends only to Hereditaments at the common Law and not by custom Also in Acts of Parliaments which are enacted for forfeiture of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments by those words they shall not forfeit Copy-holds Clark Baron this Statute was made to restrain Recusants from taking the benefit of their Livings and Copy-holds are their Livings as well as Free-holds and by this Statute the Queen shall not have every estate in the Copy-hold Land but only the taking of the profits but the scope of the Statute was to impair the Livings of Recusants and that by driving of them for want of maintenance to repair to the Church Walmesley If the Statute had given to the Queen to seise two parts of their livings then the Statute had extended to Copy-holds Manwood when a Statute is made to transfer an estate by name of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments the Copy-hold is not within such Statute but if the Lords Signiory his Customs and Services are not to be impeached or taken away by such Statute then it is otherwise for such Statute doth not make another Tenant to the Lord And by him Copy-holder shall pay Subsidies and he shall be assessed according to the value of his Copy-hold as well as of his Freehold and in this Case the Queen is to have the profits of the Lands only but no estate At another day the case was argued for the Recusants by Snag Serjeant and he said that these words Lands Tenements and Hereditaments are to be construed which are such at the Common Law not by Custom If I give to one all my Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in D. my Copy-holds do not pass and Statutes which are made to take away Possessions and Hereditaments out of persons ought to be strictly taken and not by Equity The Statute of 13 Eliz. of Bankrupts enacts that the Commissioners may sell the Lands and Tenements of the Bankrupts if the Statute had not made a further provision the Commissioners could not sell Copy-hold Lands but there are express words in the Statute for that purpose i.e. as well copy as fee Also the Staute of 13 Eliz. cap. 4. of Auditors and Receivers of the Queen doth not extend to Copy-holds And it should be a great prejudice to the Lords of such Copy-holds that the Queen should have the Land. Popham the intention of the Law somtimes causes a liberal construction of a Statute in the letter of it What Statutes extend to Copy-holds somtimes a strict and precise exposition and here it appeareth that the intention of the Statute was that the Queen should have all the goods of the offender and two parts of the Lands c. Leases and Farms and the Recusant but the third part of all his Lands only And therefore the Recusant is not to have any other thing but only that which is allotted to him by the Statute and that is the third part which is all the maintenance which the Law allows him and then if Copy-holds be not within this Statute a Recusant who hath great possessions in Copy-holds and hath no Free-hold should be dispunishable and hath his full maintenance against the meaning of the Statute And he said that many things are within the meaning of a Statute â—y 5. 6. Co. 3. Inst 109 Yel 60. 12 Co. 12. which are not within the words as Bonds Obligations and Specialties made to Recusants shall pass to the Queen by this Statute by force of the word goods according to the meaning of the Statute and all personal things are within the Statute c. profits of the Lands Advowsons and the like and the very scope of the Statute was to take away from Recusants all personal things whatsoever and two parts of real things as Leases Farms Lands Tenements c. with the intent that with the superfluity of their goods and possessions she should not maintain Iesuits and Seminary Priests people more dangerous than the Recusants And by him Lands in ancient demesne are liable to the penalties by the Statute although not by express words So if a Recusant hath Lands extended by him upon a Statute acknowledged unto him that Interest is not properly a Lease or Farm yet it is Land within this Statute liable c. And if I be Tenant by Elegit or Statute c. of Lands in D. not having other Lands in the said Town and I grant all my Lands in D. my Interest ut supra shall pass contrary If I have other Lands there And I grant that if I have Copy-hold Lands in D. and none other and I grant all my Lands in D. Copy-hold Land shall not pass by such assurance because that Copy-hold cannot pass but by surrender If I put out a Copy-holder out of his Lands the same is a Disseisin to the Lord of whom the Copy-hold is holden And if I levy a Fine of such Lands and five years pass not only the Lord is bounden as to his Free-hold and Inheritance but also the Copy-holder for his possession for the intent of the Statute of 4 H. 7. was to take away controversies litibus finem imponere 5 Co. 124. and contention may be as well for Copy-hold as for Land at the common Law. One hath a Lease for years to begin at a day to come he who hath the Free-hold thereof is disseised the Disseisor levieth a Fine five years pass he who hath the Free-hold is bound by it but not he who hath the Interest for years in futuro as it hath been lately adjudged But he said That if that point were to be handled again the Law would be taken to the contrary but it is clear that a Lease in possession shall be bound by such Fine And as unto any prejudice to the Lord it is clear that notwithstanding that the Queen hath the Copy-hold Land yet the Lord shall have the Rent during the possession of the Queen which is the
most valuable part of the services of the Copy-holder The Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chantries doth extend to Copy-hold by the general words Lands Tenements and Hereditaments for otherwise the Proviso which excepts Copy-holds were not necessary And in our Statute the words are Lands Tenements and Hereditaments which are forceable words which proves that our exposition to extend it to Copy-holds is proper and agreeable to the Statute and this in the first branch of it for Copy-hold is some Land Tenement or Hereditament the clause in this branch of the Statute is and also all other the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments liable to such seisure c. the same is to be meant of such Lands which are bound with clause of revocation of which is spoken in the former part of this Statute He who departs out of the Realm against the Statute of 5 R. 2. shall forfeit his goods and thereby his debts also The King grants omnia bona catalla felonum Debts of Felons shall pass Ergo Copy-holds also 2 Lâ—n 56. Post 201. 202. by the name of Lands Tenements c. as well as debts by the name of goods In our Case the meaning of the Statute was that the Queen should have two parts of the whole estate of the Recusant be it Copy-hold Ancient demesne c. If upon the Statute of Bankrupts a Copy-hold estate be sold to the King the King shall pay the Rent but shall not do any of the services and in so much the Lord shall be prejudiced patiatur etiam hic rather than Recusants should not be punished and it is not a strange thing in Law that the Lord of a Copy-holder should be prejudiced for the offence of his Tenant as where a Copy-holder is outlawed the King shall have the profits of his Copy-hold Lands and the Lord hath not any remedy for his Rent CXXVII Stebbs and Goodlacks Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BEtwixt Stebbs Goodlack the Case was the Parson of Letcome in the County of Berks libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tithes Fraud shall not avoid payment of Tithes the Defendant shewed that the custome of the Town of Letcome is that the Parson shall have for his Tithes the tenth Land sowed with any manner of corn and he shall begin his reckoning always at the first Land which is next to the Church c. The Parson shewed that the Defendant by fraud and covin sowed every tenth Land which belonged to the Parson ut supra very ill and with small quantity of corn and did not dunge or manure it as he did the other nine parts by means whereof whereas the other nine every of them yielded eight Cocks the tenth yeilded but three Cocks and for this matter the Parson libelled in the Spiritual Court and confessed the custome but for abusing of the custom prayed to have his Tythes in kind the Defendant prayed a prohibition and the Parson afterwards a consultation And the opinion of Wray Iustice was that the custom was against common reason and so void but if it be a good custom then the Parson shall have the Action upon the case CXXVIII Rumney and Eves Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Copy-holder IN Ejectione firmae by Jane Rumney against Lucie Eve it was holden that if customary Land do descend to the younger Son by custom and he enters and leaseth it to another who takes the profits and after is ejected Poph. 39. 4 Co. 22. That he shall have an Ejectione firmae without any admittance of his lessor or presentment that he is heir For which the Defendant shewed that there were thirty years incurred betwixt the death of the Father and the making of the Lease so that here is supina negligentia which shall disable his person to make any demise quod fuit concessum In answer of which it was said that the Lessor at the time of the death of his Ancestor was but of the age of two years and that after his full age no Court had been holden for a long time and that at the first Court that was holden which was of late he prayed to be admitted but the Steward refused to admit him and the same was holden a good excuse of his negligence And it was holden that the Plaintiff ought not to shew that the Lease is warranted by the custom 1 Cro. 469. 483. 717. 728. Ante 16. but that shall come of the other side and so it had been lately adjudged which Wray granted And by him if a Copy-holder surrender in extremis to the use of himself for life c. If he shall be well again the surrender shall stand 4 Len. 30. 31. 8 Co. 100. for he hath reserved an estate to himself It was further holden in this Case that if a Copy-holder dieth his Heir within age he is not bound to come at any Court during his non-age to pray admittance or to tender his Fine Also if the death of the Ancestor be not presented nor proclamations made he is not at any mischeif although he be of full age CXXIX Saint-John and Petits Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IT was covenanted betwixt Saint-John and Petit that Saint-John should present Petit to the Church of A. and that afterwards Petit should lease the Parsonage to Saint-John or to any other person named by him and that the said Petit should not be absent by eighty days and that he should not resign and Petit was bound to perform these Covenants Petit is presented to the Benefice Saint-John brought an Action upon the Obligation pretending that he could not enjoy his lease by reason of the absence of the said Parson c. And the Lease was made to the Curate at the nomination of Soint-John The Parson said that the Obligation is void by the Statute of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. See the Statute All Leases c. made by any Curate shall be of no better force than if it had been made by the beneficed Parson himself Tanfeild by 13 Eliz. 20. When a Parson leaseth to his Curate who leaseth over The Statute doth not make the Lease void by any absence of the Parson but of the Curate by forty days Quaere For that it seemeth that by the Statute of 14 Eliz. the Curate cannot lease c. CXXX Gates and Halliwels Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BEtwixt Gates and Halliwel the Case was one having two Sons 3 Len. 55. devised that his eldest Son with his Executors should take the profits of his Lands until his youngest Son should come to the age of two and twenty years and that then the said youngest Son should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body It was holden clearly by the whole Court that the eldest Son should have Fee in the interim until the youngest Son came to the said age CXXXI Prowse and Carys Case Pasc 30 Eliz. In the
Kings Bench. PRowse brought an Action upon the Case against Cary for words That the Plaintiff did subborn procure and bring in false Witnesses in such a Court at Westminster c. The Defendant pladed Not guilty And it was found that he did procure and brought in false Witnesses but was acquitted of the suborning It was objected 1 Cr. 296. 554. 607. That the Action doth not lie for it may be that the Defendant did not know that he would depose falsly Thou art a forger of false Writings are not actionable and so it was adjudged for it may be understood of Letters of small importance but that Exception was not allowed for it shall be taken in malam partem and cannot be spoken of any honest man. CXXXII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. Was bounden in an Obligation to B. upon condition that if A deliver to B. twenty Quarters of Corn the nine and twentieth of February next following datum presentium that then c. and the next February had but eight and twenty days And it was holden that A. is not bounden to deliver the Corn until such a year as is Leap-year for then February hath nine and twenty days and at such nine and twentieth day he is to deliver the Corn and the Obligation was holden good CXXXII Allen and Palmers Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was a Copy-holder did surrender his Lands to the use of a stranger for life Copy-holder surrenders where his heir shall be in by purchase 2 Roll. 416. Co. 1 Inst 226. and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Copy-holder who afterwards surrendred his Reversion to the use of a stranger in Fee died and the Tenant for life died and the right Heir of Palmer the Copy-holder entred And by Cook nothing remained in the Copy-holder upon the said surrender but the Fee is reserved to his right Heirs for if he had not made any such second surrender his Heir should be in not by descent but by purchase And the common difference is where a surrender is to the use of himself for life and afterwards to another in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of him who surrendreth there his Heirs shall have it by descent contrary where the surrender hath not an estate for life or in tail limited to him for there his Heir shall enter as a purchasor as if such use had been limitted to the right Heirs of a stranger And by him if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of his right Heirs the Land shall remain in the Lord until the death of the Copy-holder for then his Heir is known c. See Dyer 99. The Husband made a Feoffment to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Husband and Wife begotten they have issue the Wife dieth the issue cannot enter in the life of his Father for then he is not his Heir See Dyer 7 Eliz. 237. The Husband is sole seised in Fee and levieth a Fine of the Land to the use of himself and his Wife and the Heirs of the Husband and they render the Land to the Conusor for the life of the Husband the remainder to B. for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband dieth B. dieth Now the Wife shall have the Land for the life of the Wife for she shall not lose her estate by that render and this remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband is void and the Land and estate in it is in him as a Reversion and not as a Remainder And a man cannot tail a Remainder to his right Heirs whilest he is living unless it begin first in himself See Br. 32 H. 8. Gard. 93. CXXXIV Pearle and Edwards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was that the Defendant had leased Lands to the Plaintiff rendring Rent for certain years Assumpsit Consideration 1 Cro. 94. and after some years of the Term expired the Lessor in consideration that the Lessee had occupied the Land and had paid his Rent promised the Plaintiff to save him harmless against all persons for the occupation of the Land past and also to come And afterwards H. distrained the Cattle of the Plaintiff being upon the Lands upon which he brought his Action Golding Here is not a sufficient consideration for the payment of the Rent is not any consideration for the Lessee hath the ocupation of the Land for it and hath the profits thereof and also the consideration is past Cook The occupation which is the consideration continues therefore it is a good Assumpsit as 4 E. 3. A Gift in Frank-marriage after the espousals and yet the marriage is past but the blood continues so here and here the payment of the Rent is executory every year and if the Lessee be saved for his occupation he will pay his Rent the better Godfrey If a man marrieth my Daughter against my will and afterwards in consideration of that marriage I promise him one hundred pounds the same is no good consideration 2 Len. 111. which Clench Iustice denied And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his damages CXXXV Wakefords Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Extinguishment of Copy-hold by Release THe Earl of Bedford Lord of the Manor of B. sold the Free-hold Interest of a Copy-holder of Inheritance unto another so as it is now no part but divided from the Manor and afterwards the Copy-holder doth release to the purchasor It was holden by the Court that by this Release the Copy-hold Interest is extinguished and utterly gone but if was holden that if a Copy-holder be ousted so as the Lord of the Manor is disseised and the Copy-holder releaseth to the Disseisor nihil operatur CXXXVI Docton and Priests Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close 1 Cro. 95. it was found by special verdict that two were Tenants in common of a house and of a close â—djoyning to the house and they being in the house make partition without deed of the house and the close see 3 E. 4. 9. 10. Partition without deed upon the Land is good enough Vide 3 H. 4. 1. And it seems by 3 E 4. Partition made upon the Land amounts to a Livery Vide 2 Eliz. Dyer 179. Partition by word out the County void 19 H. 6. 25. Betwixt Tenants in common not good without deed 2 Roll. 255. 47 E. 3. 22. being upon the Land it is good without deed Two Ioynt-tenants make partition by word make partition in another County the same is no partition for as to that matter the common Law is not altered by the Statute but as to compel such persons to make partition Wray Iustice conceived that the partition here being without deed was not good although made upon the Lands Vide 18 Eliz. Dyer 35.
the custom might be known Also it appeareth here upon the Declaration that Trespass vi armis should lye and be brought for the Declaration is that the Defendant did break and pull down the Herdels which cannot be without express force as 42 E. 3. 24. Trespass upon the case against a Miller and declared that the Plaintiff used to grind at the said Mill without Toll and that he sent his corn to the said Mill to be ground and there the Defendant came and took two Bushels of his said corn And the Writ was upon the prescription to grind sine multura and that the Defendant praedict querent sine multura molire impedivit and by Award of the Court the Plaintiff took nothing by his Writ for he hath declared that the Defendant hath taken Toll and therefore he ought to have a general Writ of Trespass Beaumont to the contrary A Market is as well for the common Wealth as a Fishing Also he is at the costs for providing of Herdels and the erecting of them so as he hath declared he hath taken divers sums of mony for it and as to any sum not certain it is well enough for peradventure sometimes he hath taken a penny sometimes two pence as the parties could agree And as to the exception of vi armis the same is not material for the Plaintiff doth not rely upon the pulling down of the Herdels only but upon the loss of the mony also which he should have had if the Defendant had not broken his Herdels And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXLVIII Beverly and Bawdes Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BEverly brought a Writ of Error to reverse an Out-lawry pronounced against him at the suit of one Bawdes and shewed Error that he was outlawed by the name John Beverly of Humby in the County of Lincoln Gent. And that within the said County there are two Humbyes scil Magna Humby Parva Humby and none without addition To which it was said of the other side that the truth is that there are two such Towns and that Humby Magna is known as well by the name of Humby only as taken for the name of Humby Magna And upon that they are at Issue And it was moved Tryal by Inquest of what County or place if the Inquest to try this Issue shall come de corpore comitatus or from Humby Magna And by Cooke it shall be tryed by an Inquest of Humby Magna and he confessed that if the Issue had been No such Town then the Inquest ought to be of the body of the County but here is another Issue to be tryed 22 E. 4. 4. In Trespass done in Fulborn and Hinton in the County of C. The Defendant said that there is no such Town nor Hamlet of Hinton within the same County Iudgment of the Writ See there by Briggs the tryal shall be de corpore comitatus See 14 H. 6. 8. Over-dale and Nether-dale and none without addition and so at Issue tryed by them of the body of the County 35 H. 6. 12. And by him wheresoever an Issue may be tryed by an Inquest out of a special Visne there it shall never be tryed by the body of the County As the case before 22 E. 4. Trespass in two Towns A. and B. The Def. as to A. pleads there was no such Town and as to B. pleaded another plea. Now the whole Inquest shall come out of B. for the Inquest in one Town may try any thing within the same County which see Fitz. Visne 27. 22 E. 4. 4. And here in our case the Issue is if Humby Magna be as well known by the name of Humby only as by the name of Humby Magna And therefore the same may well be tryed by Inquest out of the Town of Humby Magna But by Wray Iustice this Issue doth amount to no such Town for the perclose of the plea is and no Humby without addition and the book cited out of 22 E. 4. is not ruled but is only the opinion of Brian and afterwards it was awarded that the tryal was well Another matter was objected because it is not shewed in the Writ of Error betwixt what parties the first Writ did depend for otherwise how can the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error have a Scire facias ad audiendum Errores if none be named in the Writ of Error against whom it shall issue And Godfrey affirmed that upon search of Presidents it was both ways so as it is at the pleasure of the Plaintiff to do it or not And Kemp Secondary shewed divers Presidents to that purpose And afterwards the Out-lawry was reversed CXLIX Cibel and Hills Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt for a Nemine pene A Lease was made of a certain House and Land rendring Rent and another sum Nomine poenae and for the Nominae poenae the Lessor brought an Action of Debt The Lessee pleaded that the Lessor had entred into parcel of the Land demised Roll. Tit. Extinguishment upon which they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff and now the Lessor brought Debt for the Rent reserved upon the same Lease to which the Defendant pleaded ut supra scil an Entry into parcel of the Land demised And issue was joyned upon it And one of the Iury was challenged and withdrawn because he was one of the former Iury And the Issue now was whether the said Cibel the Lessor expulit amovit adhuc extra tenet the said Hills And to prove the same it was given in Evidence on the Defendants part that upon the Land demised there was a Brick-kill and and thereupon a little small cottage and that the Lessor entred and went to the said cottage and took some of the Bricks and untiled the said cottage Suspension of Rent by entry upon part of the Land. But of the other side it was said that the Lessor had reserved to himself the Bricks and Tiles aforesaid which in truth were there ready made at the time of the Lease made and that he did not untile the Brick-kill house but that it fell by tempest and so the Plaintiff did nothing but came upon the Land to carry away his own goods And also he had used the said Bricks and Tiles upon the reparation of the house And as to the Extra tenet which is parcel of the Issue the Lessor did not continue upon the Land Hob. 326. Rolls ubi supra Post 172. but went off it and relinquished the possession But as to this last point it seemed to the Court that it is not material if the Plaintiff continued his possession there or not for if he once doth any thing which amounts to an Entry although that he depart presently yet the possession is in him sufficient to suspend the Rent and he shall be said extra tanere the Defendant the Lessee until he hath done an Act which doth
made upon condition to pay certain mony at such a day and at the day the Feoffees make an Obligation to the Feoffor for the payment of it the same is no performance of the condition And by Periam If the Executor be taken in Execution for the debt of the Testator he may retain so much of the goods of the Testator amounting to the sum for which he is in Execution and it shall be accounted Assets in his hands Anderson If he to whom the Testator was endebted in 20 l. be endebted to the Executors in so much and the Executor in satisfaction of the debt of the Testator releaseth his debt the property shall be altered presently of the whole goods in the hands of the Executors so where the Debtor makes the Creditor his Executor And Iudgment was given for the Executors CLIV. Bears Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Formedon A Formedon in the Discender was brought by Samuel Bear James Bear and John Bear of Lands in Gavel-kind and the Warranty of their Ancestor was pleaded against them in Bar upon which they were at Issue If Assets by discent And it was found by special verdict that Thomas Father of the Demandants was seised in Fee of the Lands supposed to be descended to the Demandants being of the nature of Gavel-kind and devised the same to the Demandants being his Heirs by the custom and to their Heirs equally to be divided amongst them Devise of Lands in Gavel-kind Owen 65. Dy. 350. 1 Cro. 431. More 594. 558. Sty 434. 3 Cro. 330. 443. 695. 696. And if the Demandants shall be accounted to be in of the Lands by descent or devise was the question for if by devise then they shall not be Assets Anderson Let us consider the devise by it self without the words equally to be divided amongst them And I conceive that they shall be in by the devise for they are now Ioynt-tenants and the survivor shall have the whole whereas if the Lands shall be holden in Law to have descended they should be Parceners and so as it were Tenants in common And although the words subsequent equally amongst them to be divided makes them Tenants in common yet that doth not amend the matter and so also was the opinion of Windham and Rhodes Iustices CLV Nash and Edwards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae by Nash against Edwards 1 Cro. 100. it was found by special verdict that one Dover Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is being seised of certain Lands holden in Socage devised the same by word to his three Sisters And a stranger being present recited to the Devisor the said words of his Will and he did affirm them 3 Len. 79. And afterwards the said stranger put the said words in writing for his own remembrance but did not read them to the Devisor who afterwards died And it was moved If this devise being reduced in writing modo forma be good or not Spurling conceived that not for the Statute intends a Will in writing Devises but not such writing as is here without privity or direction of the Devisor and it is not like to the case of Brown and Sackvil 6 E. 6. Dyer 72. For the Notes were written by the commandment of the Devisor but here it doth not appear that the meaning of the Devisor was that the devise should be put in writing And devises in Law are favoured as the case in the Chancery was that Sir Richard Pexhal devised certain Lands to his Wife and the Scrivener inserted of his own head a condition scil that she should be chast which was disallowed by the Devisor himself for which after his death the condition although it was put in writing was void And by the whole Court the devise is void And by Wray 2 Len. 35. if he appoint A. to write his Will and it is written by B. it is void but if after he had written the Will if he had read it to the Devisor and he had confirmed it it had been a good Will which Gawdy granted And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Stone and Withypolls Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot. 771. In the Kings Bench. STone brought an Action upon the Case against Dorothy Withypol the Executrix of W. Withypol her Husband 1 Cro. 126. Owen 94. 9 Co. 94. declared that where hersaid Husband for certain yards of Velvet of the value of fourteen pounds pro diversis alijs mercimonijs was endebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of ninety two pounds and made the Defendant his Executrix died that after his death he came to the Defendant and demanded of her the said debt who gave to him such answer Forbear me until Michaelmas and then I will pay it you or put you in sufficient security for the true payment thereof And declared further that at Michaelmas aforesaid the Defendant did not pay nor hath found any security and shewed a request to which the Defendant said that the said Testator at the time of the said Contracts for the Velvets and other Wares was within age Assumpsit And upon that Bar the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Egerton Solicitor for the Plaintiff As I conceive these Contracts made by the Plaintiff are not meerly void so that if an Action of Debt or upon the Case had been brought against the Testator himself he could not have pleaded upon the matter Nihil debet or Non Assumpsit or Non est factum but he ought to avoid the matter by special pleading and therefore here it is a good consideration and I conceive that if the Testator at his full age had assumed to pay the debt that that promise would have bound him 9 Eliz. it was the Case of the Lord Grey his Father was endebted to diverse Merchants upon simple Contracts and died seised of diverse Lands which descended to his Son and Heir in Fee the Creditors demanded their debts of the Heir who answered unto them if my Father were endebted unto you I will pay it and upon that promise an Action was adjudged maintainable although the Heir by the Law was not chargeable and also here the Defendant is to have ease and shall avoid trouble of Suits for perhaps if she had not made such promise the Plaintiff would have sued her presently which should be a great trouble unto her and therefore it is a good consideration Cooke contrary No consideration can be good if not that it touch either the charge of the Plaintiff or the benefit of the Defendant and none of them is in our case for the Plaintiff is not at any charge for which the Defendant can have any benefit for it is but the forbearance of the payment of the debt which she was not compellable to pay and as to the suit of the Chancery the same cannot make any good consideration for there is not any matter
in the Case which gives cause of suit in Chancery for they will not order a matter there which is directly against a Rule and Maxim of the common Law. As if a Feme Covert be bound c. and the Obligee bring her into the Chancery and if a man threaten me that if I will not pay to him ten pounds he will sue me in Chancery upon which I promise to pay it him no Action will lye And an Infant is not chargeable upon any contract but for his meat drink and necessary Apparel 19 Z. 4. 2. And in Debt upon such necessary Contract the Plaintiff ought to declare specially so as the whole certainty may appear upon which the Court may judge if the expense were necessary and convenient or not and upon the reasonableness of the price for otherwise if the necessity of the thing and reasonableness of the price doth not appear the Chancellor himself would not give any remedy or recompence to the party Wray Justice conceived that the Action would not lye for the contract was void and the Infant in an Action against him upon it may plead Nihil debet And if an Infant sell goods for money and doth not deliver them but the Vendee takes them he is a Trespassor but if the Infant had been bounden in an Obligation with a surety and afterwards at his full age he in consideration thereof promiseth to keep his surety harmless upon that promise an Action lyeth for the Infant cannot plead non est factum which see Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Case of one Edmunds And afterwards it was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLVII Charnock and Worsleys Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot 833. In the Kings Bench. Owen 21. 1 Cr. 129. CHarnock and his Wife brought a Writ of Error against Worsley the Case was that the Husband and Wife the Wife being within age levyed a Fine and the Wife upon inspection was adjudged within age it was moved if the Fine should be utterly reversed or as to the Wife only should stand against the Husband by Godfrey the Book of 50 E. 3. 6. was vouched where it is said by Candish that where such a Fine is reversed the Plaintiff shall not have execution till after the death of the Husband and by Coke and Atkinson a Fine acknowledged by the Husband and Wife is not like to a Feoffment made by them for in case of Feoffment something passeth from the Husband but in case of a Fine all passeth out of the Wife and the Conusee is in by her only And Atkinson shewed a Precedent in 2 H. 4. where the Fine was reversed for the whole and also another Precedent P. b. H. 8. Rot. 26. A Fine levyed betwixt Richard Elie Plaintiff and N. Ford. and Jane his Wife Deforceants the Wife being within age and Iudgment was given quod finis praedict adnulletur pro nullo penitus habeatur and that the Husband and Wife should be restored and thereupon a Writ issued to the Custos Brevium to bring into Court the Foot of the Fine and it was presently cancelled in Court. Wray this is a strong Precedent and we will not varse from it if other Precedents are not contrary Gawdy who was the same day made Iustice the Fine cannot be reversed as to one and stand as to the other and resembled it to the Case of Littleton 150. where Land is given to Husband and Wife in tail before coverture and the Husband aliens and takes back an estate to him and his Wife for their lives they both are remitted for the Wife cannot be remitted if the Husband be not remitted And a Precedent was cited to the contrary 7 Eliz. where the Case was that the Husband and Wife levyed a Fine the Husband died the Wife being within age the Wife took another Husband and they brought a Writ of Error and the Wife by inspection adjudged within age Fine reversed as to one to stand good against another and the Fine was reversed as to the Wife and her Heirs And it was argued by Golding that here the Writ of Error ought to abate for the Writ is too general whereas it ought to be special Ex querela A.B. nobis humillime supplicantis accepimus c. See the Book of Entries 278. Also the purclose of the Writ is ad damnum impsorum the Husband and the Wife whereas the Wife only hath loss by it and as to the Fine it self he conceived that it should be reversed but as to the Wife as if a man of full age and a man within age levy a Fine in a Writ of Error brought the Fine shall be reversed as to the Infant only and shall stand against the other and he cited the Case of the Lord Mountjoy 14. Eliz. Where a man seised in the right of his Wife acknowledged a Statute and afterwards he and his Wife levyed a Fine and he said that during the life of the Husband the Conusee of the Fine should hold the Land charged with the Statute Also in the Precedent of 2 H. 4. the Iudgment is that propter hunc alios errores the Fine should be reversed and I conceive that another Error was in the said Writ for which the Fine might be reversed in all viz. the Fine was levyed of two parts of the Manor of D. without saying in tres partes dividend And see that where two parts are demanded in a Writ 3 Co. 58 59. Modern Rep. 182. the Writ shall say so Brief 244 Coke contrary and as to the last matter I confess the Law is so in a Writ but not in a Fine for the same is but a Conveyance for it I be seised of a Manor and I grant to you two parts of the said Manor it is clear it shall be intended in three parts to be divided And as to the principal matter I conceive when the Fine is levyed by the Husband and Wife it shall be intended that the Land whereof c. is the Inheritance of the Wife if the contrary be not shewed and therefore if the party will have an especial Reversal he ought to shew the special matter as in Englishes Case A Fine was levyed by Tenant for life and he in the reversion being within age bringeth a Writ of Error now the Fine shall be reversed as to him in the Reversion but not as to the Tenant for life but here it shall be intended the Inheritance of the Wife and that the Husband hath nothing but in the right of his Wife and therefore she shall be restored to the whole for nothing passeth from the Husband but he is named with his Wife only for conformity 11 H. 7. 19. A. takes to Wife an Inheretrir who is attainted of Felony the King shall not have the Land presently by which it appeareth that all is in the Wife and she shall be restored to the whole and the Iudgment shall be according to the Presidents cited
before And as to the President cited 7 Eliz. the same is not to the purpose for the second Husband was a stranger to the Fine for it would be absurd to reverse the Fine as against him Egerton Solicitor General Presidents are not so holy quod violari non debeant as to be rules to other Iudges in perpetuum and I conceive that the Fine shall be reversed as to the Wife only for the Fine is but a Conveyance and the Husband may lawfully convey the Land of his Wife for his life and if the Husband alone had levyed the Fine the same had bounden the Wife during his life If a woman Lessee for life taketh to Husband him in the Reversion and they joyn in a Fine the Fine shall stand as to the Inheritance of the Husband but shall be reversed as to the Interest of the Wife Coke it shall be intended here all the Interest and estate in the Land to be in the Wife as 20 H. 7. 1. Where the Husband and Wife are vouched it shall be intended by reason of the Warranty of the Wife only and so the Counter-plea shall be of the seisin of the Wife and her Ancestors Wray when the Husband and Wife joyn in the Fine it shall be presumed the Inheritance of the Wife and if it be otherwise it ought to be specially shewed and as to that which hath been said that if the Husband alone had levyed a Fine it should have bounden the Wife during the life of the Husband the same is true but such Fine is but a discontinuance but the right continueth in the Wife but when the Husband and Wife joyn in the Fine all passeth out of her and if the Fine in such case for the Inheritance shall be reversed in all to whom belongs the Free-hold to whom shall he be attendant Gawdy 12 H. 7. 1. In a Praecipe quod reddat against three they vouch severally the Voucher was not received and yet they might have several Causes of Voucher but the Law presumes they are Ioynt-tenants and have a joynt cause of Voucher if the contrary be not shewed And afterwards Iudgment was given quod finis predict reversetur and Wray said he had conferred with many of the other Iustices who were of the same opinion Gawdy the Fine shall be reversed in all for this is an Error in Law of the Court F. B. 21. D. For by this Fine the Husband giveth nothing divided from the estate of the Wife but all passeth from the Wife and therefore all shall be reversed and if the Fine should be reversed as to the Wife only then the Fine levyed now by the Husband alone is a discontinuance by which the Wife by the common Law shall be put to her Cui in vita and that is not reason Also we cannot by this Reversal make the Conusee to have a particular estate during the life of the Wife And therefore the Fine is to be reversed for the whole and as void for the whole to the Conusee CLVIII Cage and Paxlins Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 125. 3 Len. 16. DAniel Cage brought an Action of Trespass against Thomas Paxlin for Trespass done in a Close of Wood called the Frith-Close and in the Park and for taking of certain Loads of Wood the Defendant pleaded that the Earl of Oxford was seised of the Mannor of W. of which the place where c. is parcel and leased the same to J. S. for years excepting all Woods great Trees Timber-trees and Vnderwoods c. And covenanted with the Lessee and his Assigns that he might take Hedg-boot and Fire-boot super dicta premissa and shewed further that the said I. S. assigned his Interest unto the Defendant and that he came to the said Close called the Frifth-Close Lease of Lands excepting the wood and cut the Wood there for Fire-boot as it was lawful for him to do c. And note that after the Lease aforesaid the said Earl had assured the Inheritance thereof to Cage the Plaintiff And it was argued by Godfrey that the Lessee cannot take Fire-boot in the said Close for the wood c. is excepted and was never demised and by the exception of the wood the soil thereof is excepted See 46 E. 3. 22. A. leased for life certain Lands reserving the great wood by that the soil also is reserved vi 33 H. 8. Br. Reservation 39 28 H. 8. 13. 3 Len. 16. And by the words of the Covenant the intent of the Lessor appeareth that the Lessee shall have his Fire-boot out of the residue of the Lands demised for praemissa here is equivalent with praedimissa And he cited the Case moved by Mountaine cheif Iustice 4 E. 6. in Plowden in the Case betwixt Dive and Manningham 66. A. leaseth unto B. a Manor for years excepting a Close parcel of it rendring a Rent and the Lessee is bounden to perform all Grants Covenants and Agreements contenta expressa aut recitata in the Indenture if the Lessee disturb the Lessor upon his occupation of the Close excepted he hath forfeited his Obligation c. But our Case is not like to that Post 122. And if I let the Manor of D. for years except Green-meadow and afterwards I covenant that the Lessee shall enjoy the Premisses the same doth not extend to Green-meadow Snagg Serjeant to the contrary and by him praemissa are not restrained to praedimissa but to all the Premisses put in the former part of the Indenture of Demise therefore the Lesse shall have Fire-boot in the one and the other 2 Roll. 455. 2 Cro. 524. Post 122. and he put a difference betwixt all Woods excepted and all woods growing excepted for in the one case the soil passeth in the other not And as to the Case cited before in Plowden 66. that is true for exception is an Agreement And he said that by that exception the soil it self is excepted and these woods which are named by name of woods contrary where a Close containeth part in woods and part in Pasture And by the exception of Timber-trees and Vnder woods all the other woods are excepted but not the soil As if a man grant all his Lands in D. Land Meadow Pasture and woods thereby passeth by exception of this Close of wood the soil also is excepted and he conceived that although all the woods be excepted yet by the Covenant an Interest passeth to the Lessee Select Case 155 Hob. 173. Dy. 19 198 314. 21 H. 7 31. More 23. 1 Roll. 939. so as he may take Fire-boot without being put to his Action of Covenant As 21 H. 7. 30. A. leaseth unto B. for life and Covenants in the Indenture of lease that he shall be dispunished of Wast although the same be penned by way of Covenant yet it is a good matter of Bar being all by one Deed And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff as to that
otherwise it should be idle And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Queen CLXIII Piers and Leversuchs Case In Ejectione firmae Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IT was found by special verdict that one Robert Leversuch Grand-father of the Defendant was Tenant in tail of certain Lands whereof c. and made a Lease for years to one Pur. who assigned it over to P. father of the Plaintiff Robert Leversuch died W. his Son and Heir entred upon P. who re-entred W. demised without other words the Land to the said P. for life the remainder to Joan his Wife for life the remainder to the Son of P. for life with warranty and made a Letter of Attorney therein to enter and deliver seisin accordingly P. died before that the Livery was executed and afterwards the Attorney made livery to Joan. W. died Ed. his Son and Heir entred upon the Wife she re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff who upon an ouster brought the Action Heale When P. entred upon W. Leversuch the issue in tail he was a disseisor and by his death the Land descending to his Heir the entry of W. Leversuch the issue in tail was taken away 3 Cro. 222. Cook contrary P. by his entry was not a disseisor but at the Election of W. for when P. accepted such a deed from W. it appeareth that his intent was not to enter as a disseisor and it is not found that the said P. had any Son and Heir at the time of his death and if not then no descent and there is not any disseisin found that P. expulit Leversuch out of the Land. And Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And Cook cited a Case which was adjudged in the Common Pleas and it was the Case of Shipwith Grand-father Tenant in tail Father and Son The Grand-father died the Father entred and paid the Rent to the Lessor and died in possession and adjudged that it was not any descent for the paying of the Rent doth explain by what title he entred and so he shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of another CLXIV Severn and Clerks Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. â—ts THe Case was that A. by his Deed Poll recited That whereas he was possessed of certain Lands for years of a certain Term By good and lawful conveyance he assigned the same to I. S. with divers Covenants Articles and Agreements in the said deed contained which are or ought to be performed on his part It was moved if this recital whereas he was be an Article or Agreement within the meaning of the condition of the said Obligation which was given to perform c. Gawdy conceived that it is an agreement For in such case I agree that I am possessed of it for every thing contained in the deed is an Agreement and not only that which I am bound to perform As if I recite by my deed that I am possessed of such an interest in certain Land and assign it over by the same deed and thereby covenant to perform all Agreements in the deed if I be not possessed of such Interest the covenant is broken And it was moved if that recital be within these words of the condition which are or ought to be performed on my part And some were of opinion that it is not within those words for that extends only in futurum but this recital is of a thing past or at the least present Recital 2 Cro. 281. Yyl. 206. Clench Recital of it self is nothing but being joyned and considered with the rest of the deed it is material as here for against this recital he cannot say that he hath not any thing in the Term. And at the length it was clearly resolved that if the party had not that Interest by a good and lawful conveyance the Obligation was forfeited CLXV Page and Jourdens Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trepass betwixt Page and Jourden the case was A Woman Tenant in tail took a Husband who made a Feoffment in Fee and died The Wife without any Entry made a Lease for years It was moved that the making of this Lease is an Entry in Law. As if A. make a Lease for years of the Land of B. who enters by force of that Lease A general entry amounts to a disseisin now the Lessor without any Entry is a Disseisor And it was resolved that by that Leasâ— the Free-hold is not reduced without an Entry CLXVI Havithlome and Harvies Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. 1 Cro. 130. 3 Cro. Goodwin vers West HAvithlome brought an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. against Harvy and his Wife for the penalty of ten pounds given by the said Statute against him who was served with process ad testificandum c. and doth not appear not having any impediment c. and shewed that process was served upon the Defendants Wife and sufficient charges having regard to her degree and the distance of the place c. tendred to her and yet she did not appear And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration is not good because the Plaintiff in setting forth that he was damaged for the not appearance of the Wife according to the process hath not shewed how damnified Also it was moved that a Feme Covert is not within the said Statute for no mention is made of a Feme Covert and therefore upon the Statute of West 2. cap. 25. If a Feme Covert fail of her Record she shall not be holden disseisseress nor imprisoned Also here the Declaration is that the Plaintiff tendered the charges to the Wife where he ought to have tendered the same to the Husband To these three Exceptions it was answered 1. That although the party be not at all damnified yet the penalty is forfeited 2. Feme Coverts are within the said Statute otherwise it should be a great mischeif for it might be that she might be the only witness And Feme Coverts if they had not been expresly excepted had been within the Statute of 4 H. 7. of Fines 3. The wife ought to appear therefore the tender ought to be to her And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXVII Dellaby and Hassels Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case 1 Cro. 132. the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant in consideration that he had retained the Plaintiff to go from London to Paris to Merchandize diverse goods to the profit of the Defendant promised to give to him so much as should content him and also to give him all and every sum of money which he should expend there in his Affairs and further declared that he was contented to have twenty-pounds for his labour which the Defendant refused to pay And exception was taken to the Declaration because there is
not set down any place or time of the notification of his contentment for the same is traversable Gawdy The Issue here is non Assumpsit Assumpsit and therefore that matter is out of the Book Cook If one assume to pay twenty pounds to another upon request although the Defendant plead non Assumpsit yet if the place and time of request be not shewed Iudgment many times hath been stayed for no Action without a Request so here without notification of his contentment no Action therefore he ought to shew it Gawdy The ground of this Action is the Assumpsit but that cannot be certain without Declaration and thereof notice ought to be given to make certainty of the duty but not to enforce the promise but in our case without a Request Assumpsit will not lye But here it being but conveyance the certainty of the time and place is not necessary to be shewed but the general form shall serve for it is but inducement As if a man will plead a devise of goods to him and assent of the Executors to take them he need not to shew the time and place of the assent Gawdy at another day said that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff the Assumpsit is the ground and cause of the Action and the shewing of the contentment is only to reduce the Action to certainty And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXVIII Musket and Coles Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. WIlliam Musket brought an Action upon the Case against Cole 1 Cro. 13. and declared that in consideration that the Plaintiff had payed unto the Defendant forty shillings for the Debt of Symon his Son the Defendant promised to deliver to him omnes tales billas Obligationes in which his Son was bounden to him which thing he would not do and it was found by Verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved for stay of Iudgment because the Plaintiff had not averred in his Declaration that the said Defendant had Bills or Obligations in which Simon his Son was bounden to the Defendant Averment for if there were none then no damage And see Onlies Case 19 Eliz. Dyer 356. D. in consideration that the Plaintiff had expended divers sums of money circa the businesses of the Defendant promised c. Exception was taken to that Declaration by Manwood and Mounson Iustices because it was not shewed in what businesses certain and betwixt what persons Gawdy The Plaintiff here is not to recover the Bills or Obligations but damages only and therefore needeth not to alledge any Bills in certain And 47 E. 3. 3. A. covenants with B. to assure unto B. and his Heirs omnia terras tenementa quas habet in such Counties and for not assurance an Action of Covenant was brought and the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant had broken the said Covenant and that he had required the Defendant to make a Feoffment unto him of all his Lands and Tenements in the said Counties and the plea was not allowed for the Land is not in demand but only damages to be recovered See also 46 E. 3. 4. and 20 E. 3. And in the principal case the Plaintiff had time enough for the shewing to the Iury what Bills or Obligations for the instructing of the Iury of the damages CLXIX English and Pellitary and Smiths Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assault and Battery 1 Cro. 139 140. IN an Action of Trespass of Assault and Battery and wounding The Defendants say that they were Lessees of certain Lands and the Plaintiff came to the said Lands and took certain Posts which were upon the Lands and they gently took them from him S. pleaded that he found the Plaintiff and P. contending for the said Posts and he to part them mollite put his hands upon the Plaintiff which is the same c. The Plaintiff replyed De injuriis suis propriis absque tali causa per ipsos P. S. allegat upon which issue was joyned which was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that here was not any issue for the Plaintiff ought severally to reply to both pleas aforesaid for here are several Causes of Iustification and his Replication absque tali causa Nomen Collectivum Post 139. Dy. 182. doth not answer to both Cook This word Causa is nomen Collectivum which may be referred to every Cause by the Defendants alledged reddendo singula singulis and their Iustifications are but one matter and the Defendants might have all joyned in one plea. Wray Both pleas depend upon one matter but are several causes for two justifie by reason of their Interest and the third for the preservation of the Peace And by him and the whole Court although it be not a good form of pleading yet by reasonable construction this word Cause shall be referred to every cause and so the pleading shall be maintained And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CLXX Cater and Boothes Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Intrat Hill. 30 Rot. 58. or 581. IF a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant by his deed bearing date the first of October 28 Eliz. did covenant that he would do every act and acts at his best endeavour to prove the Will of I. S. or otherwise Covenant that he would procure Letters of Administration by which he might convey such a Term lawfully to the Plaintiff which he had not done licet saepius requisitus c. The Defendant pleaded that he came to Doctor Drury into the Court of the Arches and there offered to prove the Will of the said I. S. but because the Wife of the said I.S. would not swear that it was the Will of her Husband they could not be received to prove it Vpon which it was demurred in Law. It was moved by Williams that the Action doth not lie for there is no time limited by the Covenant when the thing should be done by the Defendant for which he hath time during his life for as much as it is a collateral thing See 15 E. 4. 31. if there be not a Request before but admit that the Covenant had been to perform upon request Request then the Plaintiff in his Declaration ought to have shewed an express request with the place and time of it for that is traversable See 33 H. 6. 47 48. 9 E. 4. 22. Gawdy If the Covenant had been eypresly to do it upon request there the request ought to be shewed specially But when a thing upon the exposition of the Law only is to be done upon Request such Request alledged generally is good enough And by Wray the Covenantor hath not time during his life to perform this Covenant but he ought to do it upon request within convenient time but in some case a man shall have time during his life as where no benefit shall be to any of the
the limitation for the life of the Wife cannot extend to both And as to the Book of 24 H. 8. Br. Forfeiture 87. 3 Cro. 167 168. Tenant for life aliens in Fee to B. Habendum sibi haeredibus suis for Term of the life of the Tenant for life the same is not a forfeiture for the whole is but the limitation of the estate And afterwards it was adjudged that it was a forfeiture Gawdy continuing in his former opinion And VVray said that he had conferred with the other Iudges of their House and they all held clearly that it is a forfeiture CLXXII Toft and Tompkins Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 528. UPon a special Verdict the case was that the Grand-father Tenant for life the Remainder to the Father in tail Discontinuance 1 Cro. 135. that the Grand-father made a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the Father in Fee And afterwards they both came upon the Land and made a Feoffment to Tompkins the Defendant Coke There is not any discontinuance upon this matter for the Father might well wave the advantage of the forfeiture committed by the Grand-father then when the Father joyns with the Grand-father in a Feoffment the same declares that he came upon the Land without intent to enter for a forfeiture It was one Waynmans Case adjudged in the common Pleas where the Disseissee cometh upon the Land to deliver a Release to the Disseissor that the same is no Entry to revest the Land in the Disseissee Then here it is the Livery of the Tenant for life and the grant of him in the Remainder and he in the Remainder here was never seised by force of the tail and so no discontinuance Godfrey Here is a Remitter by the Entry and afterwards a discontinuance for by the Entry of both the Law shall adjudge the possession in him who hath right c. Gawdy This is a discontinuance for when the Father entreth ut supra he shall be adjudged in by the forfeiture and then he hath gained a possession and so a discontinuance for both cannot have the possession Clench The intent of him in the Remainder when he entred was to joyn with the Grand-father and when his intent appeareth that the estate of the Grand-father and his own also shall passe that doth declare that he would not enter for the forfeiture Shute agreed with Gawdy CLXXIII Broake and Doughties Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 798. Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Case for words Action upon the Case for words 1 Cro. 135. viz. Thou wast forsworn in the Court of Requests and I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Action will not lye for these words for he doth not say that he was there forsworn as Defendant or witness And Trin. 28 Eliz. betwixt Hern and Hex thou wast forsworn in the Court of Whitchurch And Iudgment given against the Plaintiff for the words are not Actionable and as to the residue of the words I will make thee stand upon the Stage for it they are not Actionable as it was adjudged between Rylie and Trowgood If thou hadst Iustice thou hadst stood on the Pillory and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Daniel contrary thou wast forsworn before my Lord chief Iustice in an Evidence these words are Actionable for that is perjury upon the matter and between Foster and Thorne T. 23 Eliz. Rot. 882. Thou wast falsly forsworn in the Star-Chamber the Plaintiff had Iudgment for it shall be intended that the Plaintiff was Defendant or a Deponent there And yet the words in the Declaration are not in the Court of Star-Chamber Wray Thou art worthy to stand upon the Pillory are not Actionable for it is but an implication but in the words in the Case at the Bar there is a vehement intendment that his Oath was in the quality of a Defendant or Deponent which Gawdy granted In the Case 28 Eliz. Thou wast forsworn in Whit-Church Court there the words are not actionable for that Court is not known to you as Iudges And it may be it is but a great House or Mansion house called Whit-church Court But here in the principal case it cannot be meant but a Court of Iustice and before the Iudges there juridice and the subsequent words sound so much I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXXIV Gatefould and Penns Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prescription for tythes 1 Cro. 136. 3 Len. 203 265. Antea 94. GAtefould Parson of North-linne libelled against Penne in the spiritual Court for tythes in Kind of certain pastures The Defendant to have prohibition doth surmise that he is Inhabitant of South-linne and that time out of mind c. every Inhabitant of South-linne having pastures in North-linne hath paid tythes in Kind for them unto the Vicars of South-linne where he is not resident and the Vicar hath also time out of mind payed to the Parson of North-linne for the time being two pence for every acre Lewis This surmise is not sufficient to have a prohibition for upon that matter Modus Decimandi shall never come in question but only the right of tythes if they belong to the Parson of North-linne or to the Vicar of South-linne and he might have pleaded this matter in the spiritual Court because it toucheth the right of tythes as it was certified in the Case of Bashly by the Doctors of the Civil Law. Gawdy This prescription doth stand with reason for such benefit hath the Parson of North-linne if any Inhabitant there hath any Pastures in South-linne And afterwards the whole Court was against the prohibition for Modus Decimandi shall never come in debate upon this matter but who shall have the tythes the Vicar of South-linne or the Parson of North-linne and also the prescription is not reasonable CLXXV Gomersal and Bishops Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 175. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 136. BIshop libelled in the Spiritual Court for tythe Hay the Plaintiff Gomersal made a surmise that there was an agreement betwixt the said parties and for the yearly sum of seven shillings to be paid by Gomersal unto Bishop Bishop faithfully promised to Gomersal that Gomersal should have the tythes of the said Land during his life And upon an Attachment upon a Prohibition Gomersal declared that for the said annual sum Bishop leased to the Plaintiff the said tythes for his life And upon the Declaration Bishop did demur in Law for the variance between the Surmise and the Declaration for in the Surmise a promise is supposed for which Gomersal might have an Action upon the Case and in the Declaration a Lease But note that the Surmise was not entred in the Roll but was recorded
by it self and the Declaration only enrolled Godfrey It was resolved in the Case betwixt Pendleton and Hunt Prohibition for tythes that an Agreement betwixt the Parson and any of his Parishioners is a good cause to grant a Prohibition if he libel in the Spiritual Court against such Agreement because the Spiritual Court cannot try it and they will not allow such Plea. Curia The Surmise is as a Writ for which if variance be betwixt the same and the Declaration all his naught CLXXVI Colebourn and Mixstones Case Intrat Hill. 31. Eliz. Rot. 146. Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. COlebourn was sued in the Spiritual Court for that being Executor to one Alice Leigh he had not brought in a true Inventory of all the goods of the said Alice but had omitted and left out a lease of two houses and this suit was at the pursuit of two Daughters of the Testator Colebourn sueth for a Prohibition and surmises and declares how this Lease is extinct and the matter was this H. Leigh was seised of a house called the Marigold and two other houses in London and leased the said two houses to one Alice Cheap for 21 years if she should live so long and afterwards made a Lease in Reversion of the said two houses to the said Alice Leigh for 21 years and afterwards he devised these two houses Devises and also the house called the Marigold to the said Alice Leigh for her life for to bring up his children and died after whose death the said Alice Leigh entred into the said house called the Marigold and took the rents and profits of the said two houses for the space of 7 years virtute testament praedict upon which Declaration the Defendants do demurr in Law. Coke the Declaration is not good and for the matter of it it is clear that by this devise unto Alice her Term in futuro is not extinct without her agreement to it And also in this Case the Devise is not for the benefit of the said Alice Leigh but of her children and she hath liberty to accept or refuse the said estate by devise and to make her election Extinguishment And the Plaintiff hath declared that she hath accepted the Rent reserved upon the Lease of the said two houses for 7 years And therein the Declaration naught in divers respects 1. He hath declared that the said Alice Leigh hath accepted the Rents of the said two houses by reason of the reversion virtue testament praedict by 7 years which is double and treble for acceptance of a Rent at one day scil one rent day is a sufficient election As if the Issue in tail after the death of his Ancestor who hath made a Lease not warranted by the Statute once accepts the Rent the Lease is affirmed but if in plea pleading the acceptance of the said Rent for 3 years be pleaded the same clearly is not good for no good Issue can be taken thereupon 2. This acceptance is not pleaded as the Law wills and in the phrase of the Law viz. to which devise she agreed but pleads the acceptance of the Rent which is matter of evidence the which is not good pleading As 5 H. 7. 1. One sweareth another to enter into his Land and the same to occupy for a certain time Estate executed the same is a Lease in Law and if in pleading the party is to make his title to the same Land he ought to plead it as an expres Lease and not as a Licence and if the Lease be traversed he may give the Licence in evidence Tanfield presently by the devise the estate for life is in the Devisee and the Term extinct by it and that is sufficient for the Plaintiff And if there was any disagreement the same is to be shewed on the other side But if Alice had not notice of the Devise but dieth before notice the same amounteth unto a disagreement And as to the pleading of the Agreement I conceive it s well enough pleaded for if the Lease had not been she might have entred and then if such Entry had been pleaded it had been good enough and then because she could not enter by reason of the said Lease she hath taken the rents and profits which is an actual agreement and as strong as an Entry Also we have shewed that she had entred into the house called the Marigold Assent not to be apportioned of which the Devisor died seised in possession and that is a sufficient agreement for the whole for it is an entire Legacy As 18 E. 3. Variance 63. If the Reversion of three acres be granted and the Tenant for life attorneth for one acre it is a good attornment for the whole for he cannot apportion his assent and 2 E. 4. 13. If the Executor deliver unto the Devisee goods to him devised to redeliver them to him again at such a day the same is a good assent and execution of the Devise and the words of the re-delivery are void Gawdy The devise doth not vest the estate in the Wife until agreement where a man takes in a second degree as in a Remainder the same vests presently before agreement but where he taketh immediatly it is otherwise and he held the agreement was well enough pleaded Wray Presently upon the death of the Testator the Free-hold rested in the Devisee and it was not an Agreement ut supra by taking of the Rents yet the entry into the Marigold was a consent and an Execution of the whole Legacy and as to the rest he agreed with Gawdy Clench The Free-hold rested presently in Alice Leigh before agreement also the entry into the Marigold is an execution of the whole Legacy to the Devisee for her entry shall be adjudged most beneficial for her and that is for all the three houses CLXXVII Stransham and Medcalfes Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 178. STransham libelled in the Court of the Bishop of Norwich against Medcalfe for a portion of Tithes as Farmor of the Rectory of Dunham the Parson of Stonham came in and said that the Land whereof the Tithes are demanded is in his Parish of Stonham and not in the Parish of Dunham and afterwards sentence passed against Stransham who brought an Appeal and notwithstanding that by the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7. the spiritual Iudges may proceed to make process against the Appellant for costs for the principal matter scil parcel or within such a Parish or not is tryable at the Common Law. Cook now prayed a Consultation and he confessed ut supra that the matter was tryable at the Common Law but yet the costs were not given for the matter but for the unjust vexation No Prohibition for costs in the spiritual Court. and it was his suit and own act to prosecute the same in the Spiritual Court. Note that Stransham had a Prohibition to stay the proceedings for the costs for
and that he would name in it one B. for special Bailiff and promised the Plaintiff that if B. arrested A. by force of the said Capias and suffered him to escape That he would not sue the Plaintiff for the escape and shewed further That he made a Warrant according to the said Capias and therein named and appointed the said B. his special Bailiff who arrested A. accordingly and afterwards suffered him to escape and the Defendant notwithstanding his promise aforesaid sued the Plaintiff for the said escape And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment That the promise is against the Law to prevent the punishment inflicted by the Statute of 23 H. 6. upon the Sheriff and it is meerly within the Statute and so the promise void Cooke The same is not any Bond or promise taken of the Prisoner nor of any for him and therefore it is not within the Statute as it was in Danvers Case Wray A promise is within the Statute as well as a Bond but the Statute doth not extend but where the Bond or promise is made by the Prisoner or by any for him And after Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXXXI Mounson and Wests Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass by Mounson against West the Iury was charged and evidence given and the Iurours being retired into a house for to consider of their evidence Owen 38. Plowd 520. Co. 1 Inst 227. Dyer 37. they remained there a long time without concluding any thing and the officers of the Court who attended them seeing their delay searched the Iurours if they had any thing about them to eat upon which search it was found that some of them had figs and others pippins for which the next day the matter was moved to the Court and the Iurours were examined upon it upon Oath And two of them did confess that they had eaten figs before they had agreed of their verdict and three other of them confessed That they had Pippins but did not eat of them Where Jurors shall be fined for eating before verdict but it shall not make void the verdict and that they did it without the knowledge or Will of any of the Parties And afterwards the Court set a fine of five pound upon each of them which had eaten and upon the others who had not eaten forty shillings And they would advise if the verdict was good or not for the Iury found for the Plaintiff And afterwards at another day the matter was moved and Anderson was of opinion That notwithstanding the said Misdemeanor of the Iury the verdict was good enough for these victuals were not given to them by any of the Parties to the action nor by their means or procurement Rhodes thought the contrary because some of the Iurors had eaten and some not contrary if all of them had eaten See 14 H. 7. 1. A Iury was charged and before their verdict they did eat and drink and it was holden that upon that Misdemeanor their verdict was void for which cause a venire facias de novo was awarded And it was prayed by the Counsel of the Defendant West That the said Misdemeanor so found by examination might be entred of Record which the Court granted And afterwards at another day the matter was moved again And upon great advice and deliberation and conference with the other Iudges The verdict was holden to be good notwithstanding the Misdemeanor aforesaid See 24 E. 3 24. 15 H. 7. 1. 2 H. 7. 3. 29 H. 8. 37. and 35 H. 8. 55. where it was holden where the eating and drinking of the Iury at their own costs is but fineable but if it be at the costs of the parties the verdict is void And see Book of Entries 251. The Iurors after they went from the Bar ad seipsos of their verdict to be advised comederunt quasdam species sci raisins dates c. at their own costs as well before as after they agreed of their verdict And the Iurors were committed to prison but their verdict was good although the verdict was given against the King. CLXXXII Hunt and Gilborns Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower brought by Hunt and his Wife against Gilborn The Defendant pleaded That the Land of which Dower is demanded Dower of Gavelkind by Custom Ante. 62 63. 1 Cro. 825. is of the nature of Gavelkind and that the custom is That in Dower of Land of such nature The Wife ought to be endowed of the moity of such Land Tenendum quam diu non maritata remanserit non aliter upon which plea in Bar the Demandants did demur in Law and the Lord Anderson was of opinion That the Custom is strongly pleaded against the Dower in the affirmative with a Negative non aliter and that is confessed by the Demurrer That Dower out of such Land ought to be so allowed and so demanded and in no other manner And by Periam If those words non aliter had not been in the Plea yet the Demandants should not have Iudgment For Dower by moiety non maritatis is as proper in case of Gavelkind as Dower of the third part of Land at the Common Law and as the descent in such case of Lands to all the Sons And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Demandants CLXXXIII The Case of the Provost and Scholars of Queens Colledge in Oxford Hill. 30. Eliz. THe Provost Fellows and Scholars of Queens Colledge in Oxford are Guardians of the Hospital or Meason de Dieu in Southampton And they make a Lease of the Land parcel of the said Hospital to one Hazel for Term of years by the name Praepositus Socii Scholares Collegii reginalis in Oxonia Gardianus Hospitalis c. And in an Ejectione firmae upon that lease It was found for the Plaintiffs and it was objected in arrest of Iudgment That the word Gardianus ought to be Gardiani for the Colledge doth consist of many persons and every person is capable and it is not like unto Abbot and Covent But the whole Court was of opinion that the Exception was not good but that as well the Lease as also the Declaration was good for the Colledge is one body and as one person And so it is good enough Gardianus CLXXXIV Wooden and Hazels Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione betwixt Wooden and Hazel they were at issue upon Not Guilty and a Venire facias awarded returnable Tres Trinit And the Essoin adjudged and adjorned by the Plaintiff until Michaelmas Term Nisi Prips And at next Assises the Plaintiff not withstanding that Essoin and the adjorning of it procured a Nisi Prius by which it was found for the Plaintiff And now it was moved in Court for the stay of Iudgment because no Nisi Prius ought to issue in the Case Essoin For the Essoin was adjudged and adjorned
until Michaelmas Term by the Plaintiff himself And Leonard custos Brevium said That the words of the Statute of Westminster 2 cap. 27. Postquam aliquis posuerit se in aliquem inquisitionem ad proximum diem allocet ei esson Imports That the Essoin shall not be taken at the return of the Process against the Iury although the Iury be ready at the Bar. Anderson was of opinion That the awarding of the Nisi Prius ut supra is but a misawarding of the Process and then relieved by the Statute And afterwards the case being moved at another day 1 Cro. 367. the Court was clear of opinion That no Nisi Prius ought to issue forth in this case because that the Plaintiff himself by the adjorning of the Essoin cast by the Defendant until Michaelmas Term had barred himself of all Proceedings in the mean time But afterwards it was surmised to the Court on the Plaintiffs part that he the Defendant was not essoined for the name of the Defendant is Edward Hazel and it appeared upon the tryal that Edward Russel was essoined Amendment but no Edward Hazel and then if no Essoin no adjornment and then the Plaintiff is at large c. and may proceed c. But the Remembrance of the Clark was Edward Hazel as it ought to be and yet it was holden of no effect being in another Term And afterwards the Counsel of the Defendant prayed that the Roll in hac parte be amended according to the Remembrance of the Clark But the Court utterly denied that for no Statute gives amendment but in the affirmance of Iudgments and Verdicts and not in defeazance of Iudgments or Verdicts and afterwards it was resolved by the whole Court That Iudgment be entred for the Plaintiff CLXXXV Sir Henry Goodiers Case Hill. 32 Eliz. Intratur M. 29 30. Eliz. Rot. 2116. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was Sir Ralph Rowlet possessed of certain Lands for years made his Will and ordained Sir Nicholas Bacon Renouncing of an Executorship Owen 44. Office of Executors 54. 1 Cro. 92. 9 Co. 37. Keeper of the great Seal of England Sir Robert Catline Lord Chief Iustice of England Iustice Southcote and Gerrard Attorney General his Executors and died And afterwards the said persons named Executors sent their Letters to the Chief Officer of the Prerogative Court as followeth Whereas our Loving friend Sir Ralph Rowlet Knight lately deceased made and ordained us Executors of his last Will and whereas our business is so great that we cannot attend the execution of the said Will Therefore we have thought good to move the bearer hereof Mr. Henry Goodier one of the Co-heirs of the said Sir Ralph to take upon him the execution of the said Will. And therefore we pray you to grant Letters of Administration in as ample manner as the justice of the cause doth require and afterwards an Entry was made in this manner in the same Court Executores Testamenti praedict executionem inde super se assumere distulerant adhuc distarent And upon that the said Goodier obtained Letters of Administration and granted a Lease to A. for years of which the said Sir Ralph Rowlet died possessed And afterwards Sir Robert Catline claiming as Executor granted the same Term to another c. and all the matter of difficulty was If this Letter written by the Executors be a sufficient Renunciation of the Executorship in Law so as the Executors cannot afterwards claim or use the said authority c. 2. If the Entry of the said Renuntiation be sufficient and effectual And it was argued by Ford one of the Doctors of the Civil Law That as well the Renunciation as the Entry of it is good and sufficient in Law so that none of the Executors could not after entermeddle And he said That in their Law there is not any certain form of Renuntiation but if the meaning and intention of the Renouncer appeareth it is sufficient without any formal Terms of Renunciation And he put many rules and Maximes in their Law to the same purpose Ego dico me nolle esse haeredem are sufficient words to such intent Non vult haeres esse quin ad aliam transferre debet haereditatem Qui semel repudiavit haereditatem non potest eam repetere Quod semel placuit post displicere non potest Variatio non permittitur in contractibus So that after the Executors have signified to the Officer of their Court their pleasure to renounce the Execution of the Will they cannot afterwards entermeddle nam interest reipublicae ut dominia rerum sint in certo And as to the Entry of the said Renunciation inter acta Curiae distulerint et adhuc distarent that was the error of the Clark. And it is Rule in our Law veritas rerum gestarum non vitiatur Errore factorum And the Lord Anderson demanded of the said Doctor how far those words haeres et haereditas did extend in their Law who answered That haereditas comprehends all Chattels as well real as personal Inheritance as well as Chattels for by their Law Haereditas nihilaliud est quam successio in universum jus quod defunctus habuit tempore mortis suae And afterwards the Court gave day to the other party to hear an Argument of their side but the case was so clear That no Professor of the Civil Law would be retained to argue to the contrary And afterwards Iudgment was given That the said Renunciation and the entry of it was sufficient CLXXXVI Littleton and Pernes Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt LIttleton brought Debt upon an Obligation against Humphry Pernes who pleaded that the said Obligation was endorced with this condition for the performance of certain Articles and Covenants contained in certain Indentures by which Indentures the Plaintiff first covenanted that Edward brother of Humphry should enjoy such Land until the Feast of Michaelmas next following rendring such Rent at the end of the said Term and the said Humphry covenanted that the said Edward at the Feast aforesaid should surrender quietly and peaceably the said Lands to the Plaintiff and that the said Plaintiff to such of the said Lands as by the Custom of the Country tunc jacebant frisca should have in the mean time free ingress egress c. at his will and pleasure with his servants ploughs c. And as to that Covenant the Defendant pleaded Quod permisit querentem habere intrationem exitum c. in tales terras quales tunc jacebant secundum consuetudinem patriae c. And Exception was taken to this plea because he hath not shewed in certain which Lands they were which then then did lie Frecy according to the custom of the Country which Anderson allowed of but Walmsly strongly insisted to the contrary And he confessed that where an Act is to be done according to a Covenant he who pleads the performance of it ought to
plead it specially but as our case is here is no Act to be done but a permittance as abovesaid and it is in the Negative not a disturbance in which case permisit is a good plea and then it shall come on the other side on the Plaintiffs part to shew in what Lands the Defendant non permisit Which difference see agreed 17 E. 4. 26. by the whole Court. And such was the opinion of the whole Court in the principal case 1 Co. 127. Another Exception was taken to it that the Defendant had covenanted that his brother Edward should pay to the Plaintiff the said Rent To which the Defendant pleaded that his said brother had payed to the Platntiff before the said Feast of Michaelmas in full satisfaction of the said Rent three shillings and that was holden a good plea and upon the matter the Covenant well performed for there is not any Rent in this Case for here is not any Lease and therefore not any Rent For if A. covenant with B. that C. shall have his Land for so many years rendring such a Rent 1 Roll. 847. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 97. here is not any Lease and therefore neither Rent But if A. had covenanted with C. himself it had been otherwise because it is betwixt the same parties And if the Lessee covenant to pay his Rent to the Lessor and he payeth it before the day the same is not any performance of the Covenant causa patet contrary of a sum in gross Another Covenant was that the said Humphry solveret ex parte dicti Edwardi 20 l. to which the Defendant pleaded that he had paid ex parte dicti Humfridi 20 l. and that defect was holden incureable and therefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXVII Geslin and Warburtons Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 128. IN an Ejectione firmae by Joan Geslin against Hen. Warburton and Sebastian Crispe of Lands in Dickilborough in the County of Norf. Mich. 30. 31 Eliz. rot 333. upon the general Issue the Iury found a special verdict that before the Trespass supposed one Martin Frenze was seised of the Lands of which the Action was brought in tail to him and his Heirs males of his body so seised suffered a common Recovery to his own use Devises and afterwards devised the same in this manner I give my said Land to Margaret my Wife until such time as Prudence my Daughter shall accomplish the age of nineteen years the Reversion to the said Prudence my Daughter and to the Heirs of her body Lawfully begotten upon condition that she the said Prudence shall pay unto my said Wife yearly during her life in recompence of her Dower of and in all my Lands 12 pounds and if default of payment be made then I will that my said Wife shall enter and have all my Lands during her life c. the Remainder ut supra the Remainder to John Frenze in tail c. Martin Frenze died Margaret entred the said Prudence being within the age of fourteen years Margaret took to Husband one of the Defendants John Frenze being Heir male to the former tail brought a Writ of Error upon the said Recovery and assigned Error because the Writ of Entry upon which the Recovery was had was Praecipe quod reddat unum Messuag and twenty acras prati in Dickelborough Linford Hamblets without naming any Town And thereupon the Iudgment was reversed And it was further found that in the said Writ of Error and the process upon it Hutt 106. 2 Cro. 574. 3 Cro. 196. no Writ of Scire facias issued to warn dictam Prudentiam ten existentem liberi ten praemissorum ad ostendendam quid haberet vel dicere sciret quare Judicium praedict non reversaretur The Iury further found that the said Margaret depending the said Writ of Error was possessed virtute Testamenti ultimae voluntatis dict Martini reversione inde expectant dictae Prudentiae pro ut lex postulat And they further found Error that six pound of the said tewlve pounds were unpaid to the said Margaret at the Feast c. and they found that the said John Frenze praetextu Judicii sic reversat entred into the premisses as Heir male ut supra And so seised a Fine was levyed betwixt John Frenze Plaintiff and one Edward Tindal Owen 157. Dyer 321. 1 Cro. 471. 739. and the said Prudence his Wife Deforceants and that was to the use of the said John Frenze And that afterwards Humphry Warburton and the said Margaret his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against the said John Frenze Edw. Tindal and Prudence his Wife of the said Lands The said Edward and Prudence made default and the Demandants counted against the said Frenze and demanded against him the moity of the third part of the said Lands To which the said Frenze pleaded that the default of the said Edward and Prudence idem John Frenze nomine non debet quia he said that he the said John was sole seised of the Lands aforesaid at the time of the Writ brought c. and pleaded in Bar and it was found against the said John and Iudgment given for the Demandants of the third part of the whole Land and seisin accordingly And that afterwards 17 Eliz. the said Frenze levyed the Fine to the said Tindal to the use of the said Tindal and his Heirs And they found that after the said Feast the said Henry Warburton and Margaret his Wife came to the Messuage aforesaid half an hour before Sun-set of the said day and there did demand the Debt of the said twelve pounds Dower to the said Margaret by the said Martin Frenze devised to be paid unto them and there remained till after Sun-set of the said day demanding the Rent aforesaid and that neither the said Tindal nor any other was there ready to pay the same And first it was moved if the said yearly sum of twelve pounds appointed to be paid to the said Margaret were a Rent or but a sum in gross And the opinion of the Court was that it was a Rent and so it might be fitly collected out of the whole Will where it is said that Prudence his Daughter should have the Land and that she should pay yearly to Margaret twelve pounds in recompence of her Dower c. But if it be not a Rent but a sum in gross it is not much material to the end of the case For put case it be a Rent the same not being pleaded in Bar the Dower is well recovered and then when default of payment is made if the Wife of the Devisor shall have the whole was the Question And the Court was clear of opinion that by the suit and Iudgment in the Writ of Dower the Wife of the Devisor had lost all the benefit which was to come to her by the devise For the said Rent was devised to her in recompence of
her Dower so as it was not the meaning of the Devisor that his Wife should have both And therefore by the Recovery in Dower she had dismissed her self of the Rent and by consequence of the benefit of the penalty for not payment of it CLXXXVIII Stephens Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Fines levyed to raise an use IN an Ejectione firmae the case was that the Father covenanted with one A. that in consideration of a Marriage to be had betwixt the Son of the Covenantor and the Daughter of A. that he before such a day would levy a Fine which Fine should be to the uses of the Son and Daughter in tail for the Ioynture of the Daughter The Fine is levyed accordingly to the uses aforesaid The Father dieth but in the Fine no mention is made of any marriage had And upon that matter the Court was clear of opinion that notwithstanding that the marriage was not accomplished yet the estate tail was well enough executed in the Son and Daughter for the Fine without any consideration doth carry the uses but without a Fine such a consideration would not raise such an use without accomplishment of the marriage for the consideration executed ought to produce the use But in this case the uses are perfected by the Fine and A. upon the matter might have had covenant against the Father to have the Fine before the marriage CLXXXIX Billford and Foxes Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BIllford brought an Action of Debt against Fox and his Wife Executrix of one A. her former Husband Debt process continued against them till the Exigent upon which the Husband appeared and put in a supersedeas for himself only 1 Cro. 118. without making mention of his Wife and the case being moved to the Iustices they demanded of the Prothonotaries what was to be done for the same is practise and a dangerous case for example And it was answered by the Prothonotaries that the Court cannot remedy it for now by the Supesedeas the Husband is sine die for he shall not be driven to answer without his Wife as this case is and he is impleaded as in the right of his Wife and therefore the Wife shall be waived Supersedeas by the Husband is not good for the Wife and the Husband discharged See the Book of Entries 187. Debt against the Husband and Wife and process continued until the Exigent the Husband rendred himself and the Wife was waive and Iudgment given quia videbatur Justiciariis hic that the Husband absque praefata uxore sua respondere non potuit ratoni dissonum sit ipsum in Curia hic cum in eadem loquela respondere non potuit ulterius detineri ideo eat inde sine die And so see 43 E. 3. 18. Detinue against the Husband and Wife the Wife is waive and the Husband rendred himself at the Exigent And the point of the Action was upon a bailment to the Wife dum sola suit and the Husband was sine die for he could not answer in such case without the Wife But at the last the Iustices advised thereof and gave order that the Supersedeas should by stayed without recording the appearance of the Husband And by Anthrobus one of the Attorneys of the Court that was the case of the Lady Malory and her Husband who were sued in an Action of Debt and process continued against them till the Exigent upon which the Husband appeared and put in a Supersedeas for himself without speaking of his Wife and his Supersedeas was not allowed but process continued until Out-lawry CXC The Queen against the Bishop of Canterbury and others Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Chichester and the Incumbent And counted Quare Impedit that Ashburnham was seised of the Advowson and that he was out-lawed in an Action personal at the suit of such a one and shewed the whole Out-lawry certain And Exception was taken to the Count because in the setting down of the Out-lawry the process is alledged to be returned by the Sheriff but the name of the Sheriff is not there expressed As to that it was agreed by the Court that the truth is that it is provided by the Statute of 12 E 2. cap. 5. That the Sheriffs in their returns put their names to the said Returns but it is not requisite so to plead it for the omitting thereof doth not make the Return void but the Sheriff shall be amerced Another matter was objected for that whereas the Patron had pleaded one plea and the Incumbent the same plea by himself in Bar. The Queen demurred in Law in this manner quoad seperalia placita per dictos 1 Cro. 140. Dyer 181 182. Ante 124. c. seperaliter placitat c. Dicta Domina Regina necesse non habet nec per legem terrae tenetur respondere And the Court was clear of opinion that the Demurrer ought to have been several upon the plea of the Patron by it self and upon the plea of the Incumbent by it self CXCI. Mallet and Ferrers Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass of Battery the parties were at Issue upon not guilty Damages increased of a Maim by the Court. and at the Nisi prius it appeared that the Thumb of the right hand of the Plaintiff was clear cut off and so maimed And it was found for the Plaintiff and damages taxed to forty pounds and now the party came in person into Court and prayed in respect of the heinousness of the Maim that the Court would encrease the damages Dyer 105. 1 Cro. 223. 544. Sty 310 311. which damages upon great consideration had were made one hundred pounds and Iudgment given accordingly See that the cutting off any of the Fingers is a Maim 28 E. 3. 54. by Stone and as for the damages further assessed by the Court than the damages taxed by the Iury See Book of Entries 46. 8 H. 4. 135. 39 E. 3. 20. CXCII Atkins and Hales Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Atkins of Lincolns-Inn brought a Writ of Forger of false Faits against Hale of Gloucester and counted upon the Forger of an Indenture Forger of false faits in quo continetur quod quidam Abbas Monasterii de Gloucester Demisit Situm Manerii de R. terras dominicales c. The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And it was given in evidence on the Plaintiffs part a Lease supposed to be made and forged containing that the said Abbot leased the said Site and all the demesne Lands of the said Manor exceptis duobus seperalibus clausuris inde c. vocat c. And it was moved if this Evidence doth not maintain the Issue And it was holden by the whole Court that the Evidence was good enough for it is not necessary to
construe terras Dominicales omnes terras Dominicales for the Lands not excepted are terrae Dominicales and so the Count is satisfied by that Evidence c. CXCIII Chamberlain and Stauntons Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CHamberlain brought Debt upon an Obligation against Staunton and upon non est factum Deeds and sealing of them Owen 95. the Iury found this special matter that the Defendant subscribed and sealed the said Obligation and cast it upon a certain Table and the Plaintiff took it without any other delivery or any other thing amounting to a delivery And the Court was clear of opinion that upon that matter the Iury had found against the Plaintiff and it is not like the case which was here lately adjudged that the Obligor subscribed and sealed the Obligation and cast it upon a Table saying these words this will serve the same was held to be a good delivery for here is a circumstance the speaking of these words by which the Will of the Obligor appeareth that it shall be his deed CXCIV Oldfield and Wilmers Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Arbitrament Postea 304. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded that the Obligation was endorced with condition that the Defendant should stand to the Award of I.S. c. who awarded that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff at such a day 100 l. or should find two sufficient Sureties to be bound with him to the Plaintiff to pay the said 100 l. to the Plaintiff by twenty pound a year until the whole sum be paid And pleads further that he had performed the said Award The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Defendant hath not paid unto him the said one hundred pounds and so in that assigned the breach of the Award and upon the Replication the Defendant doth demur in Law because by the pretence of the Award the Defendant had election either to pay the one hundred pounds at the day or to find two Sureties for the payment of it by twenty pounds per annum c. for so is the Award in the disjunctive But the Court was clear of opinion that the Replication was good for although that the Award be set down and conceived in words disjunctive yet in Law and in substance it is single for as to the finding of Suretis the Award is void and so nothing is awarded but the payment of the one hundred pounds at the day 1 Cro. 4. to which the Plaintiff in his Replication hath fully answered And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXCV. The Lord Dudley and Lacyes Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Audita querela THe Lord Dudley brought an Audita querela against Lacy and upon it a Scire facias against the same party And at the day it was moved by the Counsel of Lacy that in as much as no execution was sued against the person of the Lord upon the Statute Merchant in which the said Lord was bound to the said Lacy so as he was not in prison a Scire facias ought not to issue but a Venire facias And the Court was clear of opinion That it is at the election of the party grieved which of them he will sue scil a Scire facias or a Venire facias See 15 E. 4. 5. by Cooke Scire facias and Venire facias are all one in effect Another matter was moved on the part of Lacy 1 Cro. 208 384. That this Audita Querela ought to be sued in the Chancery and not in the Common Pleas. But the Court was clear of opinion that the party might sue in which of the Courts he would See 16 Eliz. Dyer 332. An Audita Querela upon a Statute Merchant directed to the Iustices of the Common Pleas but upon a Statute Staple the Suit shall be in the Chancery by Audita Querela directed to the Chancellor or by Scire facias directed to the Sheriff quod sit in Cancellaria c. CXCVI. Askew and the Earl of Lincolns Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ASkew was bound to the Earl of Lincoln in a Statute Staple Audita querela the Earl sued execution by which Askew was put in prison and now the friends of Askew offered the mony in Court and cast an Audita Querela for Askew and prayed he might be bailed and the mony remain in Court till the Audita Querela determined But the Earl presently demanded the mony to be delivered to him but the Court denied it and commanded the Prothonotaries to keep the mony until the Audita Querela were determined And let Askew to bail for the costs of suit CXCVII Ward and Blunts Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. WArd brought an Action of Trover and Conversion against Blunt of forty loads of Corn Trover and Conversion as unto twenty loads the Defendant pleaded not guilty and as to the residue a special plea upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff upon which issued a Writ of Enquiry of Damages which is returned It was moved that the Writ of Enquiry of Damages ought not to have issued forth for the Issue doth yet depend untryed and the Book of 34 H. 6. 1. was vouched and there the case was that in Trespass against many one of them made default after a plea pleaded Now a Writ of Enquiry of Damages shall be awarded but shall not issue forth until the plea of the others be tryed and if the Issue be tryed for the Plaintiff then the Enquest who tryed the Issue shall assess damages for the whole and if for the Defendant against the Plaintiff then the Writ which was awarded to issue forth See 44 E. 3. 7. Cook It is in the discretion of the Court to award such Writ or not which Wray granted but it is usual here to grant the Writ presently Gawdy The case in 39 H. 6. is not like this case for in this case the Trespass is divided and as it were apportioned in twenty loads and twenty loads but in the other case not CXCVIII. Smith and Bustards Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 666. IN an Ejectione firmae it was found by special verdict that one S. was seised of Lands and leased the same to F. for 31 years 10 Co. 129. yeilding and paying twenty pounds per annum at the Font-stone in the Temple Church the Land it self lying in Essex upon the Feasts of the Annunciation of our Lady and St Michael or within twelve days after either of the said Feasts by even portions upon condition that if the said Rent or any part thereof be unpaid by the said space of twelve days Proxime post aliquod festorum vel dierum solutionis inde that then it should be lawful for the Lessor to re-enter T. assigned his interest to Bustard the Defendant at Michaelmas the Rent is behind and the twelfth day after the Lessor
and God forbid that Bread and the baking of it should be restrained to any special person especially in a Market Town And as to the case of the Prior of Dunstable that is not to the purpose for there he prescribed to have a Market and the correction of it and the fault there is not in the usurping of a Market in Nusance of the Plaintiff but because the Defendant sold meat there secretly so as the Plaintiff could not have the correction of it See 22 H. 6. 14. And it is not reasonable that such profits be restrained and drawn from the publick good to the private commodity of any person And he cited a case which was ruled in the Exchequer 9 Eliz. upon an Information exhibited there by the Burgesses of Southampton that the King had granted to the Burgesses of Southam that all the sweet Wines brought within the Realm should be unladen at Southam only Grant of the King void And it was agreed by Wray that such a grant was not good to deprive the Common-wealth of such a benefit and to appropriate it to one which might be profitable to many And it was further said by the Lord Wray that if the King will grant by his Letters Patents that A.B. shall be of Counsel only with the Defendant in the Chancery and C.B. with the Plaintiffs in the Exchequer Chamber the same is no good grant c. CC. Park against Moss and How. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Intrat Hill. 31 Rot. 31. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 181. More 352. 1 Roll. 893. IN an Action upon the Case upon Trover and Conversion The Defendant pleaded that one A. recovered in Debt against I. P. Executor of E. P. one hundred pounds and twenty pounds in Damages The Debt of the goods of the Testator and the Damages of the goods of the Testator si quae fuerint and if not of the goods of the Executor Vpon which A. procured a Fieri facias directed to the Sheriff of N. who made his Warrant to the Defendants to execute the said Writ And before Execution I. P. died intestate and administration was committed to the Plaintiff and the Defendants afterwards did execution of the proper goods of I. P. and sold them and deliver'd the mony to the Sheriff which is the same Trover and Conversion and averred that E. P. had no other goods The Plaintiff by Replication said that the Sheriff upon return of the said Writ of Execution returned as to the principal Debt That the goods of the Testator were wasted and as to the Damages that he could not execute the Writ quia tarde Tanfield I conceive that the false return of the Sheriff shall not make the Defendant punishable for they did execution secundum exigentiam brevis and delivered the monies coming thereby to the Sheriff and if they should not be excused it should be a great inconvenience for it is necessary that the Sheriff have inferiour Officers under him As 37 H. 6. an Executor named in the Will named one to take the goods of the Testator in such a place who did accordingly and afterwards the Executor doth refuse yet the servant shall not be punished for that medling 13 H. 7. 2. 21 H. 7. 23. Where it is said by Read chief Iustice that if the Baily delivereth the body of one who he hath taken in Execution to the Sheriff he shall be excused although that the Sheriff doth not return the Capias And we have pleaded in this case that we have delivered the mony to the Sheriff and that is confessed by the demurrer Altham I conceive that this Execution after the death of the party is not good For an Administrator is another person wherefore new process shall issue against him as in all cases where the person is changed 18 E. 3. If one sueth a Certificate out of a Statute and before execution had he dieth his Executors shall not have execution upon that Certificate but first they ought to have a Scire facias And 28 H. 8. Dyer 29. Transcript of a Fine is removed by the Ancestor out of the Treasury into the Chancery and comes in by Mittimus to have execution and the Ancestor dieth before Execution Now the Heir cannot proceed without a new Mittimus for he is another person See 36 H. 8. Br. Statute Merchant 43. and in our case here at the time of the Execution these are not the goods of the Executor for he is not in esse and it ought to appear whose goods they are which are taken in Execution If Lands be recovered against the Father who dieth and the Heir be ousted by Execution without a Scire facias against the Heir he shall have an Assise And 6 E. 6. Dyer 76. is our case A. is condemned in Debt and a Fieri facias is awarded and before execution A. dieth intestate The Sheriff levyed the Debt upon the goods of the Intestate in the hands of the Administrators upon which the Administrators brought Error and reversed the Execution Tanfield The Execution is erronious but is not void but shall stand until it be reversed by Error And it was holden by the whole Court that the false return of the Sheriff should not prejudice the Defendants At another day it was moved again and it was holden that the averment that the goods put in Execution were the goods of the Testator the day of the Writ of Execution sued was a good averment without saying Execution against an Administrator after the death of the Intestate of the Intestates goods good Execution shall relate to the date of the Writ 3 Cro. 106 330 1 Roll. 893. The day of Execution done for the award of the Writ of Execution shall bind all his goods against whom the Iudgment was given which he had at the day of the Writ of Execution awarded And it was also holden That notwithstanding the death of the party against whom c. The Sheriff might do execution of the goods of the dead in the hands of his Executors according to the opinion of Bryan 16 H. 7. 6. and afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCI. Carie and Denis Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Vpon a Latitat the Sheriff returned Retorn of the Sheriff That by vertue of the said process he had arrested the Body of the Defendant and that such a day after and before the Return of the Latitat a Habeas Corpus came to him to bring the body immediately into the Chancery which was done accordingly and there the Prisoner was discharged by the Order of the said Court And the same was holden a good Return for the Sheriff is bound to obey the Kings Writs and to execute them and he cannot compel the party to put in Sureties to appear here And the truth was That the party was brought before the Master of the Rolls and he did discharge him And per
Curiam the same is no offence in the Court but it was an ill act of the Master of the Rolls For we oftentimes have persons here upon Habeas Corpus who are also arrested by Process out of the Exchequer or of the Common Pleas but we will not discharge them before they have found Sureties for their appearance c. and so the said Courts use to do reciprocally and we cannot punish the Sheriff for the Hebas Corpus was first returnable before the Latitat but the party may have an action against the Sheriff but we will speak with the Master of the Rolls c. and afterwards Baill was put in But afterwards another Exception was taken to the Return scil a custodia nostra exoneratus fuit which might be intended as to the Cause in the Chancery only and not for the Cause here for he hath not alledged that he hath not alledged That he was committed to any other in custody and for that cause day was given to the Sheriff to amend his Return CCII. Upton and Wells Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae by Upton against Wells Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and upon the habere facias possessionem The Sheriff retuned that in the Execution of the said Writ he took the Plaintiff with him and came to the house recovered and removed thereout a woman and two children which were all the persons which upon diligent search he could find in the said house and delivered to the Plaintiff peaceable possession to his thinking and afterwards departed and immediately after three other persons which were secretly lodged in the said house expulsed the Plaintiff again 2 Len. 12 13. Latch 165. upon notice of which he returned again to the said house to put the Plaintiff in full possession but the other did resist him so as without peril of his life and of them that were with him in company he could not do it And upon this Return the Court awarded a new Writ of execution for that the same was no Execution of the first Writ and also awarded an Attachment against the parties CCIII Marsh and Astreys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 175. MArsh brought an Action upon the Case against Astrey and declared That he had procured a Writ of Entry sur disseisin against one A. and thereupon had a summons for Lands in London and delivered the said Summons to Astrey being Vnder-Sheriff of the same County virtute cujus the said Astrey summoned the said A. upon the Land but notwithstanding that did not return the said Summons Astrey pleaded Not guilty And it was tryed in London where the action was brought for the Plaintiff and it was moved by Cook in arrest of Iudgment That here is a mis-trial for this issue ought to be tryed in the County where the Land is because that the cause is local but the Exception was not allowed for the action is well layed in London and so the trial there also is good Trial. Another Exception was moved because the action ought to be against the Sheriff himself and not against the Vnder-Sheriff for the Sheriff is the Officer to the Court and all Returns are in his Name and I grant that an action for any falsity or deceit lyeth against the Vnder-Sheriff as for embesseling rasing of Writs c. but upon Non feasans as the Case is here the not Retorn of the Summons it ought to be brought against the Sheriff himself See 41 E. 3. 12. And if the Vnder-Sheriff take one in Execution and suffereth him to escape debt lyeth against the Sheriff himself Another Exception was taken because the Declaration is that the said Astrey Intendens machinans ipsum querent in actione sua praedict prosequend impedire c. did not retorn the said Summons but doth not say tunc exist Vnder-Sheriff Snag contrary If a Baily Errant of the Sheriff take one in Execution and he suffer him to escape an action lieth against the Baily himself And that was agreed in the Case of a Baily of Middlesex and Sir Richard Dyer Sheriff of Huntington and his Vnder-Sheriff who suffered a Prisoner to escape the action was brought against the Vnder-Sheriff for it may be the Sheriff himself had not notice of the matter because the Writ was delivered to the Vnder-Sheriff and he took a Fee for it and therefore it is reason that he shall be punished As if a Clerk in an Office mis-enter any thing he himself shall be punished and not the Master of the Office because he takes a fee for it But if the Retorn made by the Baily be insufficient Then the Sheriff himself shall be amerced but in the principal case it is clear That the action lieth against the Vnder-Sheriff if the party will and such was the opinion of Gawdy and Clench As to the other matter because it is not alledged in the Declaration That the Defendant was Vnder-Sheriff at the time the Declaration is good enough notwithstanding that for so are all the Presidents and if the Defendant were not Vnder-Sheriff the same shall come in of the other side See 21 E. 4. 23. And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCIV. Hedd and Chaloners Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 176. 2 Roll. 42. 176. IN an Ejectione firmae by Hedd against Chaloner upon a Demise for years of Jane Berd It was found by especial Verdict That William Berd was seised in fee made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life afterward to the use of his two Daughters Joan Alice in fee and died and Joan entred into the Land and by Indenture by the name of Jane Berd leased the same to the Plaintiff for three years And it was further found That Joan intended in the Feoffment and Jane who leased are one and the same person Wray It hath been agreed here upon good advice and Conference with Grammarians that Joan and Jane are but one Name And Women because Joan seems to them a homely name would not be called Joan but Jane But admit that they were several Names Then he and Gawdy were of opinion it should not be good But afterwards it was said by Gawdy That this action is not grounded meerly upon the Indenture but upon the Demise and that is the substance and the Indenture is but to enforce it sci the lease 44 E. 3. 42. Another matter was moved here the remainder was limited to Joan and Alice in fee by which they are Ioint Tenants and then when one of them enters the same vests the possession in them both Then by the demise of Joan a moyety passeth only to the Plaintiff Wray Here the Term is incurred and the Plaintiff is to recover damages only and no title at all is found for the Defendant and so there is no cause but that Iudgment should be given for
the Plaintiff and thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCV Read and Nashes Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an action of Trespass by Read and his Wife against Nash for entring into a house called the Dayry-house upon Not guilty pleaded The Iury found this special matter Sir Richard Gresham Knight was seised in Fee of the Mannours of I. and S. and of diverse other Lands mentioned in his Will and 3 Edw. 6. devised the same to Sir Thomas Gresham his Son for life the Remainder to the first son of the said Sir Thomas Gresham in tail the Remainder to the second son c. the Remainder to the third son c. The Remainder to Sir John Gresham his brother Proviso That if his Son go about or made any Alienations or discontinuance c. whereby the premisses cannot remain descend and come in the form as was appointed by the said Will otherwise than for Ioyntures for any of their Wives for her life only or leases for 21. years whereupon the old and accustomed Rent shall be reserved That then such person shall forfeit his estate Sir John Gresham dyed Sir Thomas Gresham his son built a new House upon the Land and 4 Mariae leased to Bellingford for one and twenty years rendring the antient Rent And afterwards 2 Eliz. he levyed a fine of the said Manours and of all his Lands and 5 Eliz. he made a Iointure to his Wife in this manner sci He covenanted with certain persons to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of his Right Heirs and afterwards 18 Eliz. he leased unto Read and his wife for one and twenty years to begin presently which was a year before the expiration of the said Lease made unto Bellingford which Lease being expired Read entred It was argued by Cook That here upon the words contained in the Proviso Sir Thomas had power and authority not being but Tenant for life to make a Lease for years or Iointure and that upon implication of the Will which ought to be taken construed according to the intent of the parties for his meaning was to give a power as well as an estate otherwise the word otherwise should be void and it is to be observed That the parties interessed in the said conveyance were Knights and it is not very likely That the said Sir Richard Gresham did intend that they should keep the Lands in their own manurance as Husbandmen but set the same to Farm for Rent And it is great Reason although he willeâ— that the order of his Inheritance should be preserved yet to make a Provision for Iointure and it is great reason and cause to his family to enable and make them capable of great Matches which should be a strengthning to his posterity which could not be without great Iointures wherefore I conceive it reasonable to construe it so That here they have power to make Iointures for their Wives It hath been said That no grant can be taken by implication as 12 E. 3. Tit. Avow 77. Land was given to I. and A. his wife and to the heirs of the body of I. begotten and if I. A. dy without heir of their bodies betwixt them begotten that then it remain to the right heirs of I. and it was holden that the second clause did not give an estate tail to the wife by implication being in a grant but otherwise it is in Case of a devise as 13 H. 7. 17. and there is no difference as some conceive when the devise is to the heir and when to a stranger but these cases concern matter of Interest but our case concerns an Authority And admit that Sir Thomas hath power and authority to make this lease Then we are to consider if the Iointure be good for if it be Then being made before the Lease Use cannot rise out of a power it shall take effect before and the woman Iointress is found to be alive But I conceive That this Iointure is void and then the Lease shall stand for an use cannot rise out of a power but may rise out of an estate of the Testator and out of his Will 19 H. 6. A man deviseth That his Executors shall sell his reversion and they sell by Word it is a good Sale for now the Reversion passeth by the Will. But an use cannot be raised out of an use and a man cannot bargain and sell Land to another use than of the Bargainee And it is like unto the case of 10 E. 4 5. The disseisee doth release unto the disseisor rendring Rent the render is void for a rent cannot issue out of a right so an use cannot be out of a Release by the disseisee for such release to such purpose shall not enure as an Entry and Feoffment Also here after that conveyance Sir Thomas hath built and erected a New house and no new Rent is reserved upon it and therefore here it is not the ancient Rent for part of the sum is going out of the new house But as to that It was said by the Iustices do not speak to that for it appears that the Rent is well enough reserved Another matter was moved for that That a year before the Expiration of the Lease made to Billington this Lease was made to Reâ—d for 21 years to begin presently from the date of it although by the same authority he cannot make Leases in Reversion for then he might charge the Inheritance in infinitum But yet such a Lease as here is he might make well enough for this Lease is to begin presently and so no charge to him in the Reversion as in the Case betwixt Fox and Colliers upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. A Bishop makes a Lease for three years before the Expiration of a former Lease to begin presently It was holden a good Lease to bind the Successor for the Inheritance of the Bishop is not charged above one and twenty years in toto But if a Bishop make a Lease for years and afterwards makes a Lease for three lives the same is not good 8 Eliz. Dy. 246. Tenant in tail leaseth to begin at Michaelmas next ensuing for twenty years it is a good Lease by the Statute of 32 H. 8. so is a lease for 10 years and after for eleven years and yet the Statutes are in the Negative but this power in our Case is in the Affirmative and the Inheritance is not charged in the whole with more than one and twenty years CCVI. Kinnersly and Smarts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 〈◊〉 upon a usurious Contract 1 Cro 155. IN Debt upon a Bond The Plaintiff declared That the Bond was made in London The Defendant pleaded That an usurious Contract was made betwixt the parties at D. in Stafford-shire that the Obligation was made for the same contract The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Bond was made bona
be a strange construction that the King should be within one part of the Statute and out of the other And 34 H. 6. 3. The Kings Attorney could not have damages which is a great proof and authority that the Iudgment for damages in such case is Error The experience and usage of Law is sufficient to interpret the same to us and from the time of E. 3. until now no damages have been given in such case Thrice this matter hath been in question 1. 3 H. 9. and the Iustices there would not give damages 34 H. 6. there the Councel learned of the King could not have damages for the King. And 7 Eliz. there was no damages And whereas it hath been said that a man shall not have a Writ of Error where Iudgment is given for his benefit that if Iudgment be entred that the Defendant be in Misericordia where it ought to be Capiatur yet the Defendant shall have a Writ of Error And he conceived also that here is but one Iudgment Clench The first President after the making of that Statute was that damages were given for the King in such case but afterwards the practice was always otherwise that the said Statute could not be construed to give in such case damages the reason was because the Iustices took the Law to be otherwise And the King is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of buying of Tythes nor any Subjects who buy any title of him And here in our case the Queen is not verus Patronus but hath this presentment by Prerogative And if title do accrue to the Bishop to present for Lapse yet the Patron is verus Patronus At another day the case was moved and it was said by VVray that he had conferred with Anderson Manwood and Periam who held that the Queen could not have damages in this case but Periam somewhat doubted of it Gawdy In 22 E. 4. 46. In Dower the Demandant recovered her Dower and damages by verdict and afterwards for the damages the Iudgment was reversed and stood for the Lands Clench It shall be reversed for all for there is but one Iudgment And afterwards Iudgment was given and that the Queen should have a Writ to the Bishop and damages Popham The Court ought not to proceed to the examination of the Errors without a Petition to the Queen and that was the case of one Mordant where an Infant levyed a Fine to the Queen and thereupon brought a Writ of Error and afterwards by the Resolution of all the Iudges the proceedings thereupon were stayed See 10 H. 4. 148. a good case CCVIII Chapman and Hursts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BEtwixt Chapman and Hurst Tythes the Defendant did libel in the spiritual Court for Tythes against the Plaintiff who came and surmised that whereas he held certain Lands by the Lease of Sir Ralph Sadler for term of years within such a Parish that the now Defendant being Farmor of the Rectory there The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised and agreed to pay to the Defendant ten pounds per annum during the Term for his Tythes he promised that the Plaintiff should hold his said Land without Tythes and without any sute for the same and thereupon prayed a Prohibition And by Gawdy the same is a good discharge of the Tythes for the time and a good Composition to have a Prohibition upon and it is not like unto a Covenant See 8 E. 4. 14. by Danby CCIX. Kirdler and Leversages Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Avowry the case was Avowry 1 Cro. 241. that A. seised of Lands leased the same at Will rendring rent ten pounds per annum and afterwards granted eundem redditum by another deed to a stranger for life and afterwards the lease at will is determined Periam was of opinion that the Rent did continue and although that the words be eundem redditum yet it is not to be intended eundem numero sed eundem specie so as he shall have such a Rent scil ten pounds per annum As where the King grants to such a Town easdem libertates quas Civitas Chester habet it shall be intended such Liberties and not the same Liberties so in the principal case Also he held that a Rent at will cannot be granted for life and therefore it shall not be meant the same Rent But it was afterwards adjudged that the Rent was well granted for the life of the Grantee CCX Heayes and Alleyns Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Cui in vita 1 Cro. 234. Poph. 13. HEayes brought a sur cui in vita against Alleyn And the case was this The Discontinuee of a Messuage had other Lands of good and indefesible title adjoining to it and demolisht and abated the said house and built another which was larger so as part of it extended upon his own Land to which he had good title And afterwards the heir brought a sur cui in vita and demanded the house by the Name of a Messuage whereas part of the house did extend into the Land to which he had no right And by Periam The Writ ought to be of a Messuage with an Exception of so much of the house which was erected upon the soil of the Tenant Demand and the manner of it in a writ as demand of a Messuage except a Chamber And it was argued by Yelverton That the Writ ought to abate for if the Demandant shall have Iudgment according to his Writ then it shall be entred quod petens recuperet Messuagium which should be Erronious for it appeareth by the verdict it self that the demandant hath not title to part of it and therefore he ought to have demanded it specially 5 H. 7. 9. parcel of Land containing 10 Feet 16 E. 3. Br. Mortdanc of a piece of Land containing so much in breadth and so much in length And the moyetie of two parts of a Messuage and 33 E. 3. br Entrie 8. a Disseisor of a Marsh ground made Meadow of it Now in a Writ of Entry it shall be demanded for Meadow Drue Serjeant contrary and he confessed the Cases put before and that every thing shall be demanded by Writ in such sort as it is at the time of the action brought as a Writ of Dower is brought of two Mills whereas during the Coverture they were but 2 Tofts but at the day of the Writ brought Mills and therefore shall be demanded by the name of Mills 14 H. 4. 33. Dower 21. 13 H. 4. 33. 175. 1 H. 5. 11. Walmesly part of a Msseuage may be demanded by the Name of a Messuage and if a House descend to two Coparceners if they make partition that one of them shall have the upper Chamber and the other the lower here if they be disseised they shall have several Assisses and each of them shall make his plaint of a Messuage and by him a Chamber may be
five pounds and that the Obligation was sealed before the day of the Assumpsit supposed and added that the same is the same debt and that the Obligation was made for the same debt And by the opinion of the whole Court the same cannot be a good plea for an Obligation cannot deraign a Contract or an Assumpsit afterwards made And the truth of the matter was that the Obligation was made after the Assumpsit although that the Plaintiff declared of an Assumpsit made after And in that case it was holden that the Defendant might plead the special matter that the Obligation was made after the said Assumpsit absque hoc that he Assumpsit c. CCXV Hawkins and Lawse Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt HAwkins brought an Action of Debt against Lawse Executor of one A. for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years made to the Testator 3 Cro. 62 63. The Defendant pleaded fully administred and upon the Evidence it appeared that the said A. made the Defendant his Executor and that he did meddle with the possession of divers goods of the Testaor and so administred and afterwards â—â—â—used in Court and that the Administration was afterwards committed to one B. and that the Inventory of the goods of the Testator came to one thousand pounds And it was given in Evidence for the Defendant that he himself had paid certain debts and that divers persons have recovered against the Administrator divers sums of money amounting to one thousand pounds ultra And it was moved if that evidence did maintain the Issue for the Defendant because that the Defendant had pleaded plene adminstravit which implies an Administration by himself And now upon the Evidence it appeareth that the greatest part of the goods of the Testator were administred by the Administrator Periam If that Administrator who in truth is but a stranger pay any debts with the goods of the Testator without commandment of the Executor the same is not an Administration Administration and the Executor cannot give such matter in Evidence to prove his plea of fully administred Drew Serjeant If an Executor of his own wrong 3 Cro. 62 63. meddle with the goods of the Testator and afterwards the Administrator meddle with the residue and administer them In Debt against the Executor who pleads fully administred if he can prove that he himself hath administred part and the Administrator the Residue the same is good Evidence to maintain his Issue Periam It may be so there but here in our case the Defendant is the very Executor and he hath administred in which case afterwards he cannot refuse and so the Administration is not well committed and is granted without cause and he to whom the Administration is committed is a meer stranger and what he did was without warrant and therefore it is no Administration to prove the Issue And then the whole matter by direction of the Court was found by special verdict And by Periam in this case an Action may be brought either against the Executor of his own wrong or the Administrator but not against both of them joyntly See 21 H. 6. 8. by Yelverton and Portington Periam If the Testator mortgages a Lease for years and dyes and the Executors redeem it with their own monyes the said Lease shall be Assets in their hands for so much as the same is worth above the sum which they have paid for the redemption of it CCXVI Ivory and Fryes Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was ruled by the whole Court in this case That if A. make B. his Executor and B. makes C. his Executor and dieth and a Debt is due to A. the first Testator If C. bring an Action of Debt for the said Debt as Executor to B. the Writ shall abate It was moved if an Infant within the age of one and twenty years be made Executor and administration is committed durante minore aetate in whose name the Action shall be brought in the name of the Infant or the Administrator Periam If the Will be proved before the Administration be committed the Action shall be brought in the name of the Infant Executor CCXVII Read and Johnsons Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case betwixt Read and Johnson Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared that where the Defendant was endebted to him 1 Cro. 242. he assumed to pay it And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded this special matter was found that the Plaintiff â—ased unto the Defendant certain Lands for years rendring rent eight pounds per annum and that the said Rent was behind for three years and that the Defendant was not otherwise endebted to the Plaintiff nor made any other promise but the contract upon the Reservation of the Rent And by the clear opinion of the whole Court the Action doth not lye because he hath a proper Action scil an Action of Debt in which no wager of Law lyeth CCXVIII Wright and the Bishop of Norwiches Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas Quare Impedit Dy. 348. 360. IN a Quare Impedit betwixt Wright and the Bishop of Norwich it was moved if the King hath title to present for Lapse and presents and his Clerk is admitted and instituted but not inducted and dyeth before Induction If now the King shall present for the said Lapse because the Church was not full against the King. And the Iustices were all clear of opinion that the King might repeal such presentment before induction And as to the principal matter the Court seemed to incline that the King might present again CCXIX. Whiskon and Cleytons Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot. 1160. Devises IN an Ejectione firmae upon a special verdict found the case was this That C. was seised in Fee and devised the same to Solomon Whiskon his God-son after the death of his Wife and if he fail then he willed all his part to the discretion of his Father and died Solomon survived Post 283. the Father being dead before without any disposition of the Land. Gawdy was of opinion that upon those words that the Father had a Fee-simple as I will that my Lands shall be at the disposition of I. S. by these words I. S. hath a Fee-simple quod Periam concessit and they amount to as much as I will my Land to I. S. to give and sell at his pleasure And by Windham and Periam there is no difference where the Devise is that I. S. shall do with the Land at his discretion and the devise thereof to I. S. to do with it at his discretion CCXX Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A leased to B. for years and before the expiration of the said Term leased the same by Indenture to a stranger to begin presently and the first Lessee committed Wast A. brought an Action of Wast against the
second Lessee and declared upon a Lease made for years without speaking of the Indenture And Gawdy Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court if the Defendant might safely plead no Wast And they conceived that it should be dangerous so to do Then it was demanded if the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff had nothing tempore dimissionis whereof he had counted if the Plaintiff might estop the Defendant by the Indenture although he had not counted upon it and if such Replication be not a departure And it seemed to Periam and Leonard Custos brevium that it was not for it is not contrary to the Declaration but rather doth enforce the Declaration CCXXI Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAlmesley Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court upon this matter Land is given to Husband and Wife in special tail during the Coverture they have issue the Husband is attainted of Treason and dieth the Wife continues in as Tenant in tail the issue is restored by Parliament and made inheritable to his Father saving unto the King all advantages which were devolded unto him by the Attainder of his Father the Wife dieth And he conceived that the issue was inheritable for the Attainder which disturbed the inheritance is removed and the blood is restored and nothing can accrue to the King for the Father had not any estate forfeitable but all the estate did survive to the Wife not impeachable by the said Attainder And when the Wife dieth then is the Issue capable to enherit the estate tail Windham and Rhodes prima facie thought the contrary yet they agreed that if the Wife had suffered a common Recovery the sâ—me had bound the King. CCXXII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Assumpsit that he had delivered to the Defendant diversa bona ad valentiam 10 li. the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise to pay to the Plaintiff the Debt owing pro bonis praedictis and did not shew that the Defendant bought the said goods of the Plaintiff and so it doth not appear that there was any Debt and then a promise to pay it is meerly void which was agreed by the whole Court. CCXXIII. Seaman and Brownings Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. GEorge Seaman brought Debt upon a Bond against W. Browning and others Executors of one Marshal the condition was Debt that where the said Marshal had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff if the said Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoy the said Lands against the said Marshal c. and assigned the breach in this that the said Marshal had entred upon him and cut down five Elms there upon which the parties were at issue And it was found that A. servant of the said Marshal by commandment of his said Master had entred and cut c. in the presence of his said Master and by his commandment for he is a principal Trespassor And it was so holden by the Court. CCXXIV. Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IF the Kings Tenant by Knights service dieth his Heir within age 8 Co. 172. and upon Office found the King seiseth the Body and Land yet the Heir during the possession of the King may sell the Lands by Deed enrolled or make a Lease of such Land and the same shall bind the Heir notwithstanding the possession of the King but if he maketh a Feoffment in Fee it is utterly void for the same is an intrusion upon the possession of the King but where the King by Office found is entituled to the Inheritance as that his Tenant dieth without Heir whereas it is false for which the King seiseth in such case the Tenant of the King before his Ouster le mayne cannot make a Lease for years or sell the Land by Deed enrolled The Case depended in London before the Iudges of the Sheriffs Court. The King by colour of a false Office which doth falsly entitle him to the Inheritance is seised of certain Land he who hath right leased the same for years by Deed indented and then an Ouster le mayne was sued and he enfeoffed a stranger And it was holden that the Lease should not bind the Feoffee although it was by Deed indented for the Feoffee is a stranger to the Indenture and therefore shall not be estopped by it 18 H. 6. 22. A stranger shall not take advantage of an Estoppel and therefore shall not be bound by it As if one take a Lease for years by Indenture of his own Lands the same shall bind him but if he dieth without Heir it shall not bind the Lord in point of Escheat CCXXV. Gibbs Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 861. Owen 27. GIbbs brought an Action upon the Case upon Trover and Conversion of a Gelding and the Case was that one P. had stolen the said Horse and sold the same unto the Defendant in open Market by the name of Lister and the said false name was entred in the Toll-book And it was holden clear by the Court that by that sale the property was not altered CCXXVI Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Owen 45. Hutton 105. 1 Cro. 734. Post 322. TEnant in Socage leased his Lands for four years and died his Heir within the age of eight years the Mother being Guardian in Socage leased the Land by Indenture to the same Lessee for fourteen years It was holden by the Court that in this Case the first lease is surrendred but otherwise upon a Lease made by Guardian by Nurture CCXXVII Kimpton and Dawbenets Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass the Defendant did justifie by a grant of the Land where c. by Copy The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Land is customary Land ut supra and claimed the same by a former Copy The Defendant by Rejoynder saith that well and true it is that the Lord may grant Copies in possession at his pleasure and also estates by Copy in Reversion with the assent of the Copy-holder in possession but all estates granted by Copy in Reversion without such assent have been void It was argued that this custom is not good for it is not reason that the Lord in disposing of the customary possessions of his Manor should depend upon the will of his Tenant at will and the same is not like to the case of Attornment for there the Attendancy is to be respited which is not to be done here for the Copy-holder in possession shall continue attendant to his Lord notwithstanding such a grant in Reversion And see for the unreasonableness of the custom 19 Eliz. 357. in Dyer Sallfords Case It was moved on the other side that the Custom was good enough and 3 H. 6. 45. was vouched That every Freehold of a Manour upon alienation might surrender his Land c. It was adjourned CCXXVIII Marriot and Pascalls Case in a Writ of
Charters of Corporations there is always such a clause per tale nomen implacitare implacitari acquirere c. possint and without their Name they are but a Trunk but contrary in the case of particular persons Land is given primogenito filio J. S. It is a good gift although there be no Name of Baptism Lands given omnibus filiis J. S. is a good name of purchase and if a man be bound in an obligation by a wrong or false Name and in an action brought upon the same if it appeareth upon evidence that he was the same person which sealed and delivered it the same is sufficient and the Bond shall bind him But contrary in the case of a Corporation and we cannot give any thing to a Corporation by circumstances inducing or implying their true name As Land given to the first Hospital which the Queen shall found Ante. 161 162. although that it sufficiently appear That such a one was the Hospital which the Queen first founded yet the gift is void And he denied That the four things remembred before are necessarily required in the Name of a Corporation for if the Queen will found a Corporation as an Hospital by the Name of Utopia the same is well enough without any respect of persons place Founder c. set forth in the Charter And also other things besides the said four things are sometimes necessary in a Corporation As if the Queen will found an Hospital by the Name Quod fundavimus ad roga Christ Hatton Cancel Angliae all the same ought to be expressed in every grant made by or to the said Hospital So Quod fundavimus ad relevandum pauperes and sometimes the number of the persons incorporated if it be in the Charter it ought to be used in all acts made by or to them As Master and sir Chaplains so as the said four things recited before are not so necessary in the Name of a Corporation but so far forth as they are parcel of the Name given to them in the Charter of the Corporation And in our case 1. The place de le Savoy is part of their name set down in the Charter of their Corporation and therefore the same ought to be precisely followed And he relyed much upon the argument of Cook in noting material variances betwixt de le Savoy and vocat le Savoy as de signifies part vocat the whole de signifies the place de facto vocat implyes reputation only There is a place near unto Whitehal called Scotland because that the Kings of Scotland when they came to our Parliament used there to reside as the Lord Treasurer affirmed There is also a place in England called Normandy and another called Callais and also a place here in Westminster called Jerusalem but these Scotland c. but by Reputation so as what difference is betwixt the very Scotland and Scotland here c. such and so much difference is there betwixt the Hospital de le Savoy and the Hospital vocat the Savoy And as to that which hath been objected by Atkinson That that word de signifies as well the whole as part as a Rent granted percipiend de Manerio de D. I confess that this word de hath many significations so that we ought not only to consider what de signifyes of it self but rather to observe what goes before what follows for as saith Hillary intelligentia verborum ex causa dicendi sumenda est And this word de is a material word in the Name of a man therefore also in the name of a Corporation 26 H. 6. 31. Assise by I. de S. and it was found for him and afterwards the Tenant in the Assise brought attaint and in the rehersal of the Assise in the writ of attaint he was named I.S. leaving out de and for that cause the Writ did abate 28 E. 3. 92. Debt brought by the Executor of John Holbech where the Testament was John de Holbech and for want of this word de in the Writ it was abated by Award And in a Praecipe quod reddat against Mich. de Triage he cast a Protection for Michael Triage leaving out de and for such variance the Protection was disallowed and a Petit cape awarded And although the Iudges in their private knowledge know well enough That the Hospital de le Savoy and the Hospital vocat the Savoy be all one yet in point of Iudgment they ought not otherwise receive information but out of the Record and therefore if sufficient matter be not within the Record to inform the Iudges of the Identity of the said two Hospitals their private knowledge shall not avail And he cited the cause of the Lord Conniers where the Parties being at issue and the Iury charged for the trial of it It was found by special verdict That a fine was levyed of the Lands in Question c. but nothing found of the Proclamations whereas in truth the Proclamations were as well given in evidence as the fine But found Quod finis levatus fuit prout per recordum finis ipsius in evidenciis ostensum plenius apparet Now in that case although that the Iustices knew well enough That the Proclamations were expressly given in evidence yet because it did not appear unto them as Iudges out of the Record They would not give Iudgment according to the truth of matter but according to the Record for they cannot take notice if the Proclamations be in the Chirographers Office or not But after it appeared unto them That that defect was but a slip of the Clerk they commanded the Record to be brought before them and the Proclamation to be inserted in the verdict and then gave Iudgment according to the verdict reformed as aforesaid And as to the Case of Martin Colledge cited before he said he was of Councel in it and he knew That the Iudgment there was not given for the cause alledged by Cook but because that this word Scholars was left out in the Lease And he held that if in the principal Case the Lease had been That the Master and Chaplains of the house called the Hospital of the Savoy c. it had been well enough for there is de le Savoy See a good case 36 H. 6. fitz Brief 485. by Danby a Corporation cannot be Tenants of Lands but according to their Corporation and their foundation and their very Name nor they cannot be impleaded nor take Lands by a wrong Name nor purchase nor dispose of their possessions but by their true Name And afterwards the matter was compounded by the mediation of Friends and Fanshaw had the Lease for a certain sum of mony See now Cook 10 Report The Case of the Mayor and Burgesses of Lyn Regis See also Cook 11. Report 18. Doctor Arays Case to this purpose CCXXIX Huson and Webbs Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RObert Huson brought an action of Debt against Anne Webb Debt lieth not against
Executor of an Administrator 1 Cro. 121. Yel 20. 9 Co. 87. Administratrix of Joan Webb and declared of a Contract without specialty The Defendant pleaded That she had fully administred and it was found against her And now it was moved for the Defendant That upon the matter an action of Debt doth not lye against the Executor or Administratrix which was granted by the Court. But the doubt was If now forasmuch as the Defendant by pleading the plea above hath admitted the action she shall now take advantage of the Law in that point For the reason why this action doth not lye against an Executor or Administrator is because the Testator himself might have waged his Law if he had been impleaded upon it and by intendment of Law the Executor or Administrator cannot have notice of such a Debt or of the discharge of it But now by answering to the Declaration as above the Defendant hath taken notice of the Debt and in manner confessed it And by Rhodes and Anderson Iudgment shall be given against the the Plaintiff because it is apparent to the Court that the action doth not lye And by Anderson If Iudgment be entred against the Administratrix in such an action upon Nihil dicit the Court ex officio shall give judgment against the Plaintiff Periam and Windham doubted at the first that the Defendant by her plea had admitted the whole matter upon the specially administred pleaded and had taken notice of the Debt 41 E. 3. 13. 46 E. 3. 10 11. 13 E. 4. 25. 13 H. 8. Fitz. Execut. 21. And afterwards Anderson ex assensu of the other Iudges caused to be entred Querens capiat nihil per breve CCXXX Hambleden and Hambledens Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Mich. 29. 30 Eliz Devises 1 Cro. 163. 1 And. 381. THe case was William Hambleden the Father of the Plaintiff and the. Defendant was seised of the Lands c. And by his Will devised to his Eldest Son Black Acre to his second Son White Acre and to his third Green Acre in tail And by his said Will further willed That in Case any of my said Sons do dye without issue that then the Survivor be each others heir The Eldest son dieth without issue c It was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the second Son shall have Black Acre in tail and he cited the Case 30 E. 3. 28. propinquioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum for the construction of such devises Walmesley argued That both the surviving Brothers should have the said Black Acre for the words of the devise are quilibet supervivens which amounts to uterque and the Court was in great doubt of this point And they conceived That the estate limited in Remainder to the Survivor c. is a fee-simple by reason of the words Each others heir And also they conceived That both the Survivors should not have the Land for the same is contrary to the express words of the devise The Survivor shall be each others heir in the singular number see 7 E. 6. Br. Devise 38. A man seised of Land hath issue three Sons and deviseth part of his Lands to his second Son in tail Heb. 75. and the residue to his third son in tail and willeth That none of them shall sell the Land but that each shall be heir to the other The second son dieth without issue the same Land shall not revert to the eldest Son but shall remain to the third son 1 Len. 261. notwithstanding the words each shall be heir to the other CCXXXI Slywright and Pages Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Maintenance More 266. 1 And. 201. Golds 101 102. AN Information was in the Common Pleas by John Slywright against Page upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Maintenance and declared that the Defendant took a Lease of one Joan Wade of certain Lands whereas the said Joan was not seised nor possessed thereof according to the Statute and upon Not guilty the Iury found this special matter That Edmund Wade was seised and made a Feoffment in fee thereof unto the use of himself and of the said Joan who he then intended to marry and the heirs of the said Edmund The marriage took effect Edmund enfeoffed a Stranger who entred Edmund died Joan not having had possession of the said Land after the death of Ed. her husband nor bing now in possession by Indenture demised the said Land to the Defendant for years without any Entry or delivery of the Indenture upon the Land The said Defendant knowing the said Joan never had been in possession of the said Land and also the Defendant being Brother of the half blood to the said Joan. The first Question was If the Lease being made by one out of possession and not sealed or delivered upon the Land and so not good in Law as to pass any interest be within the Statute aforesaid And the whole Court was clear of opinion that it was for by colour of this pretended Lease such might be undertaken advanced to the trouble disquiet of the possession for amongst the vulgar people it is a Lease it is a Lease by Reputation Another matter was moved because that the entry of the wife is now made lawful by 32 H. 8. and then she might well dispose of the Land. But as to that It was said by the whole Court That the meaning of the Statute was to repress the practises of many That when they thought they had title or right unto any Land they for the furtherance of their pretended Right conveyed their interest in some part thereof to great persons and with their countenance did oppress the possessors And although here the Lease was made by the said Joan to her Brother of the half blood yet by the clear opinion of the Court the Lease is within the danger of the Statute and yet in some Case the Son may maintain his Father the Kinsman his Kinsman And note in this case it was holden by the Iustices That of necessity it ought to be found by verdict That the Defendant knowing that the Lessor never had been in possession And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXXXII Brokesby against Wickham and the Bishop of Lincoln Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff counted Quare Impedit 3 Len. 256. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 85 86. Popham 189. That Robert Brokesby was seise of the Advowson and granted the next Avoidance to the Plaintiff and Humphrey Brokesby and that afterwards the Church became void and after during the avoidance Humphrey released to the Plaintiff and so it belongs to him to present And upon this count the Defendant did demar in Law. For it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing that Humphrey ought to have joined with the Plaintiff in the action for the Release being made after the Church became void
is not of any effect but utterly void So is the grant of the presentment to the Church where the Church is void for it is a thing in action See the Lord Dyer 28 H. 6. 26. 3 Ma. Dyer 129. 11 Eliz. Dyer 283 Walmsley Serjeant put this Case Two Ioint-tenants of a Rent the one may release to the other but if the Rent be behind now the one cannot Release his Interest in the Arrearages to the other And afterwards in the Principal case Iudgment was given that the Release was void CCXXXIII Sammes and Paynes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intr. Trin. 29 Eliz. Rot. 721. IN an Ejectione firmae the case was That the Mother being seised of certain Lands had issue two Daughters Tenant by the curtesie 1 And. 184. Goldsb 81. 82. 8 Co. 34. and by Indenture covenanted with diverse persons to stand seised to the use of Eliz. her eldest Daughter in tail upon condition that the said Eliz. should pay to her other Daughter within a year after the death of the Mother or within a year after the said other Daughter should come to the age of eighteen years 300 l. And if the said E. should fall in the payment of the sum aforesaid or should dye without issue before such payment then to the use of the said second Daughter in tail The Mother dieth E. taketh Husband hath issue afterwards dieth without issue before the day of payment And if the Husband shall be tenant by the curtesie or not was the Question And by the Court cleerly he shall be For as to the condition of payment of the said Sum the same is not determined for she died without issue before the day of payment scil before the second Daughter came of the age of eighteen years as to that there is no condition broken as to the point of dying without issue The same is not a condition but rather a Limitation of the Estate and the same is no more than what the Law saith and the estate tail in Elizabeth is spent and determined by the dying without issue and doth not cease or is cut off by any Limitation and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Tenant by the curtesie And by Anderson If a Feoffment be made to the use of I. S. and his heirs until I. D. hath done such a thing and then unto the use of I. D. and his heirs the thing is done and I. S. dieth his wife shall be endowed CCXXXIV Bowry and Popes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Roll. 676. Plow Queries vers finem BOwry brought an Action upon the Case against Pope and declared that in the time of E. 6. the Dean and Chapter of Westminster leased two houses in Saint Martins in London to Mason for sixty years The which Mason leased one of the said Houses to one A. and covenanted by the Indenture of Lease with the said A. that it should be lawful for the said A. his Executors and assigns to make a window in the shop of the house so to him assigned and afterwards in the time of Queen Mary a window was made accordingly where no window was there before And afterwards A. assigned the said house to the Plaintiff And now Pope having a house adjoining had erected a new building super solum ipsius Pope ex opposito the said new Window Nusance so as the New Window is thereby stopped The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment that here upon the Declaration appeareth no cause of action for the window in the stopping of which the wrong is assigned appears upon the Plaintiffs own shewing to be of late erected scil in the time of Queen Mary The stopping of which by any act upon my own Land was holden lawful and justifiable by the whole Court. But if it were an antient window time out of memory c. there the light or benefit of it ought not to be impaired by any Act whatsoever and such was the opinion of the whole Court. But if the case had been That the house soil upon which Pope had erected the said building had been under the estate of Mason who covenanted as abovesaid Then Pope could not have justified the nusance which was granted by the whole Court. CCXXXV Lee and Maddoxes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Mich. 29 30 Eliz. Rot. 1737. Covenant WIlliam Lee brought a Writ of Covenant against Richard Maddox Isabel his Wife and declared That one Errington the first husband of the said Isabel was endebted to the Plaintiff in 20 l. and that one Georgy Ashley was also endebted to the said Errington in the like sum of 20 l. And also that the said Errington made and constituted the said Isabel his Executrix and died and afterwards the said Isabel by Indenture dum ipsa sola fuit reciting that whereas her said late husband was endebted to the Plaintiff in the sum aforesaid and whereas the said George Ashley was also endebted unto her said late Husband in the like sum Now for the better satisfaction of the Plaintiff for his said Debt she appointed and constituted the Plaintiff atturnatum suum irrevocabilem ad petendum levandum recuperand recipiend ad usum suum proprium in nomine dict Isabellae de dicto Georgio the said twenty pounds And the said Isabel covenanted quod ipsa ad requis dict quer de tempore in tempus adjuvaret manu teneret quamlibet omnes sectam sectas quam vel quas dictus querens commensaret prosequeretur in nomine dictae Isabellae against the said George to the use of the Plaintiff Non existendo Non-suit voluntarie or making any Discontinuance Release Revocations Anglice Countermand without the assent of the Plaintiff And declared further that the Plaintiff had brought a Suit against the said George for the said Debt and shewed all in certain And that the said Isabel depending the said Suit Countermand had taken to Husband the Defendant without the assent of the Plaintiff And if by this Marriage the said Suit be countermanded was the Question And first it seemed to the Court that the Declaration was insufficient Request because there is not any request surmised in the Declaration for the words of the Covenant are Quod ipsa ad requisitionem c. So as it seemed to the Iustices that the Plaintiff ought to have notified to Isabel that he had commenced such Suit otherwise the Action will not lye And also the Court was of opinion that here is not any Countermand for by the taking of the Husband the Writ is not abated but only abateable and therefore the Plaintiff ought to have shewed 1 Roll. 781. that by the taking of the Husband the Writ by Iudgment was abated otherwise it is not any Countermand and
and it shall be intended the Rent mentioned before See 21 H. 7. 30. b. Where Villa West shall be intended Villa praedict 19 E. 4. 1. In a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff doth entitle himself by grant of the next Avoydance cum acciderit and doth not shew in his Count that the same was the next Avoydance and yet the Count was holden to be good for so it shall be intended so here And he said It is not necessary that a Declaration be exactly certain in every point but if one part of it expound the other it is well enough And although the Identity of the Rent doth not appear by the word praedict yet it appeareth by other circumstances as by the days of payment c. and no other Rent can be intended And now this Exception is after Verdict and therefore favourably to be taken And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXLI. Musted and Hoppers Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Assumsit p 1 Cro. 149. That where he and one Atkinsal were joyntly and severally bounden by Obligation in fifty pounds to a stranger for the only Debt of the said Atkinsal which Atkinsal died and the Defendant married afterwards his Wife and so the Goods of Atkinsal came to his hands yet the Plaintiff the first day of May after which was the day of payment of the money paid five and twenty pounds for avoiding the Forfeiture of the penalty The Defendant as well in consideration of the Premisses as in consideration that he might peaceably enjoy the Goods of the Testator promised to pay the said sum cum inde requisitus fuer And upon Non Assumpsit the Iury found the payment of the said sum and all the precedent matter And that the Defendant in consideration praemissiorum promised to pay the said sum if he might peaceably enjoy the Goods of the said Testator It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that although here the Iury have found sufficient cause of Action yet if the Declaration be not accordingly the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment Verdict And here the Plaintiff hath declared upon two Considerations and the Iury hath found but one scil if he peaceably enjoy the Goods of the Testator Also the Plaintiff declared of a simple promise and the Iury have found a Conditional Si gaudere potest c. And so the promise set forth in the Declaration is not found in the Verdict Gawdy was of opinion That the first consideration is good Consideration for the Plaintiff entred into Bond at the request of the Defendant and then the promise following is good But the second consideration is void scil That the Defendant shall enjoy the goods of the Testator c. as if it had been that he should enjoy his own goods And all the Iustices were clear of opinion That the Promise found by the Iury is not the promise alledged in the Declaration and so the issue is not found for the Plaintiff and so the judgment was stayed CCXLII. Creckmere and Pattersons Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 568. Devise conditional 1 Cro. 146. 1 Roll. 410. 1 Inst 236. b. UPon a special Verdict the Case was this Robert Dookin was seised of certain Lands in Fee and having issue two Daughters devised the same to Alice his Eldest Daughter that she should pay forty pound to Ann her Sister at such a Day the money is not paid whereupon Ann entreth into the moiety of the Land And it was holden by the whole Court that the same is a good Condition and that the Entry of Ann was lawful It hath been adjudged That where a man devised his Land to his wife Proviso My will is That she shall keep my house in good Reparations that the same is a good Condition Wray A man deviseth his Lands to B. paying 40 l. to C. it is a good condition for C. hath no other remedy and a Will ought to be expounded according to the intent of the Devisor CCXLIII Dove and Williots and others Case .. Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 160. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a special Verdict the case was That W. was seised of the Land where c. and held the same by Copy c. and surrendred the same unto the use of E. for life the Remainder to Robert and A. in Fee Robert made a Lease to the Defendant E. Robert A. surrendred the said Land scil a third part to the use of Robert for the life of E. the Remainder to the Right heirs of Robert and of another third part to the use of Robert for life the Remainder to E. the Remainder to Richard c. and of another third part to the use of A. and his Heirs After which Partition was made betwixt them and the Land where c. was allotted to Richard who afterwards surrendred to the use of the Plaintiff It was holden That Iudgment upon this verdict ought not to be given for the Plaintiff For the Lessee of Robert had the first possession and that Lease is to begin after the death of E. who was Tenant for life and when E. and he in the Reversion joyn in a surrender thereby the estate for life in that third part is extinct in Robert who hath the Inheritance and then his Lease took effect for a third Part. So that the Parties here are Tenants in Common 1 Inst 200. betwixt whom Trespass doth not lye CCXLIV Bulleyn and Graunts Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Copyhold UPon Evidence to a Iury the Case was That Henry Bulleyn the Father was seised of the Land being Copyhold and had Issue three Sons Gregory Henry andy Thomas and afterwards surrendred to the use of the last Will Devise 1 Cro. 148. and thereby devised the said Land to Joan his Wife for life the remainder to the said Henry and the Heirs of his body begotten Joan died after admittance Henry died without Issue and afterwards the Lord granted it to Thomas and his Heirs who surrendred to the use of the Defendant then his Wife for life and afterwards died without Issue Gregory eldest Son of Henry Bulleyn entred c. Coke When the Father surrendreth to the use of his last Will thereby all passeth out of him so as nothing accrueth to the Heir nor can he have and demand any thing before admittance Wray The entry of Gregory is lawful and admittance for him is not necessary for if a Copyholder surrendereth to the use of one for life who is admitted and dieth he in the Reversion may enter without a new Admittance It was moved by Coke if this Estate limited to Henry be an Estate tail or a Fee conditional For if it be a Fee-simple conditional then there cannot be another Estate over but yet in case of a Devise an Estate may depend upon a Fee-simple precedent but not
in such manner and form as I my self did hold the same and no otherwise Tenant for life died within the Term and he in the Reversion entred and the Lessee brought an action of Covenant Godfrey The action doth not ly for here is not any warranty for the Plaintiff is not Lessee but Assignee to whom this Warranty in Law cannot extend but admit that the Warranty doth extend to the Plaintiff yet it is now determined with the estate of the Tenant for life and so the Covenant ended with the estate See 32 H. 6. 32. by Littleton 9. Eliz. Dyer 257. Covenant And if Tenant in tail make a Lease for years ut supra and afterwards dieth without issue the Covenant is gone and after Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCLV. Fish Brown and Sadlers Case Intrat Mich. 29 Eliz. Rot. 606. Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN action upon the Case was brought by Fish and Brown against Sadler Hill. 29 Eliz. rot 606. and they declared Action upon the Case That they were proprietaries of certain goods which were in the possession of one A. against which A. Sadler one of the Defendants had commenced a feigned and covenous suit in the Ecclesiastical Court in the Name of one Collison to the intent to get the said goods into his possession of which the Plaintiffs having notice and to the intent that the said Plaintiffs should suffer the Defendant to recover and obtain the said goods by the said suit the Defendant did promise to the Plaintiffs to render to them a true accompt of the said goods and shewed further That by the said suit the Defend did obtain the said goods by sufferance of the Plaintiff Tanfeild It is a good consideration the Plaintiffs were not parties or Privies at the beginning of the suit it is not like Onlies Case in 19 Eliz. Dyer 355. Where in an action upon the Case Onlie declared Assumpsit and consideration That the Defendant Countess c. being a Widow had divers suits and businesses and that the Plaintiff at her request had bestowed great labour and travail and had expended circa the affairs of the said Countess 1500 l. Whereupon she promised to the Plaintiff to pay all the said expences and such a sum above for that matter which is the ground of the action is maintenance and malum prohibitum but such matter is not here for it is lawful for a man to use means to get his goods Gawdy All covins are abhorred in Law and here the Plaintiffs are privies to the wrong and therefore it cannot be any consideration Wray Although that the suit at the beginning was wrongful and covenous yet when the Plaintiffs who were owners of the said goods do assent to such proceedings now the suit is become just and lawful ab initio Corin. and so no wrong in the consideration but all the wrong is purged by the agreement If any covin be the same is between Sadler and him who is sued to whom the Plaintiffs are not privies Clench If this privity betwixt the Plaintiffs and Sadler had been before the said suit then the consideration is without any fraud Cooper Serjeant conceived here is not any good consideration upon which the Promise of the Defendant may be grounded for the Defendant hath not any benefit by it and he cited the case between Smith and Smith 25 Eliz. Egerton Here the consideration is good enough for the Plaintiffs forbear their own suit which was a hinderance unto them Clench was of opinion that the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for that suit was begun by Sadler in the Name of Collison without his privity and therefor it was unlawful and the same was for the goods of another man which is unlawful also and then when the unlawful act is begun the illegal agreement afterwards that they shall proceed is unlawful also and therefore there cannot be any consideration and as to the covin it is not material for without that the matter is illegal enough Also the Declaration is not good in this because it is not shewed in what Court the suit did depend so as it might appear unto us that they had power to hold plea of it Gawdy agreed with Clench in the first point and also in the last and by him in the assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that a suit was depending betwixt the Defendant and another and where the Plaintiffs if they were produced might have given strong witness against the Defendant the said Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiffs would not give Testimony against him promised to give to the Plaintiff 20 l. the same consideration will not maintain this action because it is unlawful for any man to suppress testimony in any cause 1 Cro. 337. Wray Here is a consideration good enough For where Sadler should lose costs upon the first suit now upon this promise upon his account he shall be allowed the same the which is a benefit unto him and as to the shewing in what Court the suit doth depend that needs not by way of Declaration but the same shall be shewed by way of Evidence and it is not traversable and it is but inducement to the action And as to the covin that is not here for covin is always to the prejudice of a third person but so it is not here But in truth this suit was unlawful for Sadler so to sue in the Name of another and therefore it cannot be a good consideration And for that cause it was awarded Quod querens nihil capiat per billam CCLIV How and Conneys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Trespass 1 Cro. 159. IN an action of Trespass by How against Conney the case was That one Smith was seised of two houses and leased one of them to his Brother for life and afterwards by his Will devised viz. I give to my Executors All my Lands and Tenements free and copy to hold to them and they to take the profits of them for ten years and afterwards to sell the said Lands and Tenements and afterwards died his Brother died before the quarter of a year after and it was found That the Executors entred into the house undemised and took the profits but not into the other and that at the end of the said ten years they sold the whole Godfrey The house only which was in possession shall pass by the Will. To hold unto them doth imply matter of possession so as nothing passeth but that whereof they may take the profits the which cannot be of a bare Reversion also by this devise the Executors have not interest in the thing devised but for ten years Plow 66. Shop 437. whereas the Brother of the Testator had an estate for life which by possibility might continue above twenty years and to prove that the meaning of the devisor to be collected upon the words of the Will ought to direct the construction of the
case And at another day it was objected That the Deed could not be acknowledged without a Letter of Attorney being a Corporation which consisted upon divers persons as Prioress and Covent and they are alwaies to be intended to be in their Chapter-house and cannot come into Court to acknowledge a Deed To which it was answered by Cook That this acknowledgment being generally pleaded it shall be intended that it was done by a Lawful means and there is no doubt but that such a Corporation may levy a Fine and make a Letter of Attorney to acknowledge it and see 2 Ma. Fulmerstones case 105. It was further objcted 2 Inst 674. That this Deed was enrolled the same day that it beareth date for the pleading is per factum suum gerens Datum 2 Novemb. 29 Hen. 8. et iisdem die anno irrotulat And by the Statute such a Deed ought to be enrolled within six Months next after the date so as the day of the date is excluded and so it is not enrolled within six Months As to that it was answered by Cook That the time of computation doth begin presently after the delivery of the Deed as in the common Cases of Leases If a man makes a Lease for years to begin from the day of the date the same is exclusive but if it be To have and to hold from the date of the Deed it shall begin presently And an Ejectment supposed the same day is good and then here this Enrolment is within the six Months Dyer 220. b. 1 Cro. 717. and yet see 5 Eliz. 128. Dyer Pophams case It was also objected That it is alledged in the conusans That the Manor was sold to the Lord Audley and that the Deed of Bargain and Sale was acknowledged and enrolled in the Chancery the said Lord being then Lord Chancelor and he cannot take an acknowledgment of a Deed or enrolment of it to himself for he is the Sole Iudge in the said Court so as the Deed is acknowledged before himself and enrolled before himself and that is good enough for here we are not upon the common Law but upon the Statute and here the words of the Statute are performed And the enrolment of the Deed is not the substance of the Deed but the Deed it self Also the acknowledgment of the Deed after it is enrolled is not material for he is estopped to say that it is not acknowledged And as to the matter it self a man shall not have averment against the purport of a Record but against the operation of a Record as not put in view not comprised partes ad finem nihil haberunt c. And against Letters Pattens of the King Non concessit is a good plea which see 18 Eliz. for by such plea it is agreed that it is a Record but that nihil operatur CCLVIII. Osborn and Kirtons Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 258. IN Debt upon an Obligation The Defendant cast a Protection Debt upon which the Plaintiff did demur Tanfield The Protection is not good for the Defendant is let to Bail and so is intended always in prison for so the Record makes mention and then the Protection quia moratur in portubus Zeland is against the Record Protection and the Court ought to give credit to Records especially Secondly The words of the Protection are That Kirton is imployed in Obsequio nostro which is no cause of protection for the usual form and so is the Law that such a person be imployed in negotio Regni for the defence of England c. For if the King will give aid unto another Princes Subjects employed in such service he shall not have Protection And afterwards variance was objected betwixt the Bill and Declaration and the Protection for the Bill is against John Kirton of A. Gentleman the Protection is John Kirton only But the same was holden no such variance being only in the Addition for before the Statute 1 H 5. additions were not necessary in any actions CCLIX Boyton and Andrews Case Mich. 30 Eliz. Rot. 156. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was Debt 1 Cro. 135. to make sufficient assurance of certain Lands to the Obligee before the tenth day of March 17 Eliz. And if it fortune the said Obligee be unwilling to receive or mislike such assurance but shall make Request to have one hundred pounds for satisfaction thereof Then if upon such Request the Obligor pay one hundred pounds within five months That then the Obligation shall be void And at the day the Obligee doth refuse the assurance and afterwards 27 Eliz. request is made to have the hundred pounds It was the clear opinion of the whole Court That the said Request was well enough for the time and he might make it at any time during his life he is not restrained to make it before the day in which the Assurance is to be made and afterwards judgment was given for the Plaintiff CCLX Knight and Savages Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. Rot. 546. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in Leicester in Debt Tanfield assigned Error Error 2 Cro. 206. 2 Cro. 109. 654. Sty 91. Yel 164. 165. Post 302. because in that Suit there was not any plaint and in all inferior Courts the plaint is as the original at the common Law and without that no process can issue forth And here upon the Record nothing is entred but that the Defendant summonitus fuit c. and therefore the first entry ought to be A. B. queritur adversus C c. Clench A Plaint ought to be entred before process issueth the summons which is entred here is not any plaint and for that cause the Iudgment was reversed It was said That after the Defendant appeared a Plaint was entred but it was said by the Court That that shall not mend the matter for there ought to be a plaint out of which the process shall issue as in the Courts above out of the original Writs CCLXI Kirby and Eccles Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 137. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Quod cum quaedam communicatio fuisset betwixt the Plaintiff and one Cowper That Cowper should mast certain Hogs for the Plaintiff the Defendant did promise That in consideration that the Plaintiff promised give unto the Defendant three shillings and four pence for the fatting of every Hog That the said Hogs should be redelivered to him well fatted to which promise and warranty the Plaintiff giving faith delivered to the said Cowper one hundred and fifty Hogs to be masted and that one hundred of them were delivered back but the residue were not It was moved That here is not any consideration for which the Defendant should be charged with any promise but it was argued on the other side That the Promise was the cause
upon a Deed. Hutt 102. Dy. 91. 2 Co. 61. 1 Ma. Dyer 91. and also the wife by her disagreement to it and the occupation of the Land after the death of her Husband hath made it the Lease of the Husband only CCLXXV Rockwood and Rockwoods Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 163. IN an Action upon the case the case was this The Father of the Plaintiff and Defendant being sick and in danger of death and incending to make his Will In the presence of both his Sons the Plaintiff and Defendant declared his meaning to be To devise to the Plaintiff his younger Son a Rent of 4 l. per annum for the term of his life out of his Lands and the Defendant being the eldest Son the intention of his Father being to charge the Land with the said Rent offered to his Father and Brother That if the Father would forbear to charge the Land with the said Rent he promised he would pay the 4 l. yearly to his Brother during the life of his Brother according to the intention of his said Father Whereupon the Father asked the Plaintiff if he would accept of the offer and promised of his Brother who answered he would whereupon the Father relying upon the promise of his said eldest Son forbore to devise the said Rent c. so as the Land descended to the Eldest Son discharged of the Rent and the opinion of the whole Court in this case was clear that upon the whole matter the action did well lye CCLXXVI Petty and Trivilians Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Livery of seisin HUmphrey Petty brought Second Deliverance against William Trivilian and upon especial verdict the case was That A. was seised of certain Land and Leased the same for years and afterwards made a Deed of Feoffment unto B. and a Letter of Attorney to the Lessee C. and D. conjunctim vel divisim in omnia singula terras et Tenementa intrate et seisinam inde c. secundum formam Chartae c. Lessee for years by himself makes Livery and seisin in one part of the Land and C. in another part and D. by himself in another part It was first agreed by the Iustices that by that Livery by Lessee for years his Interest and Term is not determined for whatsoever he doth he doth it as an Officer or Servant to the Lessor Secondly It was agreed That these several Liveries were good and warranted by the Letter of Attorney especially by reason of these words In omnia singula c. So as all of them and every of them might enter and make Livery in any and every part And so it was adjudged CCLXXVII Rigden and Palmers Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIgden brought a Replevin against Palmer who avowed for damage feasant in his Freehold The Plaintiff said Replevin That long time before that Palmer had any thing he himself was seised until by A. B. and C disseissed against whom he brought an Assise and recovered Avowry and the estate of the Plaintiff was mean between the Assise and the recovery in it The Defendant said That long time before the Plaintiff had any thing One Griffith was seised and did enfeoff him absque hoc that the said A. B. and C. vel eorum aliquis aliquid habuere in the Lands at the time of the Recovery Walmsley Iustice was of opinion That the Bar unto the Avowry was not good for that the Plaintiff hath not alledged That A.B. and C. Ter-Tenants tempore recuperationis and that ought to be shewed in every recovery where it is pleaded And then when the Defendant traverseth that which is not alledged it is not good Windham contrary For the Assise might be brought against others as well as the Tenants as against disseisors But other real actions ought to be brought against the Ter-Tenants only and therefore it needs not to shew that they were Ter-Tenants at the time of the Recovery and also the traverse here is well enough Another Exception was taken because the Avowry is That the place in which conteineth an 100 Acres of Land The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry saith that the place in which c. conteins 35 Acres c. but that Exception was not allowed for it is but matter of form is helped by the Statute of 27 Eliz. Another Exception was taken as to the hundred of Cattel and doth not shew in certain if they were Ewes Sty 71. 264. or Lambs or how many of each which also was dissallowed for the Sheriff upon Returno habendo may enquire what cattel they were in certain and so by such means the Avowry shall be reduced to certainty CCLXXVIII RUssell and Prats Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber RUsell brought an action upon the case against Prat and declared That certain goods of the Testator casually came to the Defendants hands and upon matter in Law Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff sed quia nescitur quae damna Error c. Ideo a writ of Enquiry of Damages issued and now Prat brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 8. But note That the Iudgment was given before the said Statute but the Writ of Enquiry of Damages was retorned after the said Statute Writ of Enquiry of Damages the said Statute doth not extend but to Iudgments given after the making of it And it was moved That the said Iudgment is not to be examined here but by the clear opinion of Anderson Manwood Windham Walmesley Gent and Clark Iustices of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer the Writ of Error lyeth here by the Statute 1 Cro. 235. for in an action of Trespass as this case is full judgment is not given until the Writ of damages be retorned And if before the Retorn of it any of the parties dieth the Writ shall abate and the first Iudgâ—ent which is given before Award of the Writ is not properly a Iudgment but rather a Rule and order and so in a Writ of accompt where Iudgment is given that the Defendant computet cum querente he shall not have Error upon that matter for it is not a full Iudgment See 21 E. 3. 9. So as to the Iudgment in a Writ of Trespass scil That no Writ of Error lyeth before the second Iudgment after the Return of the Writ of Enquiry of Damages are given And also it was holden by all the said Iustices and Barons That an Executor shall have an action upon the case de bonis testatoris casually come to the hands and possession of another Action de bonis Testatoris and by him converted to his own use in the life of the Testator and that by the Equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3. 7. de bonis asportatis in vita Testatoris
good will of I.S. which he cannot obtain the same remainder is not good And if one covenant to stand seised to the use of Salisbury plain for the life of I. S. and after the remainder to A it is a plain case That he in the remainder shall take presently 37 H. 6. 36. Cestuy que use willed That his Feoffees should make an estate to A. for life the remainder to C. in fee A. would not take the estate C. shall have a Subpoena against the Feoffees after the death of A. See there the case And if Land deviseable be devised to one for life the Remainder over to another in Fee and the Devisee for life doth refuse Quaere if the Devisee in Remainder shall enter presently See Fitz. Subpoena And also he put the Case where Land is devised to a Monk for life the Remainder over to another in Fee he in the Remainder shall enter presently see the same Case in Perkins 108. for the Monk never took any thing by the devise notwithstanding that there is not any particular estate upon which a Remainder can depend yet the intent of the Devisor shall be observed in as much as it may and the particular estate limited to the Monk is meerly void of which every stranger shall take advantage c. And it was resembled to a Case in Baintons Case where an use in Remainder limited upon good consideration shall be good in Law although the particular use be not grounded upon good consideration so faileth And he urged a Case alleadged by Popham in the Case of the Earl of Bedford that if in Cranmers Case the estate for years limited to the Executors 2 Leâ— 5. 6. had been limited to Administrators it had been meerly void and the use in tail limited in tail should begin presently that was by reason of the interval betwixt the death of Cranmer the taking of the Letters of Administration in which mean time there is not any person capable and therefore the Remainder shall vest presently which is a fit case to prove the Case at Bar And he remembred that in the Argument of Cranmers Case Lovelace Serjeant would have an Occupancy in the Case of such a Term limited to Administrators quod omnes Justiciarii negaverunt and in the said Case of Cranmer it was holden that the Lease for years being void the estate in the Remainder did begin presently without expecting the effluxion of the years c. And truly a Term imports in it self an Interest but if the limitation had been after the Term of twenty four years c. the same implyeth but a bare time And to that purpose he cited the Case 35 H. 8. Br. Exposition 44. A. Leaseth to B. for ten years it is covenanted betwixt them that if B. pay unto A. within the said ten years one hundred pounds that then he shall be seised to the use of B. in Fee B. surrenders his Term to A. and within the said ten years pays the one hundred pounds to A. here B. shall have Fee for the years are certain contrary if the Covenant had been If he pay within the Term. Popham Attorney General Contrary The use shall not go beyond the Contract here the Term doth not vest in that it was Limited for want of sufficient consideration of the Lord Paget the intent was not that his son should have possession of the land before the term of 24. years expired Use what it is A use is a thing in Conscience according to confidence to be guided by the intent of the parties upon such Case at the Common Law W. Paget should not have a Subpoena before the years expired and this word Term doth not alter the Case and there is a great difference betwixt an use raised by Feoffment and an use raised by Covenant For in the first case the Feffor doth dipossess himself utterly if it takes not effect to one purpose it shall take effect to another purpose But in the Case of a Covenant it is otherwise for the use riseth according to the contract not otherwise here the Contract is That W. Paget shall have the Land not immediatly after the death of his Father but after the 24 years expire Owen Serjeant It hath been agreed of both sides That every use shall go according to the intent of the parties and here it appeareth That it was the intent of the Lord Paget to put all the use out of himself and I see not any difference betwixt an use raised by Covenant and a use raised by Feoffment For a use limited utrovis modo to Pauls Steeple for the life of A. and after to the use of B. in Fee the first use is void but the second good and here the meaning of the Lord Paget plainly appears for there is a Proviso in the Indenture That after the said debts and legacies paid the use limited for 24 years shall cease and it is exprestly averred that they are paid 11. H. 4. A. leaseth for life the remainder in tail to himself the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee the mean Remainder limited by A. to himself is void and the remainder over shall be immediate to the estate for life Egerton The words of the Indenture and the intent of the parties are the rules of uses The first use is void For the intent of the Lord Paget was void because contrary to the Law and Eusal to whom the use for years was limited could not take presently for his estate is limited to begin after the death of the Lord Paget and there is a great difference betwixt uses raised by Covenant and by Feoffment For when a use is raised by Feoffment there all is out of the Feoffor the land is gone the use is gone the trust is gone nothing remaineth but a bare authority to raise uses out of the possession of the Feoffees being new uses there although some of them be void yet the other shall stand but where a use is raised by way of Covenant there the covenantor continues in possession there the uses limited if they be according to Law shall raise draw the possession out of him but if not the possession shall remain in him until a lawful use shall arise which before its time shall not rise for any defect in the precedent use And here is no Term therefore no end for that which hath not a begining hath no ending And if there be no estate then no Term if there be so then it is to be taken for the time of 24. years which is not as yet expired and then was there in the Lord Pawlet an estate descendable for 24 years which by the Attainder doth accrue unto the Queen And he cited the Case of 13 Eliz. Dyer 300. Feoffment to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of a woman which he entendeth to marry until the issue which he
should beget on the said woman should come unto the age of 21. years and then to the use of the woman during her widow-hood They are married the Husband dieth without issue the Wife shall hold the land But by him if this use had bin raised by way of Covenant it should be otherwise Coke Admit that all the uses be good yet his meaning was That the debts and legacies being paid W. Paget should have his land for it is provided by the Indenture That when the debts legacies are paid the estate for 24. years shall cease Manwood The payment of the debts cannot end that which never was and as to the two first estates they were never out of him therefore they came unto the Q. by his attainder Coke After debts and legacies paid all other estates but the estate of W. Paget cease therefore William Paget shall have the Land. And the rule of Shelly 35 H. 8. 56 is worthy to be received scil That learning is honest wished to be used that every man learned in the Law do construe Deeds according to the meanings of the makers Manwood A Feoffment to the use of Salisbury Plain for the life of I. S. the Remainder over the same use shall come into possession presently for there is not any person capable of the particular estate but where the first use is limited to a Bastard the remainder over there the Remainder shall not come into possession presently for the Bastard is a person capable but not by such form of conveyance in consideration of natural affection Popham In the case of Bastard there was an estate for life executed to the Father in possession then a Remainder to a Bastard the Remainder to the Sons lawfully begotten but here in our Case no estate is created to precede the estate of William Paget upon which the Remainder can depend At another day It was argued by Coke It is to be agreed on both sides That the estate for four and twenty years is meerly void and also the first use limited to Trentham and others and it is not reason that the use limited to William Paget should expect until the four and twenty years be expired by effluxion of time and to that purpose he cited Cranmers Case where an estate in use was limited to Cranmer for life the Remainder to his Executors for one and twenty years the Remainder over in tail to his Son and Heir c. Cranmer is attainted of Treason and Heresy so as he could not make a Will or Executors there it is holden That the term is void because no Executors and that the Remainder in use should vest presently and should not expect until the said number of years expire by effluxion of time And difference hath been put betwixt the case of Cranmer and the Case at Bar because in Cranmers Case there was a possibility at the beginning that the Term for years might be good for the term became void by matter ex post facto sci By the attainder of him which disabled him to make Executors but in the Case at Bar the term for twenty four years was expresly void ab initio But that difference is without reason for what reason is there That the Remainder should be father off the possession when the estate for years is originally void than when it becomes void by matter ex post facto Suppose that the Lord Paget had by Indenture covenanted as above for the two first uses being in truth void in Law and afterwards by another Indenture reciting That whereas he had covenanted That in consideration That A. with the profits of his Lands should pay his debts c. to stand seised of the said Lands for his own life Now he covenants to stand seised to the use of William Paget and his Heirs should not he presently be seised to the use of William Paget and his Heirs although the words be That then and from thenceforth For I hold it a clear case that his estate begins presently being limited to begin upon a void estate althouh the limitation be by words de futuro And to this purpose he cited the case 3 E. 6. Br. Lease 62. A man leaseth for years Habendum post dimissionem inde fact to J.S. finitam where no such demise is made the same Lease shall begin presently If an Indenture be made to a Monk and another Habend to the Monk for one and twenty years and after the end of that to the other for one and twenty years the other shall have it presently And he put a Case 7 E. 3. in the new Impression 19. and in the old Impression 317. Where one Maud brought a Formedon in the Remainder and counted that one Hamond was seised and gave the said Tenements to one Robert c. in tail and that for want of such issue that the Tenements should return to the said Hamond for life the Remainder to the Demandant in Fee and counted further That Robert is dead without issue and that Hamond is also dead c. It was holden although that the Remainder reserved to the Donor be void yet the Remainder over in Fee is good c. And in that case although that the Remainder in Fee was future sci After the death of Hamond the estate reserved to Hamond meerly void that originally not by matter ex post facto yet the Remainder in Fee was good and should begin presently upon the death of Robert without issue and should not expect the death of Hamond Mr. Attorney hath given a Rule That the intent of the parties is the Direction of uses as also of Wills and therefore I will put one Case of Wills 37 H. 6. 17. If a man devise Lands to a Monk for four and twenty years and after the same ended to another in Fee here the Monk being a dead person cannot take the estate limited to him therefore it is void but the Fee limited to the other is good and shall take effect presently If it be so in a Will why not so also in uses For the intents of the parties do direct the constructions of both And our case here is a stronger case than the case cited 37 H. 6. 36. for there where Land is devised to a Monk for life there may be colour of an Occupant during the life of the Monk who might take it although the Monk himself cannot take it and so the Remainder doth not take effect presently as to the possession but shall stay till after the death of the Monk But here is not any colour of an Occupancy for the estate here is a Lease for years which cannot admit an Occupant And see also 37 H. 6. 36. If a man devise that his Feoffees shall make an estate to I. S. for life the Remainder over to C. in Fee and I. S. will not take his estate C. shall have a Sub-poena against the Feoffees to make an estate to him
leaving out I. S. and see Amy Townsends Case in the Commentaries where the Husband seised in the Right of his Wife makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his wife for their lives the Remainder over to another the husband dyeth the wife refuseth the estate limited to her by the Husband she brings Sur cui in vita not against the heir but against him in the Remainder to whom the Land doth accrue by the refusal of the wife not against the heir of the Feoffor and I grant That where an estate in use or otherwise is to begin upon a condition precedent which is impossible or against the Law the estate shall never rise or begin And here the Case of the Lord Borroughs 35 H. 8. Dy. 55. was cited Where the Father covenanted in consideration of marriage of his Son that immediately after his death his eldest Son shall have the possession or use of all his Lands according to the same course of inheritance as then they stood and that all persons now seised or to be seised should be seised to the said use and intent and it was holden That upon that matter no use is changed But if the Words had bin Immediately after his death they should remain then although the words of the Limitation be In futuro the use of the Fee shall rest in the Son presently and the words In futuro ought not to be interpreted but in benefit of him to whom the use and estate is limited 9 Eliz. Dyer 261. A. Leaseth for thirty years and four years after the beginning of the said term he makes another Lease for years by these words Noverint c. dictis 30 annis finitis completis demisisse omnia praemissa to the said c. Habendum tenendum a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque ad finem 30 annorum And by the opinion of all the Iustices This new Lease shall commence in possession at the end of the former term and not before and if it should not be expounded the second Lease should be in effect an estate but for ten years which was not the intent of the parties and every grant shall be expounded most strongly for the grantee and to his advantage to which purpose he said he had vouched this Case Also by him there is not any difference where the use is limited by way of covenant or upon a Feoffment And if a man enfeoffeth B. upon condition that he shall enfeoff C. now if he offer to enfeoff C. and he refuseth the Feoffor may re-enter But if the condition were to give to C. in tail then upon such refusal of C. the Feoffor shall not re-enter See 2 E. 4. 2. 19 H. 6. 34. E. si Equitas sit adhibenda in construction of conditions a multo fortiori in case of Vses A Feoffment in Fee upon condition that the Feoffee shall grant a Rent charge to J. S. who doth it but J. S. refuseth the Feoffor shall not re-enter for that was not the intent of the condition If in the principal case Post 266. the limitation of the use had been after the expiration of twenty four years then no use should rise before the twenty four years expire but where not the time but the estate is material there if the estate be void the use shall go to him in the Remainder presently and shall not stay the time 1 Co. 154. c. Egerton Solicitor first it is to see if the use limited to William Paget be good secondly if William Paget doth not come before his time to shew his Right If this use limited to William Paget be a Remainder or an estate to begin upon a contingent or a present estate the estates formerly limited being void and he conceived that it is not a Remainder for there is not any estate upon which it may depend And the words are after the estate for twenty four years ended or expired that then and from thenceforth to the use of William Paget c. so that no use is limited to him before the particular estate is ended therefore no Remainder for a Remainder ought to begin when the particular estate begins Without doubt that was not the intent that William Paget should have the Land during the life of his Father and yet the use limited during the life of his Father was void and if the Remainder should take effect during the said twenty four years against Eusall and his companions wherefore should it not also take effect against Trentham and the others to whose use it was limited during the life of the Lord Paget And here the use limited to William Paget is to begin upon a collateral contingent upon which if it cannot rise it shall not rise at all and I conceive that the use limited to William Paget shall never rise or begin for it is limited to begin when the term of twenty four years is ended and that is never for that which cannot begin cannot end and this Term is meerly void Ergo it cannot begin Ergo it cannot end then this thenceforth cannot be and so this contingent can never fall H. 6. 7. E. 6. A Lease was made for years upon condition that if the Lessee do not pay such a sum of money that he should lose his Indenture the meaning and sense of these words is not that he should lose the Indenture in parchment but that he should lose his Term The Iudgment in an Eectjone firmae is Quod querens recuperet terminum suum that is to be understood not the time but his Interest in the Land for the Term And Coke secretly said that in that case there is not any contingent for the estates precedent never began And as to the Case cited before by Coke Br. Leases 62. If the last Lease be made by Indenture reciting the former Lease certainly the second Lessee shall not be concluded to claim the Land demised presently but shall tarry until the years of the first Term be expired by effluction of time And as to Mawnds Case cited before there is an estate upon which a Remainder may depend scil the estate tail alledged to Robert c. If such as now is limited to William Paget had been limited at the Common Law to a younger Son the eldest Brother should have the Land in the Interim discharged of any use and now after the Statute no use limited to William Paget before the contingent where therefore is it in the mean time In the Lord Paget who being attainted it accrues to the Queen and out of the possession of the Queen this use shall never rise although that the contingent be performed for now the use is locked up A use doth consist in privity of the estate and confidence of the person if these be severed the use is gone And here if the possession be in the Queen she cannot be seised to another use Note by Godfrey that
and made partition of the Demeans only but the Services of the Free-holders and Copy-holders did remain in Common One of the Daughters took Husband the Husband and the Wife make a Lease of the moyety of the Manor to the Plaintiff for years by word rendring Rent the Lessee entred into the Demeans allotted to the Wife of the Lessor Partition The Husband died and the Wife brought an Action of Wast Anderson By the partition the Demeans are now become in gross and severed from the Manor And if partition be made of a Manor so as the Demeans be allotted to one Sister and the Services to the other now the Mannor is dissolved yet if the other Sister dieth without issue and her part descendeth to the other now it is become a Manor again which Windham and Periam granted 6 Co. 64. See 12. H. 4. 271. And Anderson was of opinion that the moyety of the Demeans did not pass by the words of the moyety of the Manor as if one seised of a Manor maketh a Feoffment in Fee of part of the Demeans and afterwards re-purchaseth them and then makes a Feoffment of the whole Manor the Demeans repurchased will not pass thereby for they were once severed from the Manor and not re-united by the purchase Periam Although that in truth it is not a Manor nor any part of a Manor yet if it hath beeen reputed the moyety of the Manor it shall pass by such name which Anderson grant ed but it is not like to our Case Periam This is an ancient partition as appeareth by the Verdict ten years past and also it hath been reputed the moyety of the Manor therefore it shall pass Windham concessit Periam The intent of the Grantor is the best Interpreter of these words without relying strictly upon the words Anderson If we shall take the intents of men for Law we shall fall into many confusions in our proceedings but the Law is to judge of the meanings of men by their words Ever in the constructions of Wills the intent of the Testators have not had further favour than the words have given leave As to the other point It was argued by Walmsley that the Lease made by the Husband and Wife without Deed was void See 1 Ma. Dyer 91. And if the Wife after the death of her Husband accepts the Rent upon such a Lease reserved it shall not bind her for the consent of the Wife ought to be at the beginning of it which cannot be without Deed. Anderson conceived that the Lease is not meerly void See 15 Eliz. Smith Stapletons Case Plowd 431. Periam The matter is clear for although the Plaintiff declares generally of a Lease made by the Husband Wife yet the Iury hath found that it was by Indenture and that is pursuant enough And if the Husband and Wife make a Feoffment of the Wives Land it is the Feoffment of doth of them which Walmesley granted It was adjorned CCLXXXIV Smalwood amd others against the Bishop of Lichfeild and others Quare Impedit Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUmphrey Smalwood Richard Say and Thomas Say Executors of VVilliam Say Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 241. brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfeild and M. Incumbent quod permittat praesentare ad Archidiaconatum de Derby which was void Et ad praesentationem Testatoris in vita sua nunc in retardationem executionis Testamenti did belong to the Executors Exception was taken because these words In retardationem executionis Testament could not be applied to a disturbance in the life of the Testator Windham There is not any Writ in the Register of Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Testator Anderson What then therefore no remedy because no Writ according to his special matter 25 E. 3. 25. Goods are taken out of the possession of the Testator upon which the Executors brought Trespass In retardationem executionis Testamenti Writ abated for it ought to be where the Executors themselves were possessed Periam The Advowson it self is valuable not the presentment therefore it cannot be said in retardationem Periam Before the Statute of 4 E. 3. 73. In Case were damages were only to be recovered the Action moritur cum persona but where the thing it self was to be recovered there the Action accrued to the Executors Anderson 7 H. 4. 73. Ejectione firmae of an Ejectment made unto the Testator was maintained by the Executors be equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3 cap. 6. And by the opinion of the whole Court the Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Presentment It was objected also that a Quare Impedit doth not lye of an Archdeaconry-ship for it is not local nor any Indenture made of it but is only a matter of function but it was not allowed for â—iii Archdeacon hath Locum in Coro And by the Statute a Quare Impedit lyeth of a Chappel and by the equity of it of a Prebend c. See the Statute of West 2. Quare Impedit of a Chappel Prebend c. It was moved if the Executors had presented after the death of the Testator whether the Archdeacon ought to receive the Clark of the Testator or of the Executors and the opinion of the Court was That the Bishop should have election therein And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Writ should abate for the disturbance to the Testator cannot be supposed new matter In retardationem executionis Testamenti But yet it was agreed that the Executors might have their special Writ upon their Case for the said disturbance Trin. 31 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Action brought against one as Executor who pleaded that he refused upon which the parties were at Issue The Bishop did certifie 1 Cro. 81. 3â—â— 2 Len. 180. quod non recusavit whereas in truth he had refused before the Commissary Tenner Serjeant moved to have the advice of the Court upon that matter and argued that the Court ought to write to the Commissary Which was denyed by the whole Court for he is not the Officer unto the Court to that purpose but the Bishop himself is the Officer And the party cannot aver against the Certificate of the Bishop no more than against the Retorn of the Sheriff The Court was also of opinion that the only remedy for the Defendant was by Action upon the Case against the Bishop for his false Certificate But it was moved That the Issue joyned upon the refusal ought to be tryed by Iury and not by the Certificate of the Bishop and so was the opinion of Windham and Walmesley Periam Where the Issue is whether the Executor did refuse before such a day or after there the tryal shall be by Iury contrary where the Issue is upon refusal generally because the refusal is before him as a Iudge as also is Resignation CCLXXXVII Sutton and Holloway and Dickons Case
And after four and twenty years after the death of the said Sir Anthony the said Edward entred into the Land to him devised by the said Devise and leased the same to the Plaintiff Descent where tokes away entire c. And it was moved here if this dying seised of Henry of the Lands in Hertford and descent to his Heir should take away the Entry of Edward the Devisee And by Anderson cleerly If here upon the whole matter be a descent in the Case then the Entry of Edward the Devisee is taken away although that the Devisee at the time of the descent had not any Action or other remedy for it shall be accounted his folly that he would not enter and prevent the descent But VVindham Periam and VValmesly Iustices 2 Len. 147. 1 Cro. 920. 3 Cro. 145. Owen 96. were of a contrary opinion For a Devisee by a Devise hath but a Title of Entry which shall not be bound by any Descent as Entry for Mortmain for Condition broken And after long deliberation they all agreed that there was not any Descent in the Case for by the Devise and death of the Devisor the Frank-tenement in Law and the Fee was vested in the Devisee Edward And then when the Queen seised and leased the same during the Nonage of Henry and the Lessee entred he did wrong to Edward and by his Entry had gained a tortions Estate in fee although he could not be said properly a Disseisor nor an Abator And afterwards when Henry after his full age when by his Indenture he leased without any special Entry ut supra and by colour thereof the Lessee entred now he is a wrong-doer to Edward the Devisee and by his Entry had gained a wrongful Possession in Fee and then the paying of the Rent to Henry nor the walking of Henry upon the Land without any special claim did not gain any Seisin to him and so he was never seised of the Land and could never dye seised and then no Descent and then the Entry of Edward was lawful and the Lease by him made to the Plaintiff was good And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXCIV. Greenwood and Weldens Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. Replevin IN a Replevin between Greenwood and VVelden The Defendant made Conusans as Bayliff to John Cornwallis shewed how that seven acres of Land called Pilles is locus in quo and at the time of the taking were holden of the said Cornwallis by certain Rent and other Services And for Rent arrear he made Conusans as Bayliff to Cornwallis The Plaintiff pleaded out of the Fee of Cornwallis upon which they were at Issue And it was found that the Plaintiff is seised of seven acres called Pilles hoden of Cornwallis ut supra But the Iury say That locus in quo doth contain two acres which is called Pilles and these two acres are and then were holden of Agmondesham of the Middle-Temple And if upon the whole matter videbitur Curiae c. And by the opinion of the whole Court out of his Fee upon that matter is not found for although it be found that the two acres be holden of Agmondesham yet it may be that they are within the Fee of Cornwallis for it may be that Cornwallis is Lord Paramount and Agmondesham Mesne and then within the Fee of Cornwallis And therefore for the incertainty of the Verdict a Venire facias de novo was awarded CCXCV. Bishop and Harecourts Case Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In the Common Bench. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 210. IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared that the 5 Junij 30 Eliz. the Defend in consideration that the Plaintiff the same day and year sold and delivered to the Defend a Horse did promise to pay the Plaintiff a hundred pounds in Trinity Term then next ensuing and shewed that the Term began 7 Junij after And upon Non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment That it appeareth upon the Declaration that the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action for the Trinity Term intended is not yet come for the day of the Assumpsit is the fifth of June and the fourth day was the first day of the said Term scil the day of Essoins and the seventh day 4. die post and then the promise being made at the day aforesaid after the Commencement of the said Term the same is not the Term intended but the Plaintiff must expect the performance of the promise until a year after And of that opinion was Anderson but the three other Iustices were strongly against him to the contrary for by common intendment amongst the people the Term shall not begin until 4. die post and so it is set down usually in the Almanack And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCICVI Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In the Common-Bench COoper Serjeant came to the Bar and shewed that A. Tenant in tail the Remainder over to B. in Fee. Co. 2 Inst 483. 484. 1 Cro. 323. 471. 567. Hob. 496. 3 Cro. 224. A. for a great sum of mony sold the Land to I. S. and his Heirs and for assurance made a Feoffment in Fee and levied a Fine to the said I. S. to the use of the said I. S. and his Heirs And note that by the Indenture of Bargain and Sale A. covenanted to make such further Assurance within seven days as the said I. S. or his Heirs or their Council should devise And shewed that before any further assurance was made the said I. S. died his Son and Heir being within age And now by advise of Council and of the Friends of the Infant it was devised that for such further assurance and cutting off the Remainder a common Recovery should be suffered in which the said Infant should be Tenant to the Praecipe and should vouch the Vendor Common Recovery suffered by an Infant by his Guardian and because that the said Term of seven years is almost expired and that the said Recovery is intended to be unto the use of the said Infant and his Heirs it was prayed that such a Recovery might be received and allowed And two Presidents in such Case were shewed in the time of this Queen one the Case of the Earl of Shrewsbury and the other one VVisemans Case But the Iustices were very doubtful what to do But at last upon good assurance of people of good Credit that it was unto the use of the Infant and upon the appearance of a good and sufficient Guardian for the Infant in the Recovery who was of ability to answer to the Infant if he should be deceived in the passing of that Recovery and upon consideration had of the two Presidents and upon Affidavit made by two Witnesses that the said intended Recovery was to the use of the Infant the Recovery was received and allowed CCICVII Cottons Case Mich. 32
33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. IT was found by special Verdict that Berwich and Tesdel seised of certain Lands conveyed the same to Sir Thomas Cotton for life Fines levied to use Co. 2 Inst 519. 1 Cro. 219. the Remainder to VVil. Cotton primogenito filio suo haeredi masculo sic de primogenito ad primogenitum dict VVilliam the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of Sir Tho. Cotton and VVil. Cotton lawfully issuing the Remainder to the right Heirs of Sir Tho. Cotton VVil. had Issue a Son born here in Eng. and went beyond Sea to Antwerp and there continuing and his Son being within age in England Sir Thomas Cotton levied a Fine of all the Land sur conusans de droit come ceo c. And afterwards by Indenture convenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Rober Cotton his Son in Fee William died at Antwerp his said Son being within age in England Sir Tho. Cotton died Robert entred and leased the Lands for years to Sary and the Infant Son and Heir of William leased the Land to one Chewn at Will who entred and ousted Sary who thereupon brought Ejectione firmae It was here holden by the Court that Sir Tho. Cotton was Tenant for life the Estates Remainder to William for term of his life the Remainder to the Heirs of both their bodies issuing So as unto one Moyety Sir Thomas Cotton had an Estate tail dependant upon the said Estates for life and so the Fine levied by him was a Bar to the Issue of William for a Moyety And as to the other Moyety they held that the said Fine was not any Bar but that the party interessed at the same time might avoid the Fine at any time during his Nonage five years after for Wil. his Father was not bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. because at the time of the Fine levied he was beyond the Seas and although he never returned but died there yet by the equity of the Statute his Issue shall have five years after his death to avoid the Fine if he were of full age and if he were within age then during his Nonage and five years after At another day the Case was argued and put in this manner viz. Lands were given to Sir Thomas Cotton for life without Impeachment of Wast the Remainder over to Cheny Cotton his eldest Son primogenito filio haeredi Masculo of the said Cheny sic de primogenito filio in primogenitum filium the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the body of the said Cheny for want of such Issue the Remainder to Wil. Cotton his second Son primogenito filio in primogenitum filium the Remainder over to the said Sir Thomas and the said William and the Heirs Males of their bodies lawfully begotten Cheny Cotton died without Issue William having Issue went beyond the Sea Sir Thomas Cotton 19 Eliz. levied a Fine with Proclamation and afterwards William the Father died in Antwerp his Son being within age Sir Thomas by Indenture limited the use of the Fine to himself for life the Remainder over to Robert Cotton his third Son in Tail Sir Thomas died but it doth not appear at what time William the Son being yet within age entred but non constat quando and 31 Eliz. leased the Lands to the Defendant at Will. Drue Serjeant argued for William Cotton And he conceived that William the Father had an Estate-tail and then the entry of William the Son was congeable for the whole But admitting that it is not an Estate-tail in VVilliam the Father for the whole yet he hath by the second Remainder an Estate-tail in the Moyety and then his Entry good as to one Moyety and then Robert being Tenant in Common of the other Moyety Tails his Lessee without an actual Ouster cannot maintain an Ejectionae firmae against the Lessee of his Companion And he conceived here is a good Estate-tail in VVilliam Cotton by virtue of the Limitation to William primogenito filio haeredi Masculo ipsius Guliel sic de primogenito filio in primogenitum filium c. for according to the Statute of VVest 2. the will of the Donor ought to be observed and here it appeareth that the intent of the Donor was to create an Estate-tail although the words of the Limitation do not amount to so much And the Estates mentioned in the Statute aforesaid are not Rules for Entails but only Examples as it is said by Trew 33 E. 3 F. Tail 5. see Robeiges Case 2 E. 2. 1 Fitz. Tail and 5 H. 5. 6. Land given to A. and B. uxori ejus haeredibus eorum aliis haeredibus dicti A. si dict haeredes de dictis A. B. exeuntes obierint sine haeredibus de se c. and that was holden a good Entail so a gift to one and his Heirs si haeredes de carne sua habuerit si nullos de carne sua habuerit revertatur terra and adjudged a good tail So 39 E. 3. 20. Land given to Husband and Wife uni haeredi de corpore suo ligitime procreat uni haeredi ipsius haeredis tantum And that was holden a good Tail and so he conceived in this Case that although the words of the Limitation are not apt to create an Estate-tail according to the phrase and stile of the said Statute of VVest 2. yet here the intent of the Donor appears to continue the Land in his Name and Blood for VVilliam the Son could not take with his Father by his Limitation for he was not in rerum natura and therefore all shall vest in VVilliam the Father which see 18 E. 3 Fitz. Feoffments Fait 60. Now it is to see if upon the Limitation to Sir Thomas Cotton and VVilliam his Son by which the Remainder is limited to Sir Thomas Cotton and VVilliam and the Heirs Males of their bodies issuing the said Sir Thomas Cotton Wil. have a joynt Estate-tail in respect that the Issue of the body of the Son may be Heir of the Body of the Father and so because they might have one Heir which shall be inheritable to his Land it shall be one entire Estate-tail in them But he conceived that they are several Estates-tail and that they are Tenants in Common of an Estate tail 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 145. Land given to the Father and Son and to the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten the Remainder over in Fee the Father dieth without other Issue than the Son only and afterwards the Son dieth withou Issue a stranger abates Or if the Son hath made a Discontinuance if he in the Remainder shall have but one or two several Formedons was the Question And by Saunders Brook and Brown but one Formedon and Quaere left of it yet admitting that yet notwithstanding that it might be
Disseisor as well to Robert as to the Infant Then if the Defendant be Disseisor and hath no title by the Infant Robert who hath Right in a moyety may well enter into the whole for he hath the possession per my per tout by his Entry and then when the Defendant doth eject him he hath good cause of Action And after at another day the Case was moved and it was agreed That for one moyety the Infant is bound for Sir Thomas had an estate tail in a moyety for he was Issue of the body of the Comisor But for the other moyety the Fine levyed by Tenant for life William the Father being then Tenant beyond the Sea It was holden by Anderson Windham and Walmesly that the Infant was not barred notwithstanding the objection abovesaid That William the Father never returned into England and notwithstanding the words of the Statute of 4 H. 7. And by Walmesley If an infant make his claim within age it is sufficient to avoid the Fine and yet the said Statute seems to appoint to him time within five years after his full age so that according to the very words a claim made before or after should be vain yet in Equity although he be not compelsable to make his claim until the time allowed by the Statute yet if he make it before it is good enough And by Anderson Although that VVilliam the Father did not return yet if he makes not his claim within five years after the death of his Father being of full age and without any impediment c. he shall be barred If in such case a man hath many impediments he is not compellable to make his claim when one of the impediments is removed but when they are all removed So if the Ancestor hath one of the said impediments and dieth before it be removed and his Heir is within age or hath other impediment he is not bound to make is claim till five years after his impediment is removed And Somes case cited before was holden and agreed to be good Law for the Forfeiture may not be known unto him And as to the objection against the Lease at Will because it was made by an Infant and no Rent reserved upon it nor the Lease made upon the Land and therefore the Lessee should be a Disseisor To that it was answered Be the Defendant a Disseisor or not it is not material here for if the Plaintiff had not title according to his Declaration he cannot recover 1 Cro. 220. 1 Cro. 438. whether the Defendant hath title or not for it is not like unto Trespass where the very possession without other title is good contrary in Actions against all who gave not title but in Ejectione firmae if the title of the Plaintiff be not good and sufficient be the title of the Defendant good or not he shall not recover And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant Hill. 33. Eliz. CCXCVIII Cheny and Smiths Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Ejectione firmae by Cheny and his Wife against Smith The Plaintiffs declared upon a Lease made by the Master of the House or Colledge of S. Thomas of Acons in London to I.S. who assigned it over to Knevit who by his Will devised the same to his Wife whom he made also his Executrix and dyed and afterwards she took to Husband one VVaters and died VVaters took Letters of Administration of the Goods and Chattells of his Wife and afterwards leased to the Plaintiffs And upon not guilty they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence That the Lease given in Evidence was not the Lease whereof the Plaintiffs have declared for the oriâ—inal Lease shewed in Court is Master of the House or Hospital where the Lease specified in the Declaration is Master of the House or Colledge 38 E. 3. 28. And some of the Iustices conceived that there is not any material Variance but if the parties would it might be found by special Verdict For by them Colledge and Hospital are all one And afterwards the Court moved the Plaintiffs to prove if the wife were in as Executrix or as Legatee for by Anderson and Periam until election be made he shall not be said to have it as Legatee especially if it be not alledged in fact that all the debts of the Testator are paid And Anderson doubted although that it be alledged that the debts be paid If the Executor shall be said to have the said Lease as a Legacy before she hath made Election vid. Weldens Case and Paramours Case in Plowd And afterwards it was given in Evidence That the wife after the death of the Husband had repaired the Banks of the Land and produced Witnesses to prove it as if the same should amount to claim it as a Legacy and the Court said that that matter should de referred to the Iury 1 Roll. 620. And it was further shewed in Evidence that the said Wife Executrix and her said Husband Waters formerly made a Lease by Deed reciting thereby that where the Husband was possessed in the right of his said Wife as Executrix of her first Husband c. And by the opinion of the whole Court the same was an express claim as Executrix and then when the Wife died if the Husband would have advantage of it he ought to take Letters of Administration of the Goods of her first Husband and not of the Wife but if she had claimed the Land and the Term in it as Legatee and had not been in possession Administration taken of the Rights and Debts of the Wife had been good as to that intent that his Wife was not actually possessed of it but only had a Right unto it and of such things in Action the Husband might be Executor or Administrator to his Wife but here they have failed of their title The Administration being taken of the goods of the Wife where it should be of the Goods of the Testator the first Husband And for this cause the Plaintiffs were non-suit and the Iury discharged And it was agreed by all the Iustices that if the Wife before Election had taken Husband that the Husband might have made the Election in the Case aforesaid CCXCIX The Lord Cobham and Browns Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. THe Case between the Lord Cobham and Brown was that the Abbot of Grace was seised of the Mannor of Gravesend in the County of Kent which Mannor doth extend to the Parishes of Gravesend and Milton and that the said Abbot and all his Predecessors c. time out of mind c. have had a Water-Court within the said Mannor which Court had been holden at Gravesend Bridge in the end of it and that all the Inhabitants within the said Parishes which have Boats either entirely or joyntly with others and have used to transport or carry passengers from Gravesend to London e contra and have used to fasten
their Boats at the said Bridge of Gravesend have used to do suit at the said Court and there have used to enquire of all mis-orders and mis-demeanors of Water-men there and that the said Abbots c. have used to have the Fines and Amercements of the same Court and conveyed the said Mannor to the Plaintiff and that at a Court there holden The Defendant being sworn with the residue of the Enquest to enquire of such dis-orders refused to give his Verdict for which for the said contempt the Defendant by the then Steward was amerced twenty shillings for the which Amercement the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt It was moved by Beaumount Serjeant That the Action did not lye for the Prescription upon which the Action is grounded is not good first he claims to have this Court within his Mannor and as a thing appertaining to it and yet he claims suit at his Court of all the Inhabitants of the said two Parishes to have them Suitors at it being meer strangers to the Mannor which do not hold of it for although it be alledged that the said Mannor doth extend in the said Parishes yet the same doth not prove that every part of the said Parishes is within the said Manor and if it be not so the Prescription may extend as well to all the County of Kent as well as to the said two Parishes for such a Prescription cannot bind but those which are Tenants of the said Manor and cannot extend to strangers which see 21 H. 7. 40. The Case of Pound-breach Secondly it is not alleadged here that the Steward ought and had used to assess Amercements for by the common Law no Steward hath authority to assess Amercements or Fines in a Court Baron for there the Suitors are Iudges not the Steward that this Water-Court is a Court Baron it appeareth by the Declaration for there it is said that it is a Court belonging to such a Manor and that prima facie shall be meant a Court Baron if the contrary be not shewed vi Fitz. 75. g. Thirdly it is not shewed that the Amercement was affered which see ib. 75. Harris Serjeant to the contrary This Court upon the whole matter is in nature of a Leet for the reformation of mis-orders between the Watermen and the prescription here will warrant such a Court well enough And there are many Courts in England which are not Court Barons but grounded upon Prescription 40 E. 3. 17. The Court before the Chancellor of Oxford Prescription to have Swan mote and it is reason that this Prescription should hold place for here is quid pro quo for Watermen receive their carriage and loading at this Bridge and also discharge their loading there and they use to fasten their Boats there and therefore in lieu of that benefit it is reason that they be attendant at the Court which is upon the said Bridge and upon that reason is the Prescription of Toll Traverse 5 H. 7. 9. And to have a Land Bird 2 R. 3. 15. And Toll of every Vessel which passeth the River 21 H. 7. 16. And this Court may be a Court within the Manor and yet no Court Baron but in the nature of a Leet and the Prescription shall be good in Law by reason of the recompence to the Suitors and then if it be not a Court Baron but rather in the nature of a Leet then it follows that the Suitors are not Iudges but the Steward and it behoves not to prescribe for the Amercement for that is incident to a Court Leet for otherwise how can the Suitors be compelled to do their suit at it or their defaults or contempts at the same be punished and as to the affering of the Amercement it needs not here for it is a Fine for the open contempt and despite done unto the Court and not an Amercement and it may well be assessed by the Steward alone vi 23 H. 8. Br. Leet 37. Drill Serjeant to the contrary For this Prescription is not reasonable to drive strangers to do suit at a Court Baron for there is sufficient consideration in the Case of Tenants of the Manor for it may be at the beginning the Tenancies were given upon such consideration to do such suit But in the principal case the Prescription is their ground and therefore unreasonable because without consideration 22 E. 4. 43. see the case there and 21 H. 7. 20. A custom alleadged that if any Tenant distrain the Beasts of another Damage Feasant That he ought to bring such Beasts to the pound of the Lord of the Manor and if not That at the next Court he should be amerced twelve pence and the same was holden no good custom because against common Right and common Law. Puckering Serjeant If this Court shall be reputed in Law a Court Baron then the Prescription for the maner of it is not good for in such case the Amercement cannot be assessed by the Steward But he held that this Court is in the nature of a Court Leet and not a Court Baron and all Inhabitants within the Precinct of it are bounden to do their suit at it by reason of their Resiancy their trade there if they have Boats or shares in Boats and such Court is for the better government of such Watermen and the exercise and practise of their trade and for the redressing of misdemeanors betwixt them and so this Court hath a reasonable commencement being instituted for the publick good and if customs which concern the private benefit of any be allowable as the Mayor and Burgesses of a Town prescribe to have of every Tun which cometh in any Ship into their Port and put upon the Land 6. d. for Toll See 21 H. 16. A fortiori a Custom or Prescription which concerns the publick good is good it is not strange that such Court hath been maintained by Prescription for the Court of Stanneris is so without any commencement or erection but by Custom And although that Toll cannot be paid at any Market for things brought to Market but for things sold yet by custom Toll shall be paid for every thing brought to Market and for the standing of the Seller there for the sale of Victuals is for the good of the Common-wealth which thing is the ground of the Prescription in the principal Case therefore the Prescription in the manner of it is good and if the prescription be good for the Court then to have a Steward to keep the Court to assess Fines for contempts and disorders is good without any special prescription for it is incident to it Periam Iustice If it be a Court-baron then cannot the Steward impose or assess any Fine which Windham granted but he said it is not a Court-baron but a Court by prescription Periam If the Plaintiff claim it as belonging to his Manor it shall be intended a Court-baron but yet a man may have a Court within
his Manor by prescription which is not a Court-baron Anderson was of opinion that it is not a Court-baron for although it be appertaining to the Manor yet that is not any proof that it is a Court-baron For a Leet may be appertaining to a Manor It was adjourned CCC Green and Edwards Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco 1 Cro. 216. 217. BEtween Green and Edwards the Case was this Land is demised to A. for nine years if he shall so long live and if he die within the Term that B. his Wife shall have it durante toto residuo termini praedict The Husband dieth during the Term If the Wife shall have the residue of the Term was the Question And by Periam Walmesly Iustices by the death of the Husband the Term is determined thereupon nothing can remain especially by way of grant but by way of Devise it might be See 9 Eliz. 253. A Lease for forty years to A. if he shall live so long and if he die within the Term that E. his Wife shall have the residue of the years Where it was holden that by the death of A. the Term is determined and then there is no residue and so the Limitation is void vide 3 4 Phil. Mar. 150. Anderson If the Husband and Wife had been parties to the Deed of Demise then the residue of the Term should go to the Wife after the death of the Husband and this word Terminum shall not be taken for the Interest which is given to the Husband but for the time so it is as much as to say that if the Husband die before forty years expired that then his Wife shall have the residue for forty years and it is reason to make such construction rather than to construe the said part of the Deed to be void For if in the construction of this Grant the Term shall be taken for the Interest then the Limitation shall be void And in all Grants the Deeds shall be taken most beneficially for the Grantee and most strongly against the Grantor especially ut res magis valeat quam pereat And here are several Grants and several Terms But if such matter be limited to the Wife not named in the Deed all is void for it is incertain when the Term shall begin it cannot vest during the particular Estate and it is not certain whether the Husband shall survive the Term or not And by Walmesly Windham the said Limitation is meerly void As if a Termer grants all his Term for so many years as shall be behind after his death the same is a void Grant for the Lessee may over-live all the Term and then it is incertain when it shall begin And in this Case this word Term shall be taken for the Interest and not for time vide 35 H. 8. Br. Conditions 203. vide Co. 1. part in the Rector of Chedingtons Case this Case vouched CCCI. Gawton and the Lord Dacres Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. IN Debt upon Surplusage of an Accompt by Gawton against George Lord Dacres It was said by Periam Iustice and not denied by any that if I make J. S. my Auditor generally to take Accompts of all my Bayliffs and Receivors that he is not a sufficient Auditor without a Patent for when a man is made an Auditor generally he is an Officer and an Officer cannot be without a Deed. But if a Bayliff or Receiver be accomptable to me it is as cleer on the other side that I may appoint one to be my Auditor to take the accompt of him pro hac vice by word which Anderson granted But if he afterwards takes an accompt of any by force or colour of the said Warrant without my Commandment he is not a sufficient Auditor to such intent either to take the accompt or to assess the arrerages if the accomptant be found in arrear or to make allowance if he be found in Surplusage And by him If one become my Bayliff of his own wrong without my appointment he is accomptable to me but I am not compellable to make him any allowance for his Expences about my business And if I assign to such Bayliff of his own wrong an Auditor he cannot make allowance of such Expences Anderson If my Auditor make allowance to my Bayliff for any collateral Expences which he hath expended in my affairs which do not concern my Manor whereof he is Bayliff such allowance shall not bind me And note that in this Action the Plaintiff declared that he was Bayliff to the Defendant of certain Manors Receiver of certain monies and so retained ad diversa negotia procurandum And upon accompt the allowance was made unto him for his Board-wages and other Expences in riding Circa negotia And by Anderson 3 Len. 149. these allowances shall not bind the Defendant for as Bayliff of a Manor no Expences shall be allowed unto him but those which the Bayliff hath expended within the Manor And if I retain one to go about my business he is not accomptable Windham If I retain one to follow my business and deliver to him mony to disburse in such business he is accomptable Anderson It is so truly but it is not in respect of the said Retainer Devises but as he was Receiver and if he expend more than he hath received he doth it without Warrant and no allowance shall be made unto him If the Bayliff be found in Surplusage in the conclusion of the accompt the Auditor ought to enter Allocatur super determinationem Compt. in surplusagiis so much for such and such Expences allocatis allocandis upon the next accompt But in this Case it appeared upon the Evidence that the Entry upon the foot of the accompt was And so he is in Surplusage upon the determination of this accompt twenty six pounds But the Auditor being examined said that it was not his meaning to allow unto him so much but only to find and express the certainty of the whole accompt and so refer the allowance of it to the Defendant to whom he was Auditor and upon that the Court said to the Iury if they believed the Auditor that they should find against the Plaintiff for upon the matter here is not any accompt and so no allowance for the allowance if it had been according to Law ought to be entred before Allocatur c. and such allowance is as a Iudgment but here is not any allowance for the Auditor did refer the same to the Defendant But if the Iury doth not give credit to the Auditor then the Court moved the Iury to find it specially that the party was Auditor without Deed and the finding of the accompt as it is set down in the Declaration and the manner of the conclusion of it viz. That the Plaintiff was in Surplusage upon the determination of the accompt for his Expences in riding Circa negotia defendentis
Daltons case 292. It hath been obiected that the special Assets enacted by Parliament do not maintain the general Assets intended in the Issues but he conceived the same is well enough As 27 H. 8. 21. In an Action upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. for that the Defendant hath occupied Land to farm against the Statute The Defendant pleaded Non tenuit ad firmam contra formam Statuti And gave in Evidence that he had taken to Farm for the maintenance of his house the same is a good Evidence and shall maintain the Issue for he did not occupy against the form of the Statute for there is a clause in the Statute to that purpose Puckering Serjeant to the contrary That it cannot be said Assets by the Statute and that the Plaintiff upon this general Issue shall not take advantage of the special Assets enacted by Parliament And here the Plaintiff hath not pursued the Statute for in case the Defendant will not confess the Debt by the Statute the Commissioners ought to determine of it and assess damages for the forbearing and then the party is to have her remedy for all as shall be so determined by the Commissioners by action of Debt and because the Plaintiff hath not followed the said Statute those twenty thousand pounds shall not be Assets as to her for they are not agreed of the Debt nor of the Damages for it but the Commissioners are to appoint sale of the Lands so as the money arising of the sale of any Lands shall not be Assets but of such Lands which have been appointed to be sold by the order of the Commissioners And as to the Common Law the same is not Assets but where Lands devised to be sold by the Executors for the payment of Debts and Legacies in such case the money arising of such sale is Assets And see 9 Eliz. 264. Dyer A man devised his Lands to be sold by his Executors and that the money thereof coming shall be disposed in payment of Legacies expressed in his Will the Land is sold by Catlin Dyer and Sanders the money thereof coming is Assets but 4 5 Ph. Mar. Dyer 152. the Law was otherwise taken Where a man devised that his Executors should sell his Land and that his Daughters should have such portions out of the monies thereof coming the Land is sold accordingly the Daughters sued the Executors in the Spiritual Court. In that Case a Prohibition lieth for it is not a Legacy Testamentory but out of the Land c. And also in the principal case the Lands are not devised to be sold but there is only a Request to his Wife that she would pay his Debts without any condition or express direction or limitation 30 H. 8. Land devised to Executors to sell and the money thereof coming to be divided between his Children the money shall not be Assets and if it be not Assets by the Common Law but special Assets by a special Law the Plaintiff ought to have shewed the same in his Declaration and then to have maintained against the Defendant the said special Assets upon the Statute As if in Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant will plead Non est factum and give in Evidence the Statute of 23 H. 6. the same shall not maintain his Plea of Non est factum but he ought to have pleaded the special matter in Bar. And see 4 H. 7. 8. So the Plaintiff here ought to have in her Replication shewed the especial matter upon the Statute Anderson and Walmesly conceived that the same is Assets within the Stat. and that the Defendant is chargable as Executrix otherwise there is no remedy and the Act confirms her to be Executrix and ordains that she shall take upon her the charge of payment of Debts and that the Goods and all the Monies which come by sale of the Lands and Woods shall be Assets And because that by the said Act the money coming by sale of Woods and Lands are joyned together with the Goods of the Testator in the same plight all are in the same degree and both equally Assets Periam did not speak to that but Windham held That these Assets found by the Verdict are not Assets intended in the Will and that the Plaintiff hath not pursued the Statute which makes such matter Assets It was adjorned CCCVII The Queen and the Bishop of Yorks Case Pasch 33 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 240. THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of York and one Monck and counted upon a Presentment made by him Hen. 8. in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster and so conveyed the same to the Queen by descent The Bishop pleaded that he and his Predecessors have collated to the said Church c. and Monck pleaded the same plea Collation gains not the Patronage of the King. 6 Co. 50. a. upon which there was a Demurrer And it was moved by Beaumont Serjant That the plea is not good for a Collation cannot gain any Patronage and cannot be an Vsurpation against a common Person much less against the Queen to whom no Lapses shall be ascribed and although the Queen is seised of this Advowson in the right of her Dutchy yet when the Church becomes void the Right to present vests in the Royal person of the Queen and yet see the old Register 31. Quando Rex praesentat non in jure Coronae tunc incurrit ei tempus Hammon Serjeant By these Collations the Queen shall be put out of possession and put to her Writ of Right of Advowson but the same ought to be intended not where the Bishop Collates as Ordinary but where he Collates as Patron claiming the Patronage to himself for such a Collation doth amount to a Presentation and here are two or three Collations pleaded which should put the Queen out of possession although she shall not be bound by the first during the life of the first Incumbent Vide Br. Quare Impedit 31. upon the abridging of the Case of 47 E. 3. 4. That two Presentments the one after the other shall put the King out of possession and put him to his Writ of Right of Advowson which Anderson denied And it was holden by the whole Court Here is not any Presentation and then no possession gained by the Collations and although the Bishop doth collate as Patron and not as Ordinary yet it is but a Collation And there is a great difference betwixt Collation and Presentation for Collation is a giving of the Church to the Parson and Presentation is a giving and offering of the Parson to the Church and that makes a Plenarty but not a Collation And although that the Queen hath the Advowson by the right of her Dutchy yet that makes not any matter for the person of the Queen priviledgeth all her Capacities Plenarty no Plea against the sting and therefore Plenarty is no plea against the Queen be
all Lands which are ancient Demesn are holden in Socage so as they were all Husbandmen who manured their Lands for the sustentation of the Kings Subjects to which they had such such priviledges to be the better able to follow their Husbandry and therefore to disable such profitable Subjects and to prescribe against these Liberties and Priviledges is to take away the name of ancient Demesn and to make their Lands at the common Law. Hobart contrary To shew the authority to demand is not necessary for our Prescription is not upon demand to distrain For the common Officer hath authority to demand for they ought to demand it who ought to take the thing demanded and those are the Bailiffs and Burgesses and then when their Water-bayly doth it it is as much as if it had been done by the corporation which see 48 E. 3. 17. The Mayor and comminalty of Lincoln brought an action of covenant against the Mayor and comminalty of Derby and declared that the Mayor and comminalty of Derby had covenanted with the Mayor and comminalty of Lin. that they should be quit of Murage Pontage Custom and Toll within the Town of Derby of all Merchandises of those of the Town of Lin. and further declared That I.W. and H.M. two Burgesses of the Town of Derby had taken certain Toll of certain Burgesses of the Town of Lin. c. Exception was taken to this Declaration because they had alleadged the taking of such Toll not by the corporation of Derby but by I. and H. two of the Burgesses of it in which case the Plaintiffs might have an action of Trespass against the Burgesses for the act of any of the corporation is not the breaking of the covenant made by the comminalty but it was not allowed for if the common Officer of the Town doth any thing for their common use as it is intended such thing was done by the Officer it is reason all the Town be answerable for it and the whole comminalty by intendment cannot come at one time to take c. and so in our case for as much as the corporation ought to make the demand and their common Officer doth it to their use the same is the act of the whole corporation As to the matter in Law we have pleaded specially That we took Toll only of those things which are brought by Sea by Merchants and not otherwise and I conceive that Tenants in ancient Demesn are not discharged of Toll for all things but only for such which arise out of their Tenements or are bought for their Tenements or Families there and their sustentations according to the quantity of their Tenements 9 H. 6. 25. 19 H. 6. 66. They shall be quit of Toll of all things sold and bought coming of their Lands or for the manurance of their Lands And 7 H. 4. 111. Tenants of ancient Demesn ought to be quit of Toll for Oxen or Beasts bought and sold for tillage and manurance of their Lands and for their sustenance and maintenance of their Families and for putting them to Pasture to make them fat and more vendable and so to sell them c. And see accordingly F.N.B. 224. D. See Crook 138. 139. 28 Eliz. A Iudgment was given for the said parties for the Plaintiffs but there the Plaintiff declared generally and the Defendant did demur in Law generally wherefore by common intendment the Cattel were bought for the tillage and manurance of their Lands For there it was not shewed as it is here that it was to Merchandize Also we have justified not only for Toll but also for Trouage and that they have not shewed and therefore as to the Trouage our justification is good enough for their priviledge shall not be construed to extend beyond the words of it As the priviledge of the Law is That if I leave my horse at a Smiths Forge to be shod there my horse cannot be distrained but if I or my Servant take the Saddle from the Horses back and lay it in the Smiths Forge the Saddle may be distrained Then here are two customs meeting together and to begin together and the one was not before the other then the particular custom shall stand And I conceive that by the Writ de exoneratione sect Fitz. N. B. 161. b. The Tenants in ancient Demesn have not always such priviledges for the Writ saith quod si ita sit then c. and nisi ipsi eorum antecessores tenentes de eodem manerio venire consueverunt temporibus retroactis and see the same matter in the Register 181. And afterwards Iudgment was given quod querens nihil capiat par billam for the Iustices were of opinion that the Tenants in ancient Demesn should pay Toll for their Merchandizes CCCXVI. Lancaster and Lucas Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. TRespass was brought for entring into the Parsonage-house of Ringhall and divers Lands appertaining to it Leasâ—â— The Defendant being Farmor of the Parsonage pleaded Not guilty and the Iury found that one Tybbin was Parson of the said Church and that one Ash and Dorothy his Wife Wivell and Drausfield were Patrons of the said Church scil Ash and his Wife in the Right of his Wife Wivell as Tenant by the Curtesie the Reversion to his Son and Drausfield also as Tenant by the Curtesie but without Issue by his Wife c. so as the Inheritance of the said Parsonage was in Wivell and Ash and afterwards the Bishop of Chester being Ordinary the Parson and Patron 4 E. 6. joyned in a Lease of the Rectory which Lease was void as to the Wife of Ash to S. who assigned it to the Defendant All the Lessors dyed and further found that Ash and Wivell were Heirs of the Patronage and that the Church being void the Presentment came to the Bishop by reason of Lapse and that the Successor of the Bishop had Collated his Clark. Cook argued And he conceived that the same now Incumbent should avoid the Lease in toto and the case is but this Three Coparceners Patrons of an Advowson or Tenants in Common the Parson three Patrons and the Ordinary joyn in a Lease where the one of them is a Feme-covert and so her Act void If the Successor of the Incumbent being presented by Lapse shall avoid it in all And he conceived that he should for all three have interest in the Parsonage and all three ought to agree but the agreement of the one is worth nothing But it hath been said that that is but matter of assent and that the assent of the one is as strong as the assent of them all Attoâ—nment As if many Ioynt-tenants hold by certain Services and the Lord granteth the Services to a stranger and one of the Ioynt-tenants attorneth to the Grant the same is as sufficient as if they had all attorned Lit. 128. 566. Otherwise it is of a Rent-charge for there all the Ioynt-tenants of the Lands charged
upon the grant of the said Rent ought to attorn to the Grant for the Ter-tenant ought to attorn and one of them is not Ter-tenant And in case of a Rent-charge the Avowry is upon the Lands but Attornment differs from our case for Attornment is but a bare assent without any interest in him who attorns for an Abator may do it but here is matter of Interest and in Attornment Attornment for one acre is effectual for all 18 E. 3. Fitz. variance 63. but otherwise it is in case of Confirmation for one acre the same doth not extend to the rest for in such case an Interest passeth So here the one of them is not Patron therefore all of them ought to concur 31 E. 3. Grants 61. That such act of the Patron shall not bind but according to the Estate of the Patron which see Lit. 112. 528. as if Tenant in Tail confirm the same shall not bind the Presentee of the issue See Fitz. Grants 104 In R. 2. The case was that the Bishop of Covent and Lichfeild had two Chapters one of Coventry the other of Lichfeild and he made a conveyance but one Chapter only did confirm it the same doth not bind the Successor for both are but one Chapter in respect of the Bishop and see the case abridged by Statham Title Assize for if the Bishop is chosen by both Chapters there a confirmation must be of them both The case in Dyer 11 Eliz. 282. Thark Archbishop of Dublin hath two Deans and Chapters the one surrendreth without the assent of the Bishop and afterwards the other Dean and Chapter confirmeth a Lease made by the Bishop the same is good I confess that for the Surrender was by Act of Parliament and so one sole Chapter remained And in our case the Lease cannot be good in part and void for the residue for all are but one Patron as 22 H. 6. 47. Two Coparcenes are they make composition to present by Turns a Writ of Annuity is brought against the Incumbent he shall have aid of both And see the Case betwixt Gore and Dawbney in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Writ of Error where two are accountable an Account made by the one is not good for both the Accountants shall make but one account and therefore the Account of the one cannot be good And the Lord Anderson put this Case two Ioynt-tenants of a Manor the one of them doth grant a Copy the same is void for he is not Dominus pro tempore And see as to the assent of them all c. 3 Eliz. 190. Dyer But it hath been objected That now the Incumbent comes in by the Ordinary and not by the Presentment of the Patron and the Ordinary is bound by the confirmation of his Predecessor so that the collation of the Bishop by Lapse is in the right and sted of the Patron and as the Presentee of the Heir of the Patron shall avoid c. so also of the Ordinary and 20 E. 3. Br. Presentment 12. The Patron shall have a Writ of Darrein-presentment upon the present of the Bishop for Lapse and 22 H. 6. If a man can recover an Advowson and after the Bishop collate for Lapse the same is an Execution of the Iudgment and will make a possessio fratris as Moyle saith And in our case this confirmation is void in all because Non sunt concurrentes ii qui in hac parte concurrere debuerant And it is an entire Act and cannot be avoided in part and stand for the residue and the Presentee comes in in the right of the Heir for which he may avoid it c. Popham contrary it is to be here considered if the Ordinary hath Interest in the Church by this Lapse or only an authority for if he hath an Interest then it will follow that every one of his Successors shall be bound by his Confirmation and also their Presentees It hath been objected that there ought to be a full and entire Patron who makes such a Lease otherwise it is void But that is not so as if the Patron be Tenant for life his Lease or Confirmation shall not be void in all but shall be good during his life which see 31 E. 3. Grants 61. and 19 Eliz. 356. A Parson makes a Lease for forty years the Bishop being Patron and Ordinary confirms it the Patron dyeth the Bishop presents and afterwards is translated this Lease shall stand during the life of the Bishop and of the new Incumbent who found the Church charged and then such Lease may be good for part and void for part See for the same 2 E 3. 8. If the Advowson of a Church be appropriated unto a Prior and his Successors if afterwards the wife of the Grantor be endowed of it and present her Clerk the Church is become dis-appropriated during the life of the Wife but afterwards shall stand See the case cited to the contrary 29 Eliz. in the case of the Earl of Bedford 7 Co. 8. At the beginning the Patron was not restrained to any time to present his Clerk but the six months was appointed at the instance and suit of the Ordinaries by a Canon confirmed in the councel of Lateran before which time the Ordinaries had not any Lapses but after the said Canon they had an Interest in the Church and this appeareth in the Register And see F.N.B. 37. f. that after the Ordinary is entituled to Lapses The Plaintiff in a Quare Impedit cannot have a Ne admittas for now the Ordinary hath an Interest And if the Bishop hath Title to present by Lapse and before Presentment he dyeth so as his temporalties come to the King the King shall present which proves that it is an Interest and the Civilians call it Interesse caducum conditionale And in our case the confirmation of the Coparcener shall bind the other Coparceners in a Nativo habendo shall bind them all and the villain shall be free for ever And it was moved also if an usurper or the Clerk who is in by him shall avoid this clause and by the words of the Statute of West 2. Si tempus semestre transierit per impedimentum alicujus ita quod Episcopus Ecclesiam conferat verus Patronus ea vice praesentationem suam amittat adjudicentur damna ad valorem Ecclesiae pro duobus annis Wherefore what the Patron loseth the Ordinary hath the same therefore it is an Interest and in lieu of that loss the Statute gives damages to the Patron c. And the case was adjorned to be further argued at another day c. CCCXVIII Pet and Baldens Case Pasch 33. Eliz. Rot. 392. In the Kings Bench. IN a prohibition the Plaintiff declared Prohibition 1 Cro. 274. that whereas Michael Pett was seised of divers Lands and made his Will by which he made the Plaintiff his Son his Executor and thereby devised unto A. his Wife one hundred pounds in consideration and recompence
covenanteth and granteth to the others eorum utrique to make assurance and there it was holden that the word uterque doth amount to quilibet Wray Admit it shall be so taken in a Bond yet it shall not be so taken in an Indictment As if a man make a Lease for years rendring Rent payable at the day of St. Martin although there be two days of St. Martin in the year yet the reservation is good and the Rent shall be taken payable at the most usual day of St. Martin there in the Country But in an Indictment if an offence he laid to be done on St. Martins day without shewing which in certain it is not good Fenner The word uterque is matter of surplusage and therefore shall not hurt the Indictment CCCXXVII Blunt and Whiteacres Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas in a Replevin where the Defendant did avow as Fermor of the Manor of F. in the County of Berks to St. Johns Colledge in Oxford and laid a Prescription there in him and his Fermors to distrain for all Amercements in the Court of the said Manor Amercement and shewed that the Plaintiff in the Replevin was presented by the Homage for not repairing of a House being a customary Tenant of the said Manor according to a pain imposed upon him at a former Court for which he was amerced by the Steward to ten shillings and was also presented for not ringing of his Swine for which he was amerced three shillings four pence and for these Amercements he distrained And upon Nihil dicit Iudgment was given for the Avowant to have return upon which a Writ of Error was brought And Error assigned in that there is not any Prescription laid in the Avowry for the Lord to amerce the Tenants and of common Right he cannot do it See 48 E. 3. And such Amercement is Extortion for the Lord cannot be his own Iudge and therefore he ought to enable himself to distrain by Prescription Another Error because the Fine is laid to be assessed by the Steward 1 Cro. 748. 886. whereas by the Law it ought to be by the Suitors for they are Iudges and not the Steward Another because that in the Avowry it is set down quod praesentatum fuit that he had not repaired a certain House but he doth not say in facto categorice c. that he had not repaired for that is matter traversable 4. Here is no offence for a Copy-holder is not bound to repair by the Common Law if it be not by Prescription for he cannot have House-boot upon the Land as a Termor may if it be not alledged a custom Fenner The Steward may assess Fines for a contempt but not Amercements if not by Prescription Gawdy The Lord of a Mannor cannot assess Amercements for a Trespass done to himself upon his own Lands but otherwise it is of a common Trespass or a Trespass done in the Land of another but for the Distress he ought to prescribe and the Iudgment was reversed CCCXXVIII Page and Fawcets Case Pasch 29 Eliz. Rot. 121. In the Kings Bench. Error 3 Cro. 227. ERror was brought upon a Iudgment given in Lyn where by the Record it appeareth that they prescribe to hold Plea every Wednesday and it appeared upon the said Record that the Court was holden 16 Feb. 26 Eliz. which was dies Dominicus and that was not assigned for Error in the Record but after in Nullo est erratum pleaded it was assigned at the Bar And Almanacks were shewed to the Court in proof of it and it was holden clearly to be Error but the doubt was if it should be tried by Iury or by the Almanacks and it was said that the Iustices might judicially take notice of Almanacks and be informed by them and that was the Case of one Robert in the time of the Lord Catline and by Coke so was the Case betwixt Galery and Bunbury and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed CCCXXIX Geofries and Coites Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IT was found by special Verdict 1 Cro. 25â— that one Avice Trivilian was Tenant for life the Remainder to her Son in tail the Remainder over Tenant for life and he in the Remainder in tail make a Lease for life the Remainder for life rendring Rent Tenant for life dieth he in the Remainder dieth and his Son accepteth of the Rent of the Tenant for life in possession who dieth The Issue in tail entreth he in the Remainder for life entreth c. And it was conceived that this acceptance of the Rent of the Lessee for life doth affirm also the Remainder See Litt. Sect. 521. and such was the opinion of Gawdy and Fenner Iustices CCCXXX The Lord Mordant and Vaux Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Lord Mordant brought an Action of Trespass against George Vaux and declared of a Trespass done in quodam loco 1 Inst 225. 1 Cro. 269. called N. parcel of the Manor of Hawarden The Case was William Lord Vaux was seised thereof and thereof levied a Fine to the use of the Lord Vaux which now is for life and after his decease to the use of Ann and Muriel Daughters of the Lord Vaux and their Assigns until Ambrose Vaux should return from the parts beyond the Seas and should come to the Age of 21 years or dye if they should so long live And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death whichsoever of the said days or times should first happen to the use of the said Ambrose and the Heirs of his body begotten with divers Remainders over Ambrose returned Plow Com. 376. 2. Ante 18. 76. and 31 Eliz. before he came of full age for it is not pleaded that he was of full age levied a Fine to the use of George Vaux the Defendant in tail with divers Remainders over Afterwards the Lord Vaux being Tenant for life enfeoffed the Lord Mordant in Fee upon whom the said George Vaux entred for a forfeiture upon which Entry the Lord Mordant brought the Action Buck argued for the Plaintiff Amb. Vaux had nothing in the Lands in question until his return from beyond the Seas and his full age and the estate doth not begin until both be past and he said that no use did arise to Ambrose until the time incurred for the time of the beginning is uncertain and upon a Contingent as 13 Eliz. Dyer 301. A. makes a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life and after to the use of B. who he intendeth to marry until the Issue which he shall beget on her shall be of the age of 21 years and after the Issue shall come of such age then unto the use of the said B. during her Widowhood the Husband dieth without Issue the Wife entreth and her
Entry holden lawful But Error was brought upon it And also Calthrops case was cited to the same purpose 16 Eliz. Dyer 336. This estate limited to Ambrose doth refer to the estate limited to Muriel and Ann and not to the time for ever the first estate is to be respected as 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. He in the Remainder in Fee upon an estate for life deviseth it to his Wife yielding and paying during her natural life yearly 20 shillings and dieth living Tenant for life the Rent shall not begin until the Remainder falleth So as the general words refer to the beginning of the estate although the words imply that the Rent shall be paid presently And see also such construction 9 Eliz. 261. A Lease was made for thirty years and four years after the Lessor makes another Lease by these words Nos dictis 30 annis finitis dedisse concessisse c. Habend tenend a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque terminum c. And although prima facie the beginning of this Term seems incertain yet the Iustices did respect the former estate and so the Lessee hath the Interest of the Term from the making of the Deed but no estate until the first Term expire Then Ambrose before his age of 21 years levying a Fine the Fine shall not bind the Feoffee for it enures only by way of conclusion and so binds parties and privies but not a stranger And the party needs not to plead against this Fine quod partes to the Fine Nihil habuerunt for that appeareth upon their own shewing Wiat contrary The state of Ambr. accrues and rises when any of the said times come first full age return death for the words are And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death c. This word or before death disjoyns all and makes the sentence in the Disjunctive and he cited a case lately judged in the Common Pleas A Lease was made to Trewpeny and his Wife for one hundred years if he and his Wife or any Child or Children betwixt them begotten should so long live the Wife died without Issue the Husband held the Land c. for the Disjunctive before Child made the sentence Disjunctive Gawdy Iustice That had been Law if no such word had been in the Case And Wiat said That although the return be incertain yet it is certain enough that he shall come to the age of 21 years or dye And also this is by way of use which needs not to depend upon any estate and if the Remainder shall vest presently upon his return then it would be doubtful what Remainder it is if it be a Remainder depending upon the estate for the life of Ann and Muriel or for years i.e. until Ambrose shall come of the age of 21 years But be it incertain yet the Fine is good for here is a Remainder in Ambrose and both are but particular estates and there is not any doubt but that one may convey by Fine or bar by Fine such contingent uses for which see the Statute of 32 H. 8. All Fines to be levied of any Lands intailed in any wise to him that levieth the Fine or to any his Ancestors in possession reversion c. which word use goes to contingent uses for at the time of the making of that Statute there was no other use Fenner Iustice remembred the Case adjudged M. 30 31 Eliz. betwixt Johnson and Bellamy 2 Len. 36. which ruled this Case Gawdy Iustice Here is a certainty upon which the Remainder doth depend i. e. the death of Ambrose but the Case had been the more doubtful if no certainty at all had been in the Case Atkinson contrary Here the Lord Vaux is Tenant for life the Remainder to George in tail now when the Lord Vaux levies a Fine this is a forfeiture and then the Entry of George is lawful It hath been objected on the other side that this Remainder was future and contingent and not vested therefore nothing passed to George by Ambrose The words are quousque Ambrose shall return This word quousque is a word of Limitation and not of Condition and then the Remainder may well rise when the Limitation hapneth It hath been said that this Remainder is contingent and then the Remainder which is to vest upon a contingency cannot be granted or forfeited before that the contingent hapneth And he cited the Case of 14 Eliz. 314. Dyer A Fine is levied to A. to the use of B. for life the Remainder to E. in Tail the Remainder to B. in fee. Proviso That if B. shall have Issue of his Body that then after such Issue and 500 l. paid to c. within six months after the birth of such issue the use of the said Lands after the death of the said B. and the said six months expired shall be to the said B. and the heirs of his body And it was holden that before the said contingent hapneth B. had not any estate tail for there it was incertain if the said contingent would happen but in our case the contingents or some of them will happen or run out by effluxion of time and that makes the Remainder certain in Ambrose And he also argued that the Limitations are several by reason of the Disjunctive and the last part of the sentence and that the said sentence is in the Disjunctive appeareth by the subsequent words which of the said days or times shall first happen And then the return of Ambrose for that first hapned vests the Remainder in him and therefore the Plaintiff ought to be barred Buckley contrary The estate of the Daughters doth depend upon a Copulative i.e. the return of Ambrose and his full age and both is but one Limitation it is clear that the first Limitation is upon a contingent and the remainder cannot vest until both are performed And as to that which hath been said that there is a certain Limitation i. e. the return of Ambrose 18 Eliz. the Case was Lands were given to Husband and Wife the Remainder to such of them as should survive the other for years the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth it was holden that although the Limitation was upon a certain estate yet because it is not known in which of the parties the estate secondly limited shall begin the Lease is void So here it is not certainly appointed when the estate limited to Ambrose shall begin upon the return full age or death of Ambrose and he said that here are but two times of Limitation first return and full age second death return and full age determines the estate of the Daughters and also the death if it shall first happen and if these three times shall be construed in the Disjunctive 2 Len. 2â— the same would overthrow the estate of the Daughters which is an estate for years determinable upon the death of themselves or Ambrose
shewed our matter scil That we have Letters Patents of the Queen and that we were sworn in the said Office and so we are King of Heralds by matter of Record against which is pleaded only matter in defect of ceremony and circumstance which is not material An Earl is created with the ceremonies of putting a Sword broad-wise about his Body and a Cap with a Coronet upon his Head. Yet the King may create an Earl without such ceremonies And may also create an Earl by word if the same be after Recorded when a Knight is made Spurs ought to be put upon his Heels yet without such ceremony such degree may be conferred to and upon another for such ceremonies are or may be used or not used at the Kings pleasure Afterwards it was objected that the same is but a name of Office but not a name of Dignity To which it was answered that this word Coronamus always imports Dignity and this is a Dignity and Office as Earl Marquess c. Fenner Iustice The Patent is Nomen tibi imponimus and therefore Garter is parcel of his Name And therefore he ought to be Indicted by such Name And it should be hard to tye Estate and Degrees to ceremonies Gawdy was of opinion That this is but a name of Office and therefore the Indictment good as 1 Mar. Writ of Summons of Parliament issueth without these words Supream Head and the Writ was holden good for it is not parcel of the Name but addition only So here Fenner and Wray contrary for the words are Creamus Coronamus Nomen imponimus Ergo part of his Name which Clench also granted and afterwards Dethick was discharged CCCXXXVIII Strait and Braggs Case Pasch 32 Eliz. Rot. 318. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass 2 Len. 1â—9 for breaking his Close in H. the Defendant pleaded that long before the Trespass the Dean and Chapter of Pauls were seised of the Manor of C. in the said County of H. in Fee in the Right of their Church and so seised King Edward the Fourth by his Letters Patents Dat. An. 1. of his Reign granted to them all Fines pro licentia Concordandi of all their Homagers and Tenants Resiants and Non-resiants within their Fee and shewed that 29 Eliz. A Fine was levied in the Common Pleas betwixt the Plaintiff and one A. of eleven Acres of Lands whereof the place where is parcel and the Post-Fine was assessed to 15 s. and afterwards Scambler the Forain Opposer did allow to them the said 15 s. because the said Land was within their Fee And afterwards in behalf of the said Dean and Chapter he demanded of the Plaintiff the said fifteen shillings who refused to pay it wherefore he in the Right of the said Dean c. And by their commandment took the Distress as Baily c. for the said 15 s. and afterwards sold it upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was moved that it is not averred that the Land whereof the Fine was levied was within their Fee but they say that Scambler allowed it to be within their Fee and the same is not a sufficient Averment which the Court granted And it was the opinion of the Court that the Dean and Chapter cannot distrain for this matter but they ought to sue for it in the Exchequer as it appeareth 9 H. 6. 27. In the Dutchess of Somersets Case Gawdy This Grant doth not extend to the Post Fine for Fine pro licentia Concordandi is the Queens Silver and not the Post Fine Wray All shall pass by it for it is about one and the same matter and they were of opinion to give Iudgment for the Plaintiff CCCXXXIX Sherewood and Nonnes Case Trin. 32 Eliz. Rot. 451. In the Kings Bench. Covenant IN an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff declared that Charles Grice and Hester his Wife were seised of certain Tenements calle Withons with divers Lands to the same appertaining and of another parcel of Land called Dole containing eight Acres to them and the heirs of the body of the said Charks on the body of the said Hester his wife lawfully begotten and so seised 15 Eliz. leased the same to the Defendant by Indenture for years by which Indenture the Lessor covenanted that the Lessee should have sufficient House-boot Fencing-wood and Hoop-wood upon the Lands during the Term and that further the Lessee covenanted for him his Executors and Assigns with the Lessor c. That it should be lawful for them to enter upon the Lands during the said Term and to have egress and regress there and to cut down and dispose of all the Wood and Timber there growing leaving sufficient House-boot Fencing-wood and Hoop-wood to the Lessee upon the Lands called the Dole for his expences at Withons and further that he would not take any Wood or Timber upon the Premisses without the assent or assigment of the Lessor or his Assigns otherwise than according to the Indenture and true meaning thereof And further declared That the said Charles and his Wife so seised levied a Fine of part of the Land to R. S. and his heirs to whom the Defendant attorned and that the said R.S. afterwards devised the same to I. his Wife the now Plaintiff for years the Remainder over to another and died and that the Defendant had felled and carried out of the Lands called Withons twenty loads of Wood without the assent and assignment of the Lessor or his Assigns for which the Plaintiff as Assignee brought the Action The Defendant pleaded That after the Lease John Grice and others by assignment of Hester had cut down and carried away fifty loads of Wood in the said Lands called the Dole and so they had not left sufficient Woods for his expences at Withons according to the Indenture for which cause he took the said twenty loads of Wood upon Withons for his expences upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Godfrey The Plea is not good This Plea is no more but that sufficient Wood was not left upon the Dole for his expences and although there be not yet the Defendant cannot cut Wood elsewhere for he hath restrained himself by the Covenant Also the Covenant of the Lessor is That the Lessee shall have sufficient Wood upon the Dole for his expences at Withons but in his satisfaction he doth not alledge that he had need of Wood for to spend at Withons nor doth aver that he hath spent it there for otherwise he hath not cause to take c. And the meaning was that the Lessee should have sufficient Wood when he had need of it Hobart for the Defendant He would not speak to the Plea in Bar but he conceived that the Declaration was not good for here no breach of Covenant is assigned for the Covenant is in the Disjunctive scil That the Defendant should not take Wood without the assent or assignment of the Lessor or his Assigns And the Plaintiff
ipse nor any other by his procurement or consent had taken or riotously spent the Goods of the Plaintiff for Plea saith That the Plaintiff before the Writ brought had not sufficiently proved that the said John Hallywel took or riotously spent any of the Plaintiffs Goods Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was argued by Daniel That the proof is sufficient and good for the time if it be tried in the Action upon this Obligation and the proof intended is proof by twelve men for it is not set down before what person it shall be proved nor any manner of proof appointed and therefore it shall be tried according the Law of the Land which see 10 E. 4. 11. 7 R. 2. Bar. 241. Godfrey contrary This case is not like to the cases before for here is a further matter First warning and a month after Notice pay c. And if the proof shall be made in this Action the Defendant shall lose the benefit of the Condition which gives time to pay it within a month after for in all such cases the precedent Act of the Obligee is traversable as 10 H. 7. 13. I am bound by Obligation to enfeoff such a person of such Lands as the Obligee shall appoint In an Action brought against me I shall say-that the Plaintiff hath not appointed c. And here ought to be Notice first and proof ought to precede the Notice by the meaning of the Condition and so this differs from the other cases put for here proof is not the substance of the whole Owen Serjeant It is the folly of the Defendant to put himself to such an inconvenience for now he ought to pay the mony without delay of any month And here the Defendant ought to plead That he hath not imbezelled any goods of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Replicando shall say and shew the Special matter that he hath given Notice to him thereof See 15 E. 4. 25. CCCXLV. Manning and Andrews Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Devise 4 Len. 2. IN Ejectione firmae the Iury found by special Verdict That Richard Hart and Katharine his Wife and divers other persons 1 H. 8. were seised of the Lands in question to the use of Richard and his Heirs ad per implend ultimam volunt dict Rich. who the first of August 8 H. 8. by his Will in writing devised That his Feoffees should be from thenceforth seised to the use of his said Wife for her life and after to the use of W. H. his Son for his life without impeachment of Wast and after the death of the said Katharine his Wife William his Son and Joan Wife of the said William his Feoffees should be seised to the use of the next Heir of the Body of the said William and Joan lawfully begotten for the term of the life of the same Heir and after the decease of the same Heir to the use of the next heir of the same heir lawfully begotten and for default of such issue to the use of the heirs of the body of the said William and Joan lawfully begotten for the term of life or lives of every such heir or heirs More Rep. 368. and for default of such heirs to the use of the heirs of the body of the said William and for default c. to the right heirs of William And further he willed That if any of the said heirs shall set alien say to mortgage the right title and interest which they or any of them shall have in or out of the same Lands or by their consent or assent suffer any Recovery to be had against them c. or do any other Act whereby they or their heirs or any of them may or ought to be disinherited that then the use limited to such heir so doing shall be void and of no effect during his life And that his said Feoffees shall be thenceforth seised to the use of the heir apparent of such Offender as though he were dead Richard Hart died William had issue by the said Joan his wife a Son named Thomas and died and afterwards 31 H. 8. Joan died Katharine died Thomas entred and had issue Francis and Percival Thomas by Deed indented 1 August 4 Eliz. bargained and sold to Andrews and levied a Fine to him with warranty And afterwards 6 Eliz. Francis levied a Fine to the said Andrews Sur conusans de droit come ceo And further by the said Fine released to him with warranty at the time of which Fine levied Percival was heir apparent to the said Francis Francis after had issue I. and F. who are now living The heir of the Survivor of the Feoffees within five years after the age of Percival and seven years after the Fine levied enter to revive the use limited to Percival who entred and leased to the Plaintiff This case was argued by the Iustices of the Kings Bench c. First It was agreed by the whole Court That Richard Hart being seised with seven others unto the use of himself and his heirs might well devise all the use Use suspended yet the Land devised although his use was in part suspended because he was joyntly seised with seven others to his own use and so the use for the eighth part suspended for when this Devise is to take effect i. e. at the time of his death all the possession of the Land by the Survivor passeth from the use and then the use being withdrawn from the possession shall well pass And by Wray A use suspended may be devised As if Feoffees to use before the Statute of 27 H. 8. be disseised by which disseisin the use is suspended and afterwards during the disseisin Cestuy que use by his Will deviseth That his Feoffees shall re-enter and then make an estate to I. S. in Fee the same is a good devise for by that disseisin the trust and confidence reposed by Cestuy que use in the Feoffees is not suspended Secondly It was holden that here a use implied was limited to Joan the wife of William although there be not any express devise of it according to the Book of 13 H. 7. 17. Thirdly when a use is limited to the Heir of the body of William and Joan lawfully begotten for life and afterwards to the Heir of the body of the same heir for life c. Geofry Iustice was of opinion That here is in effect an estate tail for the estates limited are directed to go in course of an estate tail for he wills That every heir of the body of his Son shall have the Land and the special words shall not make another estate to pass but that which the Law wills As if Lands be given to one for life the Remainder after his death to the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten notwithstanding that the words of the limitation imply two several estates yet because the Law so wills it is but one estate Gawdy Iustice said That
every issue begotten betwixt William and Joan should have an estate for life successive and a Remainder in tail expectant as right heir of the body of William A Contingent shall hinder the execution of an estate in possession and this estate tail shall not be executed in possession by reason of the mesne Remainder for life limited to the heir of the body of William and Joan and although that these mesne Remainders are but upon a contingent and not in esse yet such regard shall be had to them that they shall hinder the execution of the estates for life and in tail in possession As if an estate be made to A. for life the Remainder to the right heirs of B. in tail the Remainder in Fee to A. although the estate tail be in abeyance and not in esse during the life of B. yet in respect thereof the Free-hold and Fee shall not be conjoyned Southcote Iustice To the same purpose And he put a case lately adjudged betwixt Vaughan and Alcock Vaughan and Alcocks case Land was devised to two men and if any of them dieth his heirs shall inherit these devisees are Tenants in common because in by devise but contrary if it were by way of Grant Lands are devised to A. and B. to be betwixt them divided they are Tenants in common Wray William and Thomas have but for life for they are purchasors by the name heir in the singular number but when he goes further and says for want of such issue to the heirs of the body of William in the plural number now Will. hath an Inheritance And if a devise be made to one for life and then to his heir for life and so from heir to heir in perpetuum for life here are two estates for life and the other Devisees have Fee for estates for life cannot be limited by general words from heir to heir but by special words they may And here Thomas being next heir of the body of William and Joan hath an estate for life and also being heir of the body of the said William hath a Remainder in tail to him limited the mesn remaineth limited to others i. e. to the next heir of the body of Thomas being in abeyance Co 11. Rep. 80. because limited by the name heir his Father being alive shall not hinder the execution of these estates but they shall remain in force according to the rules of the common Law Then Thomas so being seised levyeth a Fine against the Provision of the Will by which Thomas hath forfeited his estate for life and so his next heir shall have the Land during his life And a great reason wherefore the heirs ut supra after the two first limitations shall have tail is because that if every heir should have but for life they should never have any Interest in the Lands by these limitations for by the express words of the devise none shall take but the heir of the first heir for ever i. e. When Thomas aliens by which the use vests in Francis and when afterwards Francis levieth a Fine then the use vests in Percival Hâ—rt being next heir of the said Francis at the time of the Fine levyed notwithstanding that afterwards Francis had a Son which is his next heir and therefore the use in Percival by the birth of the said Son in Francis shall not be devested Estate vested shall not be devested because it was a thing vested in him before by purchase 9 H. 7. 25. A enfeoffs B. upon condition on the part of A. to be performed 1 Cro. 61. and dyeth having issue a Daughter the Daughter performs the condition and afterwards a Son is born the Daughter shall hold the Lands against the Son So 5. E. 4 6. A woman hath issue a Daughter and afterwards consents to a Ravisher the Daughter enters and afterwards a Son is born yet the Daughter shall hold the Lands for ever i. e. And Geofries Iustice said Francis being in by force of the Forfeiture shall not be subject to the limitation of the Will i. e. to any forfeiture if he alien for the estate which Francis hath for his life is but an estate gained by the offence of his Father and the use was limited to him upon the Will of Richard and then the said estate is not subject to the Proviso of the Will and then hath not Francis committed any forfeiture And admit Francis shall forfeit yet Percival shall get nothing thereby but the estate which Francis had at the time of the Fine levied scil the Free-hold only for no estate of Inheritance was in him living his Father As to the regress of the Feoffees Geofries was of opinion That where an use is limited to a person certain and thereupon vested in the person to whom it is limited That the Entry of the Feoffees in such case is not requisite notwithstanding that the first estates be discontinued but where the use as in our case is not limited to a person certain in esse but is in abeyance not vested in any person upon the limitation of it some estate ought to be left in the Feoffees to maintain that use and to render it according to the limitation and in our case these uses not in esse at the time of the making of the Statute of 27 H. 8. could not be executed by the said Statute but now at the appointed time by the limitation shall be raised and revived by the Entry of the Feoffees but here by the Fine and Non-claim the Feoffees are bound and their Entry taken away and so no use can accrue to Percival Hart by such Entry Southcote Iustice was of opinion that the Feoffees cannot enter at all because that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. nothing is left in them at the time of the making of the Statute which saves the right of every person c. other than the Feoffees so as no right is saved to them but all is drawn out of them by the operation of the Statute and the second saving of the Statute saves to the Feoffees all their former Right so as the Right which the Feoffees had by the Feoffment to the use is utterly gone But Percival Hart may well enter for he is not bound to the five years after the Fine levied for he had not right at the time of the Fine levied but his right came by the Fine Wray chief Iustice The Feoffees are not to enter for the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath two branches 1. gives the possession to Cestuy que use in such manner as he hath in the use 2. takes away all the right out of the Feoffees and gives it to Cestuy que use so as nothing at all remains in the Feoffees for if an Act of Parliament will give to me all the Lands whereof my brother Southcote is seised and that I shall be in the Seisin thereof now is the actual possession in me without my
Entry so where an use is often executed by the Statute Cestuy que use without any Entry hath an actual possession i. As to the uses contingent nothing remains in the Feoffees for the setling of them when they happen but the whole estate is setled in Cestuy que use yet subject to such use and he shall render the same upon contingency And if any estate should remain in the Feoffees it could be but an estate for life for the Fee simple is executed in Cestuy que use with an estate in possession and then the Feoffees should be seised to another use than was given them by the Livery Also if a Feoffment be made unto the use of the Feoffor and his heirs until J.S. hath paid unto the Feoffor 100 l. from thenceforth the Feoffor and his heirs shall be seised to the use of the said J.S. and his heirs if upon such Feoffment any thing should remain in the Feoffees before the payment by I.S. the same should be a Fee-simple and then there should be two Fee-simples of one and the same Lands one in the Feoffor and the other in the Feoffees which should be absurd and therefore the best way to avoid such inconveniences is to continue the Statute that it draws the whole estate of the Land and also the confidence out of the Feoffees and reposeth it upon the Lands the which by the operation of the Statute shall render the use to every person in his time according to the limitation of the parties And also if any Interest doth remain in the Feoffees Then if they convey to any person upon consideration who hath not notice of the use then the said use shall never rise which is utterly against the meaning of the said Statute and the meaning of the parties and therefore to construe the Statute to leave nothing in the Feoffees will prevent all such mischief And if a Feoffment in fee be made to the use of the Feoffor for life and afterwards to the use of his wife which shall be for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor The Feoffor enfeoffeth a stranger taketh a wife now cannot the Feoffees enter during the life of the Feoffor and after his death they cannot enter because they could not enter when the use to the wife was to begin upon the intermarriage and then if the Entry of the Feoffees in such case should be requisite the use limited to the wife by the Act of the Feoffor should be destroyed against his own limitation which is strong against the meaning of the Act aforesaid for by the said act the Land is credited with the said use which shall never fail in the performance of it And such contingent estates in Remainder may be limited in possession a Fortiori in use which see 4. E. 6. Coithirsts case 23. And Plesingtons case 6 R. 2. And it is true at the common Law the Entry of the Feoffees was requisite because the wrong was done unto them by reason of the possession which they then had but now by the Statute all is drawn out of them and then there is no reason that they medle with the Lands wherein they have now nothing to do and the scope of the Statute is utterly to disable the Feoffees to do any thing in prejudice of the uses limited so as the Feoffees are not to any purpose but as a Pipe to convey the Lands to others So as they cannot by their Release or confirmation c. bind the uses which are to grow and arise by the limitation knit unto the Feoffment made unto them which see Br. 30. 30 H. 8. Feoffments to uses 50 A. covenants with B. That when A. shall be enfeoffed by B. of three Acres of Lands in D. that then the said A. and his Heirs shall be seised of Land of the said A. in S. to the use of B. and his Heirs and afterwards A. enfeoffeth a stranger of his Lands in S. And afterwards B. enfeoffeth A. of his Lands in D. now the Feoffee of A. shall be seised to the use of B. notwithstanding that the said Feoffee had not notice of the use for Land is bound with the use in whose hands soever it come And see the like case ibid. 1. Ma. 59. Vpon the reason of which cases many assurances have been made for it is the common manner of Mortgage i. e. If the Mortgag or pay such a sum c. that then the Mortgagee and his Heirs shall be seised after such payment to the use of the Mortgagor and his Heirs In that case although that the Mortgagee alien yet upon the payment the use shall rise well enough out of the possession of the Alienee and the Lands shall be in the Mortgagor without any Entry For the Mortgages could not enter against his own alienation to revive the use which is to rise upon the payment and therefore without any assistance of such Entry it shall arise As at the Common Law Land is given to A. in tail the Remainder to the right heirs of B. A. levies a Fine makes a Feoffment suffers a Recovery c. although the same shall bind the Issues yet if B. dyeth and afterwards A. dyeth without issue now notwithstanding this Fine c. The right Heir of B. may enter And always a use shall spring out of the Land at his due opportunity and it is a collateral charge which binds the Lands by the first Liberty and cannot be discharged vi 49. Ass 8. 49 E. 3. 16. Isabell Goodcheapes case A man deviseth that his Executors shall sell his Lands and afterwards dyeth without heir so as the Land escheats to the King yet the authority given to the Executors shall bind the Lands in whose hands soever it comes c. And so a title of Entry continues notwithstanding twenty alienations But an use is a less thing than a Title of Entry especially an use in contingency and an use as long as it is in contingency cannot be forfeited As if the Mortgagor be attainted and pardoned mean betwixt the Mortgage and the day of Redemption c. Then when Thomas levies a Fine Francis may well enter And Thomas before the Fine had an estate tail executed to his Free-hold and therefore by the Fine he gave an estate of Inheritance to the Conusee and then no right of entail remained in Francis but he took an estate for life only and that as a Purchasor by the limitation of the Will and then when Francis levied a Fine his estate was gone which was but for life and then the right of the entail and all the other estates which are especially limited are also gone and so Percival Hart to whom no estate was specially limited hath not any cause to enter c. And it was further said by Wray Husband and Wife Tenants in special tail the Husband levies a Fine with Proclamations and dieth the Wife enters the issue in tail is
barred but if the Wife enter after the death of her Husband and before the Proclamations pass the issue is not bound by the Fine And if Tenant in Tail granteth totum statum and after levieth a Fine thereof with Proclamations come ceo c. The Issue is barred contrary where the Fine is upon a Release c. CCCXLVI Henningham and Windhams Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARthur Henningham brought a Writ of Error against Francis Windham upon a common Recovery had against Henry his Brother Error Owen Rep. 68. and the Case was That Land was given in special tail to Thomas Henningham Father of the said Henry and the said Arthur the Remainder in general tail the estate tail in possession was to him and the Heirs Mairs of his body Thomas had issue the said Henry and three Daughters by one woman and the said Arthur and two other Sons by another woman and dyed seised Henry entred and made a Feoffnent a common Recovery is had against the Feoffee in which Henry is vouched who vouched over the common Vouchee according to the usual course of common Recoveries Henry dyed without issue Error and Attaint by him to whom the Land is to descend and Arthur brought a Writ of Error being but of the half blood to Henry And it was resolved by the whole Court That Error and Attaint always descends to such person to whom the Land should descend If such Recovery or false oath had not been As if Lands be given to one and the Heirs Females of his body c. and suffers an erronious Recovery and dyeth the Heir female shall have the Writ of Error So upon Recovery of Lands in Borough English for such Action descends according to the Land quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam But it was objected on the Defendants part That because that the Feoffee being Tenant to the Praecipe is to recover in value a Fee-simple and so Henry is to yield a Fee-simple which should descend to the heir at the Common Law if this Recovery had not been therefore he to whom the same should descend should have the Writ of Error for he hath the loss But the said Exception was not allowed And it was said That Tenant in tail upon such a Recovery shall recover but an estate in tail scil such estate which he had at the time of the warranty made c. And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Action was maintainable So if a man hath Lands of the part of his mother and loseth it by erronious Iudgment and dyeth That the Heir of the part of the Mother shall have the Writ of Error CCCXLVII Foster and Pitfalls Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the Case was 1 Cro. â— Brook devised Lands to his Wife in general Tail the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee and dyed he took another Husband and had issue a Daughter The Husband and Wife levyed a Fine to a stranger The Daughter as next Heir by 11 H. 7. entred It was agreed by the whole Court That an estate devised to the wife is within the words but not within the meaning of the Statute Secondly It was resolved That no estate is within the meaning of the Statute unless it be for the Ioynture of the Wife Thirdly Resolved That the meaning of the Statute was That the wife so preferred by the Husband should not prejudice the issues or heirs of her Husband and here nothing is left in the Issues or heirs of the Husband so as the Wife could not prejudice them for the Remainder is limited over CCCLXVIII Greenes Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Acceptance of Rent 1 Cro. 3. 3 Co. 64. b. GReene made a Lease for years rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry and the Rent due at the Feast of the Annunciation was behind being demanded at the day which Rent the Lessor afterwards accepted and afterwards entred for the condition broken and his Entry holden lawful Entry Plow Com. in Browning and Bestons Case for the Rent was due before the condition broken but if the Lessor accepts the next Quarters Rent then he hath lost the benefit of Re-entry for thereby he admits the Lessee to be his Tenant And if the Lessor distrain for Rent due at the said Feast of the Annunciation after the forfeiture he cannot afterwards re-enter for the said forfeiture for by his Distress he hath affirmed the possession of the Lessee So if he make an Acquittance for the Rent as a Rent contrary if the Acquittance be but for a sum of mony and not expresly for the Rent all which tota Curia concessit CCCXLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Lessee for life the Remainder for life the Remainder in tail the Remainder in fee The two Tenants for life make a Feoffment in fee. Dyer A woman Tenant for life in Ioynture the Remainder for life the Remainder in fee the Tenants for life joyn in a Feoffment Entry for Forfeiture the Entry of him in the Remainder in fee is lawful by 11 H. 7. And if Tenant for life be impleaded and he in the Remainder for life will not pray to be received he in the last Remainder may and so in our case inasmuch as he in the Remainder for life was party to the wrong he in the Remainder in tail shall enter Which Harper and Munson granted Dyer 339. a. i. e. Manwood Although that this Feoffment be not a Disseisin to him in the Remainder in tail yet it is a wrong in a high degree as by Littleton A Disseisor leaseth for life to A. who aliens in fee the Disseisee releaseth to the Alienee it is a good Release and the Disseisor shall not enter although the Alienation was to his disinheritance Lit. 111. which Dyer granted And if Tenant for life alieneth in fee and the Alienee enfeoffeth his Father and dieth the same descent shall not avail him no more than in case of Disseisin Livery of Seism It hath been objected that this is the Livery of the first Tenant for life and the confirmation of him in the Remainder for life Dyer was of opinion That by this Livery the Remainder for life passeth and this Livery shall be as well the Livery of him in the Remainder as of the Tenant in possession and although where an estate is made lawfully by many it shall be said the Livery of him only who lawfully may make Livery Yet where an estate is wrongfully made it shall be accounted in Law the Livery of all who joyn in it And in this the Remainder for life is extinguished by the Livery in the Feoffee and the Livery of him in the Remainder for life shall be holden a void Livery especially when he joyns with such a person who hath not authority to make Livery As if the Lord and a Stranger Disseise the Tenant and make a Feoffment over the whole Seigniory is
Nonage of every Heir but admitting that the Custom were void yet this Action doth not lye for the Defendant hath not entred and taken the profits as Prochein amy in which Case although he was not Prochein amy c. he is chargeable Oâ—â—â—â— Rep. 36 â—3 84. as Prochein amy according to his Claim but here he claimeth by the Custom and Grant of the Lord and not in the right of the Heir and therefore it was adjudged in this time of this Quaere that if one entreth into Lands claiming by Devise where in truth the Land devised is entailed he should not be charged in accompt c. CCCLVIII 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was holden by the whole Court Exposition of the Statute of 32 and 34. Of Wills. That the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. of Wills did not extend to Lands in London but that the devise of the whole is good And if Houses in London parcel of the possessions of Abbies came to the Crown by Dissolution and he grants them over to hold in chief by Knights service these Lands are devisable But it was holden That the said Statutes as Acts executed extended to Lands in London and shall be good but for two parts And if a man hath Lands in tail and in Fee-simple which are of double the value of the Lands in tail and deviseth all his Lands all the Land in Fee-simple shall pass Dyer One seised of three Manors the one in Capite in Fee and two in Socage in tail and deviseth all his Land in Capite it is good against the King for all Capite Land and he shall be tied to have the Lands in Socage but it shall not bind the Heir And a devise of the third part where all is devised is void as well against the Heir as against the King. And he said That if a man be seised of twenty Acres in Socage and ten Acres in Capite and deviseth two parts of his Lands it is reasonable to say That all the Socage Lands shall pass but if the devise was of two parts of all his Lands it is otherwise for this word All implies that the two parts shall be per my per tout as well Capite as Socage i. e. It was argued by Fenner That the Lands in London are now devisable as they were before the Statute for if the Devisee of Lands in London be disturbed he shall have Ex gravi Querela otherwise it is of Lands at the Common Law and if an Assize of Mortdancester be brought of Lands in London it is a good Plea to say That the Lands are devisable But in an Assise of Mortdancestor of Lands at the Common Law it is not any Plea And if a man gives Lands at the Common Law i. e. not devisable by the Common Law he cannot devise the Reversion for the Statute shall not do wrong to the person i.e. to the Donee who there shall lose his Acquittal But of Lands devisable by custom it is otherwise And if Land in a Burrough was devisable for life by the Custom and afterwards came the Statute of 23 H. 8. which made all Lands devisable now that Land is devisable for life by the Custom and the Reversion by the Statute CCCLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Wast of Wast assigned in a Wood Wast the Iury viewed the Wood only without entring into it And it was holden that the same was sufficient for otherwise it should be tedious for the Iury to have had the view of every stub of a Tree which had been felled Yet Meade Iustice said That if Wast be assigned in several corners of the Wood then the Iury is to have the view of every corner but contrary where Wast is assigned in the whole Wood Vieâ— And if Wast be assigned in every Room of a House the view of the House generally is sufficient And Dyer Iustice said That if Wast be assigned in several places and of some of them the Iury had not the view of that they may find no Wast done CCCLX Sir Thomas Lees Case 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden per Curiam That whereas Sir Thomae Lee was seised of a Manor Election and aliened the Manor except one Close parcel of the said Manor called Newdick and there were two Closes parcel of the said Manor called Newdick the one containing nine Acres and the other containing three Acres That the Alienee should not chuse which of the said Closes he would have but the Alienor or Feoffor should have the Election which of the said Closes should pass CCCLXI. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail the Remainder in tail c. Tenant in tail in possession Fines levied by Tenant in tail in Remainder 3 Cro. 211. makes a Lease for three lives according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. and afterwards dieth without issue he in the Remainder before any Entry levieth a Fine the same is good for by the death of Tenant in tail without issue the Free-hold is vested in him in the Remainder in tail And of that opinion was the whole Court. CCCLXII Ferrand and Ramseys Case 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae brought of a House in London the Defendant pleaded That long time before the Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing c. One Ann Ramsey was seised in Fee and died seised and that the same descended to William Ramsey as Son and Heir to the said Ann who was disseised by Israel Owen who leased to the Plaintiff upon whom the said William Ramsey did re-enter The Plaintiff Replicando That the said Ann did not die seised said That before the Ejectment one Robert Owen was seised and died seised and from him descended the said House to Israel Owen as Son and Heir of the said Robert absque hoc that the said Israel did disseise the said Ann upon which they were at issue and at Nisi prius in London it was given in Evidence of the Defendants part That Crofton and Langhton were seised in Fee of the said Messuage and by Deed indented conveyed it to one John Ramsey Robert Dakins and four others and their Heirs upon condition that the said Feoffees their Heirs or Assigns should pay to the said Ann and her Heirs six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence And also should enfeoff the said Ann if to the same they were required by the said Ann in her life or within four days next following such Request in Fee unto the use of the said Ann and her Heirs cum quando ad hoc per eandem Annam requisit fuerint and if the said Ann died before such Request that then the said Feoffees or their Heirs should enfeoff such issues of the said Ann or such other persons which the said Ann should name cum quando ad hoc per eandem Annam requisit fuerint or within four days after such
Request the said Feoffees or their Heirs should be seised of the said House to the use of the said Ann and her Heirs Afterwards the seventh of April 16 Eliz. Ann demanded of William Ramsey Son and Heir of John Ramsey six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence being due to the said Ann ut supra the which sum the said William Ramsey did refuse to pay by force of which and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the said Ann Ramsey was thereof seised and died seised and from her descended the said House to William Ramsey The Plaintiff confessed the Feoffment to Crofton and Langhton to John Ramsey and others and shewed further That the said Ann required the surviving Feoffees to enfeoff one Robert Owen of the said House who three days after made the Feoffment accordingly Robert Owen enfeoffed John Owen who died thereof seised and from him the said House descended to Israel Owen Crafton died Langhton having issue two Daughters died All the Feoffees but one died Ann the time aforesaid demanded the said six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence of the said William Ramsey in another House in London due at the Feast of St. Michael last before who denied to pay it the second Daughter of Langhton entred and thereof enfeoffed the said Israel Owen Rents 3 Cro. 210 211. who leased the same to the Plaintiff and upon that Evidence the Defendant did demur in Law And first it was resolved by the whole Court That the said sum to be paid to the said Ann was not a Rent but a sum in gross because reserved to a stranger c. which see Lit. 79. Reversion And by Munson Iustice If the words of the reservation had been twenty Nobles Rent yet it had been but a sum in gross but otherwise it had been by devise Also there is not any condition for the payment of it but only a Limitation for the word subsequent which limits the future use takes away all the force of the words of the Condition as 27 H. 8. 24. Land given in tail upon condition that the Donee and his Heirs shall carry the Standard of the Donor when he goes to battel and if he fail thereof then the same to remain to a stranger the limiting of the Remainder hath taken away the condition and hath controlled it and now the Condition is become a Limitation But where the words subsequent are against Law as if upon failer that then it shall be lawful for a stranger to enter Feoffments upon condition c. these words because they are against Law for a Rent cannot be reserved to a Stranger c. do not destroy the Condition by Mead contrary by Munson for the Condition is utterly gone And by Mead Feoffment in Fee upon condition That if the Feoffor shall do such a thing that he shall re-enter and retain the Land to the use of a stranger the use is void 1 Cro 401 402 and the Feoffor shall hold the Land to his own use A Feoffment in Fee upon condition That the Feoffee shall marry my Daughter and if he refuse to marry her that then he shall be seised to the use of I.S. the same is not a Condition but a Limitation and in all cases afterwards of a Condition where an Interest is limited to a stranger there it is not a Condition but a Limitation And Mead said That the said annual sum is not demandable but the party ought to pay it at his peril Lit. 80. But by Munson it ought to be demanded for so this word Refuse doth imply Regula And when at the Request of Ann the Feoffment is made by Munson Mead and Windham the Rent is gone but Dyer contrary unless the Feoffment be made to Ann her self And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 19 Eliz. Rot. 748. There was a Case betwixt Shaw and Norton Shaw and Nortons Case One Green devised his Lands to A. and devised also the said A. should pay a Rent to B. and that B. might distrain for it and if A. fail of the payment of it that the Heirs of the Devisor might enter the same is a good Distress and a good Condition And by Munson Demand ought to be made of the Rent for the words are Refuse which cannot be without Demand or Request And it was certified That such a Clerk refused to pay his Tenths and because it was expresly set down in the Certificate that he was requested c. for that cause he was discharged And it was also holden That if Request be necessary that in this case Request is to be made That it ought to be made to the surviving Feoffee or his heir and not to the heirs of any of the Feoffees who are dead CCCLXIII Lacyes Case Hill. 25. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictments Co. 13. Rep. 53. LAcy was indicted of the death of a man upon Scarborough Sands in the County of York between the high water-mark and the low water-mark and the same Indictment was removed into the Kings Bench and being arraigned upon it he shewed that the said Indictment was sued by vertue of a Commission which issued the first day of May directed to the Iustices of Assize and other Iustices of Peace in the said County Commission repealed to enquire of all Murders Felonies c. and pleaded further That the second day of May aforesaid issued another Commission directed to the Lord Admiral and others upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 15. by force of which the said Lacy was indicted of the same murder whereof he was now arraigned and the said last Commission was ad inquirendum tam super altum mare quam super littus maris ubicunque locorum infra jurisdictionem nostram maritimam And that the said Indictment taken before the Admiral was taken before this upon which he was arraigned and upon the whole matter prayed to be dismissed And the opinion of all the Iustices was that the first Commission was repealed by the second and so the Indictment upon which he was arraigned taken coram non Judice 10 E. 4. 7. If a Commission for the Peace issueth into one County and afterwards another Commission issueth to a Town within the same County and parcel of it the first Commission is repealed which Gawdy granted if notice be given c. but Wray denied it but the whole Court by this last Commission to the Lord Admiral the first Commission as to the Iurisdiction in locis maritimis is determined and repealed for these two Commissions are in respect of two several Authorities the first Commission meerly by the Common Law the other by the Statute aforesaid and thereupon the party was discharged against the Queen as to that Indictment Note that in the Argument of this Case it was said by Coke and agreed by Wray That if a man be struck upon the high sea 2 Co. 93. whereof he dieth in another County
magnitudine sufficienti essendi maremium and that the place where they growed was neither Orchard nor Garden It was said by the Court That by the Custom the Copyholder could not cut down such Trees but the Lord might and that the cutting down of such Trees which were not Wast the Copy-holder might justifie without punishment but because by the Verdict it did not appear that the Trees for which the Action was brought were Timber in facto but only de magnitudine effendi maremium the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCLXVI The Lord Staffords Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Extent UPon Recovery in debt against the Lord Stafford certain Lands of the Lord were extended by Elegit The Queen because the Lord Stafford was endebted unto her by Prerogative ousted the Tenant by Elegit Fleetwood Serjeant moved the Court in the behalf of him who recovered and surmised to the Court that the Queen was satisfied and therefore prayed a Re-extent but the Court would not grant it because they were not certain of the matter but advised the party to sue a Scire facia against the said Lord Stafford to know and shew cause why a Re-extent should not issue forth the Queen being satisfied c. CCCLXVII Gibbs and Rowlies Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Tithes SYmon Gibbs Parson of Beddington Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Rowlie for Tithe Milk Rowlie upon surmise of a Prescription de modo Decimandi obtained a Prohibition which was against Symon Gibbs Rectorem Ecclesiae parochial de Nether Beddington and the parties were at Issue upon the Prescription Prohibition and it was found for Rowlie Egerton Solicitor moved against the Prohibition because the Libel is against Gibbs Rectorem Ecclesiae paroch de Beddington and the Prohibition was de Nether Beddington and it was not averred that Beddington in the Libel and Nether Beddington is unum idem non diversa It was said by the Court That upon the matter there is not any Prohibition against Rectorem Ecclesiae de Beddington only and therefore said to the Plaintiffs Counsel let the Parson proceed in the Spiritual Court at his peril CCCLXVIII Russell and Handfords Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RUssell brought an Action upon the Case against Handford and declared Quod cum quoddam molendinum ab entiquo fuit erectum upon such a River Nusance de quo one Thomas Russell whose Heir the Plaintiff is was seised in his Demesn as of Fee and dyed thereof seised after whose death the same descended to the Plaintiff by force of which the Plaintiff was seised in his Demesn as of Fee and so seised The Defendant upon the same River had levyed a new Mill per quod cursus aquae praedict coarctatus est and upon Not guilty It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not layed in the Declaration that his Mill had been a Mill time out of mind c. And then if it be not an ancient Mill time out of mind Words of Prescription c. it was lawful for the Defendant to erect a new Mill And it was said That these words ab antiquo are not fit or significant words to set forth a Prescription but the words A tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit are the usual words for such a purpose See the Book of Entries 10 11. See 11 H. 4. 200. If I have a Mill and another levies another Mill there and the Miller hinders the Water to run to my Mill or doth any such Nusance Roll. 140. an Action lyeth without any Prescription as it seems by the Book in 22 H. 6. 14. The Plaintiff declared That he was Lord of such a Town and that he and all his Predecessors Priors of N. Lords of the same Town have had within the same Town four Mills time out of mind c. And that no other person had any Mill in the said Town but the Plaintiff and his Predecessors the said four Mills and that all the Tenants of the Plaintiff within the same Town and all other Resiants there c. ought and time out of mind c. had used to grind at the said Mills of the Plaintiff and that the Defendant one of the Tenants of the Plaintiff had erected and set up a Horse Mill within the said Town and there the Resiants grinded c. And it was holden That peradventure upon such matter an Action lyeth because the Defendant being one of the Tenants of the Plaintiff is bound by the Custom and Prescription so as he hath offended against the privity of the Custom and Prescription And as to the Case in question It was the opinion of all the Iustices Hob. 189. Ante 168. 1 Cro. 415. That if the Mill whereof the Plaintiff hath declared be not an ancient Mill that this Action doth not lye upon the matter eo quod cursus aquae coarctatur But yet at last it was holden by the Court to be good enough notwithstanding the Exception Another Exception was taken to the Declaration because that here is set forth the seisin of the Father of the Plaintiff and the Descent to the Plaintiff by force of which he was seised in his Demesn c. without shewing that after the death of the Father that he entred into the said Mill Seisin in fact and in Law. c. so as no seisin in fact is alleadged but only a seisin in Law and if the Plaintiff was not seised in fact he cannot punish this personal wrong but the Exception was disallowed for such a seisin in Law is sufficient for the maintenance of this Action And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his Damages See for the Action it self contained in the Declaration 8 Eliz. Dyer 248. CCCLXIX Cleypools Case Mich. 26. Eliz. In the Exchequer Informations upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Tillage INformation in the Exchequer against Cleypool upon the Statute of Tillage 5 Eliz. setting forth That the Defendant hath converted three hundred Acres of arable Lands of Tillage to pasture and the same conversion hath continued from 15 Eliz. unto the two and twentieth of Eliz The Defendant as to the Conversion pleaded Not guilty and as to the Continuance the general Pardon by Parliament 23 Eliz. upon which the Attorney general did demur in Law. It was argued That that pardon did not extend to the continuance of the said Conversion And first the Barons were clear of opinion That if A. be seised of Arable Lands and converts the same to pasture and so converted leaseth it to B. who continues it in pasture as he found it he shall be charged by that Statute And it is not any good Construction where the Exception in the pardon is excepting the converting of any Land from Tillage to Pasture made done committed or permitted that the Conversion excepted
out of the pardon shall be intended and construed the bare Act of Conversion but the whole offence i. the continuance and practise of it is understood As if by general pardon all intrusions are excepted now by that the instant Act of Intrusion i. the bare Entry is not only excepted but also the continuance of the Intrusion and the perception of the profits And note The words of the Statute are conversion permitted and Conversion continued is Conversion permitted And the said Statute doth not punish the Conversion but also the continuance of the Conversion for the penalty is appointed for each year in which the Conversion continues And Egerton Solicitor put this Case 11 H. 8. It was enacted by 3 H. 7. cap. 11. That upon Recovery in Debt if the Defendant in delay of Execution sues a Writ of Error and the Iudgment be affirmed he shall pay damages now the case was That one in Execution brought such a Writ of Error and the first Iudgment is affirmed he shall pay damages and yet here is not any delay of the Execution for the Defendant was in Execution before but here is an Interruption of the Execution and the Statute did intend the Execution it self i. the continuance in Execution ibidem moraturus quousque It was said on the other side That the conversion and continuance thereof are two several things each by it self and so the conversion only being excepted in the pardon the continuance thereof remains in the grace of the pardon And it appeareth by the Statute of 2 and 3. Ph. Ma. That conversion and continuance are not the same but alia atque diversa and distinct things in the consideration of the Law for there it is enacted That if any person shall have any Lands to be holden in Tillage according to the said Statute but converted to Pasture by any other person the Commissioners c. have authority by the said Statute to enjoyn such persons to convert such Lands to Tillage again c. And in all cases in the Law there is a great difference betwixt the beginning of a wrong and the continuance of it As if the Father levyeth a Nusance in his own Lands to the offence of another and dyeth an Assize of Nusance doth not lye against the Heir for the continuance of that wrong but a Quod permittat See F.N.B. 124. It was adjorned CCCLXX Powley and Siers Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. POwley brought Debt against Sier Executor of the Will of A Debt The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ for he said That one B. was Executor of the said A. and that the said B. did constitute the Defendant his Executor so the Writ ought to be brought against the Defendant as Executor of the Executor and not as immediate Executor to the said A. The Plaintiff by Reply said That the said B. before any probate of the Will or any Administration dyed and so maintained his Writ Wray Iustice was against the Writ for although here be not any probate of the Will of A. or any other Administration yet when B. made his Will and the Defendant his Executor the same is a good acceptance in Law of the Administration and Execution of the first Will for the Defendant might have an Action of Debt due to the first Testator Gawdy and Ayliff Iustices The Writ is good See Dyer 1 Cro. 211. 212. 23 Eliz. 372. against Wray CCCLXXI Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A seised of certain Lands Bargain and sale of Trees bargained and sold by Indenture all the Trees there growing Habendum succidendum exportandum within twenty years after the date of the said Indenture the twenty years expire The Bargainee cuts down the Trees A. brought an Action of Trespass for cutting down the Trees And by Wray Iustice The meer property of the Trees vests in the Bargainee Post 288. and the Limitation of time which cometh after is not to any purpose but to hasten the cutting of the Trees within a certain time within which if the Vendee doth not cut them he should be punished as a Trespassor as to the Land but not as to the Trees Gawdy contrary And that upon this Contract a conditional property vests in the Vendee which ought to be pursued according to the direction of the condition and because the condition is broken the property of the Trees is vested in A. CCCLXXII Curriton and Gadbarys Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN in Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Leases That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff should make a lease for life to the Defendant of certain Lands Habendum after the death of A. before the tenth of August next following promised to pay the Plaintiff ten pounds the first day of May next after the promise which was before the tenth of August And the truth was That the said ten pounds was not paid at the day ut supra nor the said Lease made And now both sides being in default the Plaintiff brought an Action It was said by Wray Iustice If the Plaintiff had made the Lease according to the consideration and in performance thereof the action would have lyen but now his own default had barred him of the Action But for another cause the Declaration was holden insufficient for here is not any Consideration for the promise is in consideration that the Plaintiff shall lease to the Defendant for life Habendum after the death of A. which cannot be good by way of lease but ought to enure by way of grant of the Reversion so as here is no lease therefore no consideration and notwithstanding that if a Lease be made for life Habendum after the death of A. the Habendum is void and the Lease shall be in possession according to the Premises yet the Law will not give such construction to the words of a Promise Contract or Assumpsit but all the words ought to be wholly respected according to the Letter so as because that no Lease can be made according to the words of the Consideration no supply thereof shall be by any favorable construction And so it was adjudged But before the same imperfection was espied Iudgment was entred and therefore the Court awarded that there should be a cesset executio entred upon the Roll for it is hard as it was said by Wray to drive the party to a Writ of Error in Parliament because Parliaments are not now so frequently holden as they have used to be holden and the Execution was staid accordingly CCCLXXIII Willis and Crosbys Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error IN a Writ of Error It was assigned for Error That whereas in the first Action the parties were at issue and upon the Venire facias one Gâ—â—gory Tompson was returned But upon the Habeas Corpora George Tâ—â—â—â—son was returned and the Iury was taken and found for the
Litis contestationem the right of the Suit is so vested in the Proctor Swinburn 212. that he is a person suable until the end of the Suit and also he reported their Law to be * Bro. Devise 27. 45. Office of Exce 347. Shâ—p Touchstone c. 454. Plowd 345. Orphans Legacy 281. Note It was adjudged contrary to this Mich. An. Dom. 1653. in the Kings Bench. in Doâ—mlowes Case Poph. 11. That if a Legacy be bequeathed to an Infant to be paid when he shall come to the Age of twenty one years if such a Legatory dieth before such age yet the Executor or Administrator of such Legator shall sue for the said Legacy presently and shall not expect until the time in which if the Infant had continued in life he had attained his full age And as to the Prohibition it was argued by Egerton Solicitor General That the Grant aforesaid is not triable in the Spiritual Court As if the said Lady Lodge had suffered a Recovery to be had against her as Executor by Covin c. the same is not examinable in the Spiritual Court but belongs to the temporal Conusans and therefore he prayed a Prohibition But on the other side it was said That if the Prohibition be allowed the Legatory hath no remedy but that was denied for the party might sue in the Chancery And after the Prohibition granted the Court awarded a special Consultation quatenus non extendat ultra manus Executoris quatenus non agitur de validitate facti i. the Grant aforesaid CCCLXXVII Huddy and Fishers Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt DEbt was brought upon a Bond the Condition of which was for the performance of Covenants Grants and Agreements in an Indenture And in the Indenture it was recited That in consideration that the said Huddy should build a Mill upon the Land demised by the Defendant to the Plaintiff by the same Indenture Attaint and a Water-course by the Land demised the Defendant leased the said Land to the Plaintiff and the Lease was by the words Dedi concessi And the Plaintiff assigned the breach of the said Covenant in Law in that the Defendant had stopped the said Water-course so made by the Plaintiff upon which they were at Issue and it was found for the Plaintiff upon which the Defendant brought Attaint and the false oath was found and it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That here is no Issue and then by consequence no Verdict and then no false Oath and then no cause of Attaint for here the Issue is taken upon the stopping of the Water-course which upon the shewing of the party is not any cause of Action for in the Indenture there is not any express Covenant Clause or Agreement that the Lessee should enjoy the Water-course so to be made only there is a Covenant in Law rising upon these words Dedi concessi which cannot extend to a thing not in esse at the time of the making the Indenture Coke who argued for the Defendants in the Attaint resembled this case to the case in 23 E. 3. Garr 77. Where it is holden that the warranty knit to the Manor shall not extend to the Tenancy escheated And 30 E. 3. 14. The Recovery in value shall not be in larger proportion than the Land warranted was at the time of the warranty made So in our case this Covenant shall not extend to any thing which was not in esse at the time of the Covenant made And see 25 Ass 2. where the Court shall reject a Verdict or part of a Verdict c. And because the now Plaintiff might after the Verdict have alledged the same in arrest of Iudgment which he did not he shall not be helped by Attaint but it shall be accounted his folly that he would not for his own ease and to avoid circuity of Action shew the matter in stay of Iudgment As 9 E. 4. 12. by Littleton If a man be Indicted of Felony if the Iudgment be insufficient but he takes not advantage of it but pleads the general Issue and is acquitted he shall never after have a Writ of Conspiracy c. And for another cause Iudgment ought not to be given in this Case because it doth not appear that Execution hath been sued and then here is no party grieved And then this Action being conceived upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. Cap. 3. which gives it to the party grieved doth not lye for a party grieved cannot be intended without Execution sued See 21 H. 6. 55. by Paston False oath Iudgment and Execution do entitle the party grieved to Attaint And see the Stat. of 23 H. 8. which enacts That the party shall be restored to as much as he hath lost therefore he ought to lose by Execution before he be a person able 〈◊〉 bring this Action But as to that matter see the Statute of 1 E. 3. 6. by which it is Enacted That the Iustices shall not leave to take Attaint for the damages not paid so as before the said Statute no Attaint lay before Execution 33 H. 6. 21. by Prisoit 5 H. 7. 22. t. E. 1. Attaint 70. 8 E. 2. Assize 396. And it was moved That for another cause the Attaint doth not lye as it is pursued in Process upon it for the Plaintiff hath not pursued the Statute upon which the Attaint is grounded for the said Statute gives special Process in this case against the Petit Iury Grand Iury and the party viz. Summons Re-summons and Distress infinite but in this Case the Plaintiff hath sued otherwise which is against the direction of the Statute And that was taken to be a material Exception by Clench and Gawdy Iustices for the Verdict doth not save the matter of Process in this case by the Statute of 18 Eliz. which doth not extend to proceedings in penal Causes wâ—â—ch see by the words of the Statute by an express Proviso But Quaere If it be a penal Statute because a lesser punishment is enacted by it than that which was before inflicted upon such offenders And as to the matter of Execution Quaere If the Plaintiff be not pars gravata in hoc only that he is subject to the said Iudgment and so liable to Execution CCCLXXVIII Penruddock and Newmans Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae Execution 2 Len. 49. the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made by the Lord Morley and upon Not guilty pleaded this special matter was found that William Lord Mountegle seised of the Manor of D. whereof c. became bounden in a Statute in such a sum to A. who died the Executors of A. sued Execution against the said Lord i. upon the Extendi facias a Libertate issued forth upon which the said Manor was delivered to the said Executors but was not returned It was further found That the said Executors being so possessed of the said Manor the said Lord
If now because the Tithes are not expresly named in the Habendum the Grantee shall have them for life only was the Question It was moved by Popham Attorney General That the Grantee had the Tithes but for life and to that purpose he cited a Case adjudged 6 Eliz. in the Common Pleas A man grants black Acre and white Acre Habendum black Acre for life nothing of white Acre shall pass but at will and in the argument of that case Anthony Browne put this case Queen Mary granted to Rochester such several Offices and shewed them specially Habendum two of them and shewed which in certain for forty years It was adjudged that the two Offices which were not mentioned in the Habendum were to Rochester but for life and determined by his death And so he said in this Case The Tithes not mentioned in the Habendum shall be to the Grantee for life and then he dying his Executors taking the Tithes are Intrudors But as to that It was said by Manwood chief Baron That the cases are not alike for the Grants in the cases cited are several intire and distinct things which do not depend the one upon the other but are in gross by themselves But in our Cases The Tithes are parcel of the Rectory and therefore for the nearness betwixt them i. the Rectory and the Tithes the Tithes upon the matter pass together with the site of the Rectory for the term of twenty years and Iudgment was afterwards given accordingly CCCLXXXI The Lord Darcy and Sharpes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas Mich. 27 28 Rot. 2432. Debt THomas Lord Darcy Executor of John Lord Darcy brought Debt upon a Bond against Sharpe who pleaded that the Condition of the Bond was That if the said Sharpe did perform all the Covenants c. contained within a pair of Indentures c. By which Indentures the said John Lord Darcy had sold to the said Sharpe certain Trees growing c. And by the same Indentures Sharpe had covenanted to cut down the said Trees before the seventh of August 1684. and shewed further That after the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture the said Lord Darcy now Plaintiff Razure of Deeds 11 Co. 27. caused and procured I. S. to raze the Indenture quod penes praedict Querentem remanebat and of 1684. to make it 1685. and so the said Indenture become void And the opinion of the whole Court was clear against the Defendant for the razure is in a place not material and also the razure trencheth to the advantage of the Defendant himself who pleads it and if the Indenture had become void by the razure the Obligation had been single and without Defeasance CCCLXXXII Rollston and Chambers Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Costs where Damages are given 2 Len. 52. ROllston brought an Action of Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible Entry against Chambers and upon Issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages assessed by the Iury and costs of suit also and costs also de incremento were adjudged And all were trebled in the Iudgment with this purclose quae quidem damna in toto se attingunt ad c. and all by the name of Damages It was objected against this Iudgment that where damages are trebled no costs shall be given as in Wast c. But it was clearly agreed by the whole Court That not only the costs assessed by the Iury but also those which were adjudged de incremento should be trebled and so were all the Presidents as was affirmed by all the Prothonotaries and so are many Books 19 H. 6. 32. 14 H. 6. 13. 22 H. 6. 57. 12 E. 4. 1. And Book of Entries 334. and Iudgment was given accordingly And in this case it was agreed by all the Iustices That the party so convicted of the force at the suit of the party should be fined notwithstanding that he was fined before upon Indictment for the same force CCCLXXXIII Jennor and Hardies Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin. 27 Eliz. Rot. 1606. THe Case was Lands were devised to one Edith for life upon condition that she should not marry and if she died or married Devises that then the Land should remain to A. in tail and if A. died without Issue of his body in the life of Edith that then the Land should remain to the said Edith to dispose thereof at her pleasure And if the said A. did survive the said Edith that then the Lands should be divided betwixt the Sisters of the Devisor A. died without Issue living Edith Shutleworth Serjeant Edith hath but for life and yet he granted That if Lands be devised to one to dispose at his will and pleasure without more saying That the Devisee hath a Fee-simple but otherwise it is when those words are qualified and restrained by special Limitation As 15 H. 7. 12. A man deviseth that A. Goldsb 135. Shepherds Touch-stone 439. shall have his Lands in perpetuum during his life he hath but an estate for life for the words During his life do abridge the Interest given before And 22 Eliz. one deviseth Lands to another for life to dispose at his will and pleasure he hath but an estate for life And these words If A. dieth without Issue in the life of Edith That then the Lands should remain to Edith to dispose at her pleasure shall not be construed to give to Edith a Fee-simple but to discharge the particular estate of the danger penalty and loss which after might come by her marriage so as now it is in her liberty And also he said That by the Limitation of the latter Remainder i. That the Lands should be divided betwixt the Daughters of his Sister the meaning of the Devisor was not that Edith should have a Fee-simple for the Remainder is not limited to her Heirs c. if A. dieth in the life of the said Edith for the Devisor goeth further That if A. overlives Edith and afterwards dieth without Issue that the said Land should be divided c. Walmesley contrary And he relyed much upon the words of the Limitation of the Remainder to Edith Quod integra remaneat dictae Edithae and that she might dispose thereof at her pleasure Ante 156. for the said division is limited to be upon a Contingent i. if A. survive Edith but if Edith survive A. then his intent is not that the Lands should be divided c. but that they shall wholly remain to Edith which was granted by the whole Court and the Iustices did rely much upon the same reason and they were very clear of opinion That by those words Edith had a Fee-simple And Iudgment was given accordingly Anderson conceived That it was a Condition but although that it be a Condition so as it may be doubted if a Remainder might be limited upon a Condition yet this devise is as
b. Sur Conusans de droit come ceo que il ad of the gift of the Husband that the same is not any Bar to the Wife of her Dower for the Election is not given to the VVife to claim her Ioynture or her Dower until after the Death of her Husband And so in the principal case Iudgment was given for the VVife CCCLXXXVII Le es Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NIcholas Lee by his will devised his Lands to William his second Son Devise 1 Cro. 26. 3 Len. 106. And if he depart this VVorld not having issue Then I will that my Sons in Law shall sell my Lands the Devisor at the time of his devise having sir Sons in Law dyed William had Issue John and dyed John dyed without Issue one of the Sons in Law of the Devisor dyed the five surviving Sons in Law sold the Lands First it was clearly resolved by the whole Court That although the words of the Will are ut supra If William my Son depart this world not having Issue c. And that William had Issue who dyed without Issue here although it cannot be litterally said That William did depart this World not having issue yet the intent of the Devisor is not to be restrained to the letter that such construction shall be made That whensoever William dyeth in Law or upon the matter without Issue that the Land shall be subject to sale according to the authority committed by the Devisor to his Sons in Law And now upon the matter William is dead without Issue As in a Formedon in Reverter or Remainder although that the Donee in tail hath issue yet if after the estate tail be spent the Writ shall suppose that the Donee dyed without Issue a fortiori in the Case of a Will or Devise such construction shall be made As to the other point concerning the sale of the Lands Wray asked If the Sons in Law were named in the Will and the Clerks answered No See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 31. and 39 Ass 17. Executors 117. such a sale good in case of Executors See also 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. and Dyer 4 5. Phil. and Mary Lands devised in tail and if the Devisee shall dye without Issue that then the Land shall be sold pro optimo valore by his Executors una cum assensu A. if A. dyeth before sale the power of the Executors is determined And afterwards it was clearly resolved by the whole Court That the sale for the manner was good and Iudgment was given accordingly CCCLXXXVIII Sir Gilbert Gerrard and Sherringtons Case Pasch 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SIr Gilbert Gerrard Master of the Rolls Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Sherrington and A. his Servant for Tithes parcel of a Rectory whereof the said Sir Gilbert was Fermor to the Queen It was moved by Egerton Solicitor General That against the Kings Fermor a Prohibition doth not lye But the opinion of the whole Court was That a Prohibition doth lye and so it hath been adjudged before And afterwards Exception was taken to the surmise because the said Sir Gilbert had Libelled against the said Sherrington and his Servant severally Owen Rep. 13. Yelv. Rep. 128. and now in the Kings Bench they both had made a joynt surmise whereas they ought to have severed in their surmises according to the several Libels And it was so adjudged by the Court and therefore they were driven to make several surmises And afterwards Exception was taken because the said Sherrington and his Servant had delivered their surmises and suggestions by Attorney where they ought to be in proper person See the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. The party shall bring and deliver to the hands of some of the Iustices of the same Court c. the true Copy of the Libel c. subscribed or marked with the hand of the Party c. and under the Copy shall be written the surmise or suggestion And although it was affirmed by the Clerks of the Court that the common use and practice for twenty years had been not to exhibit such surmises or suggestions by Attorney Yet it was resolved by the whole Court that it ought to be by Attorney CCCLXXXIX Short and Shorts Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit to pay mony to the Plaintiff upon Request It was agreed Request That the Plaintiff by way of Declaration ought to alledge an actual Request and at what place and at what day the Request was made And it is not sufficient to say as in an Action of Debt Licet saepius requisitus c. and so it was adjudged CCCXC Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was Endicted in the County of Linc upon the Statutes of Wâ—st Indictment upon the Statute of news 1. Cap. 33. and 2 R. 2. Cap. 5. of News and the words were That Campian was not executed for treason but for Religion and that he was as honest a man as Cranmer the Bill was endorsed Billa vera but whether ista verba prolata fuerunt malitlose seditiose or e contr ignoramus The same Indictment being removed into the Kings Bench the party for the causes aforesaid was discharged CCCXCI Cole and Friendships Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the Case was That Fricarrooâ— was seised Leases 4 Len. 64. and by Indenture betwixt himself of the one part and one Friendship his Wife and the Children betwixt them begotten at the Assignment of the Husband of the other part leased the said Land to the said Husband his Wife and their Children at the Assignment of the Husband for years they having at the time of the said Lease but one Child â— a Son Assignment afterwards they had many Children the wife dyed the Husband by his will assigned his second Son born after the making of the Lease to have the residue of the said Term and by the opinion of the Court nothing can come to the said Son by that Lease or by that assignment for if the Interest doth not vest at the beginning it shall never vest And afterwards is was moved In as much as nothing could vest in any of the Children born after the Lease made if these words At the Assignment of the Husband should be void and then the case should be no more but that Land is devised to the Father and Mother and their Children At another day viz. Trin. 26 Eliz. the case was moved again and as to the first Point the Court was of opinion as before That the Child assigned after the Lease made should not take And then it was moved That because Friendship and his Wife at the time of the making of the said Lease had one Son that he should take with his Father and Mother and that the words at the Assignment of Friendship should be void is matter of surplusage and the
Recovery against Massey Error And in the said Recovery four Husbands and their VVives were vouched and now the Plaintiff brought this Writ of Error as heir to one of the Husbands and Exception was taken to his Writ because the Plaintiff doth not make himself heir to the Survivor of the four Husbands Egerton The Writ is good enough for there is a difference betwixt a Covenant personal and a Covenant real for if two be bound to warranty and the one dyeth the Survivor and the heir of the other shall be vouched and he said each of the four and their heirs are charged and then the heir of each of them being chargeable the heir of any of them may have a Writ of Error And afterwards the Writ of Error was adjudged good Ante 86. And Error was assigned because the Vouchees appeared the same day that they were vouched by Attorney which they ought not to do by Law but they might appear gratis the first day without Proces in their proper persons and so at the sequatur sub suo periculo See 13 E. 3. Attorn 74. and 8 E. 2. ib. 101. Another Error was assigned Because the Entry of the warrant of Attorney for one of the Vouchees is po lo. suo I.D. against the Tenant where it should be against the Demandant for presently when the Vouchee entreth into the warranty he is Tenant in Law to the Demandant Coke As to the first Error Although he cannot appear by Attorney yet when the Court hath admitted his appearance by Attorney the same is well enough and is not Error As to the other Error I confess it to be Error but we hope that the Court will have great consideration of this case as to that Error for there are one hundred Recoveries erronious in this point if it may be called an Error And then we hope to avoid such a general mischief that the Court will consider and dispense with the rigor of the Law As their Predecessors did 39 H. 6. 30. In the Writ of Mesne But I conceive That the Writ of Error is not well brought for the Voucher in the said Recovery is of four Husbands and their Wives and when Voucher shall be intended to be in the right of their Wives which see 20 H. 7. 1. b. 46 E. 3. 28. 29 E. 3. 49. And so by common intendment the Voucher shall be construed in respect of the Wife So also the Plaintiff here ought to entitle himself to this Writ of Error as heir to the Wife And for this cause The Plaintiff relinquished his VVrit of Error And afterwards he brought a new VVrit and entituled himself as heir to the wife CCCXCIX The Queen and the Dean of Christchurch Case Mich. 26 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Praemunire 3 Len. 139. THe Queens Attorney General brought and prosecuted a Praemunire for the Queen and Parret against Doctor Matthew Dean of Christ-church in Oxford and others because they did procure the said Parret to be sued in the City of Oxford before the Commissary there in an Action of Trespass by Libel according to the Ecclesiastical Law in which suit Parret pleaded Son Franktenement and so to the Iurisdiction of the Court and yet they did proceed and Parret was condemned and imprisoned And after that suit depended The Queens Attorney withdrew the suit for the Queen And it was moved If notwithstanding that the party grieved might proceed See 7 E. 4. 2. b. The King shall have Praemuire and the party grieved his Action See Br. Praemunire 13. And by Brook none can have Praemunire but the King Coke There is a President in the Book of Entries 427. In a Praemunire the words are ad respondendum tam Domino Regi quam R.F. and that upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. and ib. 428 429. Ad respondendum tam Domino Regi de contemptu quam dict A. B. de damnis But it was holden by the whole Court That if the Kings Attorney will not further prosecute the party grieved cannot maintain this suit for the principal matter in the Praemunire is The conviction and the putting of the party out of the protection of the King and the damages are but accessary and then the principal being released the damages are gone And also it was holden by the Court That the Presidents in the Book of Entries are not to be regarded and there is not any Iudgment upon any of the pleadings there but are good directions for pleadings and not otherwise CCCC Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Fines levied 1 Cro. 35. THe Case was A. gave Lands in tail to B. upon condition That if the Donee or any of his heirs alien or discontinue c. the Land or any part of it that then the Donor do re-enter The Donee hath issue two Daughters and dieth One of the two Daughters levieth a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo Forfeiture to her Sister Heale Serjeant the Donor may enter for although the Sisters to many intents are but one Heir yet in truth they are several Heirs and each of them shall sue Livery 17 E. 3. If one of the Sisters be discharged by the Lord the Lord shall lose the Wardship of her and yet the Heir is not discharged And if every Sister be heir to diverse respects then the Fine by the one Sister is a cause of Forfeiture Harris contrary For conditions which go in defeating of estates shall be taken shortly Conditions and here both the Sisters are one Heir and therefore the discontinuance by the one is not the Act of the other Clench Iustice The words are Or any of his heirs therefore it is a forfeiture quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam And Iudgment was given accordingly CCCCI Mich. 26 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Assumpsit Hutt Rep. 34. Hob. 284. A Woman seised of a Rent-charge for life took Husband the Rent was arrear the wife died the Tenant of the Land charged promised to pay the Rent in consideration that the Rent was behind c and some were of opinion Because that this Rent is due and payable by a Deed that this Action of the Case upon Assumpsit will not lye no more than if the Obligor will promise to the Obligee to pay the mony due by the Obligation 3 Cro. 5. an Action doth not lye upon the Promise but upon the Obligation But it was holden by the whole Court That the Action did well lye for here the Husband had remedy by the Statute of 32 H. 8. And then the consideration is sufficient and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCII. Williams and Blowers Case Hill. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. REignold Williams and John Powell brought a Writ of Error against the Bishop of Hereford and Blower Error upon a Recovery had in a Writ of Disceit by the said Bishop and Blower against the said
Williams and Powell for that the said Williams had before brought a Quare Impedit against the said Blower and the Bishop Dyer 353. b. 354. and had recovered against them by default whereupon Williams had a Writ to the Metropolitan to admit his Clerk and in the Writ of Disceit Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs For it was found That the Summons was the Friday to appear the Tuesday after and so an insufficient Summons and in that Writ of Disceit the Defendants Williams and Powell pleaded That Blower the Incumbent was deprived of his Benefice in the Court of Audience which sentence was affirmed upon Appeal before the Delegates and notwithstanding that Plea Iudgment was given against Williams and Powell Defendants in the said Writ of Disceit And upon that Iudgment this Writ of Error is brought Beaumont assigned four Errors First 1 Cro. 65. because the Bishop and Blower joyned in the Writ of Disceit for their Rights are several 12 E. 4. 6. Two cannot joyn in an Action of Trespass upon a Battery done at one time to them So if one distrain at one and the same time the several Goods of divers persons they according to their several properties shall have several Replevins 12 H. 7. 7. By Wood. So if Lands be given to two and to the Heirs of one and they lose by default in a Praecipe brought against them they shall have several Writs the one Quod ei deforceat Joynder in Action the other a Writ of Right 46 E. 3. 21. A Fine levied to one for life the Remainder to two Husbands and their Wives in tail they have Issue and die Tenant for life dieth the Issues of the Husbands and Wives shall have several Scire facias's to execute the Fine by reason of their several Rights Lands in ancient Demesn holden severally of several Lords are conveyed by Fine the Lords cannot joyn in a Writ of Disceit but they ought to have several Writs so here the Plaintiffs in this Writ of Disceit and the Bishop claims nothing but as ordinary and he loseth nothing in the Quare Impedit and therefore by the Writ of Disceit he shall be restored to nothing The second Error was Because the Bar of the Defendants in the Writ of Disceit was good i. the deprivation c. and the Court adjudged it not good for the Clerk being deprived he could not enjoy the Benefice if the Iudgment in the Qu. Impedit had been reversed Regulâ— Post 330. and where a man cannot have the effect of his suit it is in vain to bring any Action Lessee for the life of another loseth by erronious Iudgment Cestuy que use dieth his Writ of Error is gone for if the Iudgment be reversed he cannot be restored to the Land for the estate is determined 31 E. 3. Incumbent 6. The King brought a Quare Impedit against the Incumbent and the Bishop the Bishop claimed nothing but as Ordinary The Incumbent traversed the title of the King against which it was replyed for the King That the Incumbent had resigned pendant the Writ so as now he could not plead any thing against the title of the King for he had not possession and so could not counterplead the possession of the King. And here in our Case by this deprivation the Incumbent is disabled to maintain this Action of Disceit 15 Ass 8. If the Guardian of a Chappel be impleaded in a Praecipe for the Lands of his Chappel and pendant the Writ he resign the Successor shall have a Writ of Error and not he who resigns for he is not to be restored to the Lands having resigned his Chappel So in our Case A deprivation is as strong as a Resignation The third Error because in the Writ of Disceit it is not set forth that Blower was Incumbent for the Writ of Disceit ought to contain all the special matter of the Case as an Action upon the Case 4 E. 3. Disceit 45. The fourth Error That upon suggestion made after Verdict that Blower was Incumbent and in of the presentment of the Lord Stafford Deprivation and that he was removed and Griffin in by the Recovery in the Quare Impedit by default a Writ to the Bishop was awarded without any Scire facias against Griffin for he is possessor and so the Statute of 25 E. 3. calls him and gives him authority to plead against the King 6 Co. 52. and every Release or Confirmation made to him is good 18 E. 3. Confirmation made by the King after Recovery against the Incumbent is good And 9 H. 7. If a Recovery be had in a Contra formam collationis the possessor shall not be ousted without a Scire facias so in Audita Querela upon a Statute Staple Scire facias Scire facias shall go against the Assignee of the Conusee 15 E. 3. Respon 1. See also 16 E. 3. Disceit 35. 21 Ass 13. A Fine levied of Lands in Ancient Demesn shall not be reversed without a Scire facias against the Ter-tenant Walmesley contrary The case at the Bar differs from the case put of the other side for they are cases put upon original Writs but our case is upon a judicial Writ and here nothing is demanded but the Defendant is only to answer to the disceit and falshood And in this Case the Issue is contained in the Writ which is not in any original Writ and the Iudges shall examine the issue without any plea or appearance of the Tenant and here the Defendant is not to plead any thing to excuse himself of the wrong And here the Iudgment is not to recover any thing in demand but only to restore the party to his former estate and possession and if he hath nothing he shall be restored to nothing And he put many cases where persons who have several Rights may joyn in one Action as a Recovery in an Assize against several Tenants they may joyn in one Writ of Error 18 Ass Recovery in Assize against Disseisor and Tenant they shall both joyn in Error why not also in Disceit 19 E. 3. Recovery against two Coparceners the Survivor and the heir of the other shall joyn in Error As to the second Error Williams and the Sheriff ought not to joyn in the Plea and also the Plea it self is not good for the Writ of Disceit is That Williams answer to the Disceit and the Sheriff shall certifie the proceedings and therefore he shall not plead and also the Plea it self is not good for although the interest of the Incumbent be determined in the Church yet his Action is not gone as if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant alieneth pendant the Writ and afterwards the Demandant recovereth yet the Tenant although his Interest be gone by the Feoffment yet he shall have a Writ of Error and so here and as to the Scire facias there needs none here against the new Incumbent for he comes in pendant the Writ
But if they be collateral considerations which are not pursuant as if I in consideration that you are of my Counsel and shall ride with me to York promise to give to you 20 l. in this case all the considerations ought to be proved otherwise the Action cannot be maintained So in our case the considerations are collateral and therefore they ought to be proved and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCVI Fooly and Prestons Case Hill. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 200. 2 Len. 105. That whereas John Gibbon was bound unto the Plaintiff in quodam scripto obligatorio sigillo suo sigillat and coram c. recognito in forma Statuti Stapul The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would deliver to him the said Writing to read over promised to deliver the same again to the Plaintiff within six days after or to pay to him 1000 l. in lieu thereof upon which promise the Plaintiff did deliver to the Defendant the said Writing but the Defendant had not nor would not deliver it back to the Plaintiff to the great delay of the Execution thereof and the Defendant did demur in Law upon the Declaration It was objected that here is no sufficient consideration appearing in the Declaration upon which a promise might be grounded but it was the opinion of the whole Court that the consideration set forth in the Declaration was good and sufficient and by Anderson it is usual and frequent in the King Bench If I deliver to you an Obligation to rebail unto me I shall have an Action upon the Case without an express Assumpsit and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCVII Wallpool and Kings Case Hill. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WIlliam Wallpool was bound to King by Recognizance in the sum of 400 l. and King also was bound to Wallpool in a Bond of 100 l. Wallpool according to the Custom of London Attachment in London affirmed a Plaint of Debt in the Gulldhall London against the said King upon the said Bond of 100 l. and attached the debt due by himself to Wallpool in his own hands and now King sued Execution against the said Wallpool upon the said Recognizance and Wallpool upon the matter of Attachment brought an Audita querela and prayed allowance of it and by Gawdy Serjeant such a Writ was allowed in such case 26 Eliz. Anderson at the first doubted of it but at last the Court received the said Writ de bene esse and granted a Supersedeas in stay of the Execution and a Scire facias against King but ea lege that Wallpool should find good and sufficient Sureties that he would sue with effect and if the matter be found against him that he pay the Execution CCCCVIII Hill. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Copy-holder with license of the Lord leased for years Copyholder Surrender Hob. 177. 1 Roll. 294 3 Len. 197. and afterwards surrendred the Reversion with the Rent to the use of a stranger who is admitted accordingly It was moved if here need any Attornment either to settle the Reversion or to create a Privity and Rhodes and Windham Iustices were of opinion that the surrender and admittance are in the nature of an Inrolment and so amount to an Attornment or at least do supply the want of it CCCCIX. Ruddall and Millers Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Devise IN Trespass the Case was this William Ruddall Serjeant at Law 18 H. 8. made a Feoffment in Fee to divers persons to the use of himself and his Heirs and 21 H. 8. declared his Will by which he devised his Lands to Charles his younger Son and to the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to John his eldest Son in Fee upon condition That if Charles or any of his issue should discontinue or alien but only for to make a Ioynture for their wives for the term of their lives that then c. and died The Statute of 27 H. 8. came Charles made a Lease to the Defendants for their lives according to the Statute of 33 H. 8. And levied a Fine with Proclamation Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. to the use of himself and his wife and the heirs Males of their two bodies begotten the Remainder to himself and the heirs Males of his body the Remainder to the right heirs of the Devisor John the eldest Son entred for the Condition broken upon the Defendants who re-entred upon which Re-entry the Action was brought Gawdy Fleetwood and Shuttleworth Serjeants for the Plaintiffs This Condition to restrain unlawful discontinuance is good Conditions as a Condition to restrain Wast or Felony See 10 H. 7. 11. 13 H. 7. 23. And before the Statute of Quia Emptores terratum If A. had enfeoffed B. upon Condition That B. nor his heirs should alien the same was a good Condition by Fleetwood which was granted per Curiam And this Condition was annexed to good purpose or the Serjeant well knew that Cestuy que use might have levied a Fine or suffered a Recovery by the Statutes of 1 R. 3. 4 H. 7. And this Condition annexed or tied to the use by the Will is now knit to the possession which is transferred to the use by the said Statute Although it may be objected that the Condition was annexed to the use and now the use is extinct in the possession and by consequence the Condition annexed unto it as where a Seignory is granted upon Condition and afterwards the Tenancy escheats now the Seignory is extinct and so the Condition annexed to it But as to that it may be answered That our Case cannot be resembled to the Cases at Common Law but rests upon the Statute of 27 H. 8. scil Cestuy que use shall stand and be seised deemed and adjudged in lawful seisin estate and possession of and in such Lands to all intents constructions and purposes in Law of an in such like estates as he had in the use and that the estate right title and possession that was in the Feoffee shall be clearly deemed and adjudged to be in Cestuy que use after such quality manner form and condition as he had in the use And therefore in the common assurance by bargain and sale by Deed enrolled if such assurance be made upon Condition As in case of Mortgage the possession is not raised by the Bargainee but by the Bargain an use is raised to the Bargainee and the possession executed to it by the Statute and the Condition which was annexed to the use only is now conjoyned to the possession and so it hath been adjudged So if the Feoffees to use before the Statute had made a Lease for life the Lessee commits Wast the Statute comes now Cestuy que use which was shall have an Action to Wast as it was ajudged in Iustice
Southcotes case Southcotes case So a Title of Cessavit in the Feoffees shall be executed by the Statute So if the King grants to the Feoffees in use a Fair Market or Warren these things shall be executed by the Statute Clerentius case as it was holden in the Case of Clarentius As to the Condition they conceived That it is broken for where the Devisor had allowed to the Devisee to discontinue for life to make a Ioynture to his Wife now he hath exceeded his allowance for he might have made a Ioynture to his wife indefeisable by Fine upon a Grant upon a Render for life c. But this Fine with the Proclamations is a Bar to the former entail which was created by the Devise and hath created a new entail and the former tail was barred by the Fine against the intent of the Devisor Also by this Fine he hath created a new Remainder so as his Issue inheritable to his new entail might alien and be unpunished which was against the meaning of the Devisor And as to the Lease for lives to the Defendants the same is not any breach of the Condition for that is warranted by the Statute of 32 H. 8. which enables Tenant in tail to make such a Lease so as it cannot be said Discontinuance which Anderson and Periam granted But the Fine levied after is a breach of the Condition and then the Re-entry upon the Lessees who have their estates under the Condition is lawful As where the wife of the Feoffee upon Condition is endowed and afterwards the Condition is broken now by the Re-entry of the Feoffor the Dower is defeated And Shutleworth put this case A Feoffment is made upon Condition that the Feoffee shall lease the Lands to A. for life and afterwards grant the Reversion to B. in Fee the Feoffor may re-enter for by this Conveyance he in the Reversion is immediate Tenant to the Lord where by the intended assurance the particular Tenant ought to be Puckering Fenner and Walmesley contrary And by Walmesley By this devise the use only passeth and not the Land it self for the Statute of 1 R. 3. extends only to Acts executed in the life of Cestuy que use and not to devises which are not executed till after the death of the Devisor which see 4 Ma. Dyer 143. Trivilians case See also 6 E. 6. Dyer 74. The Lord Bourchiers case but 10 H. 7. Cestuy que use deviseth That his Executors shall sell the Land now by the sale of the Land in possession for the same is in a manner an Act in his life for the Vendee is in by Cestuy que use and here is a Condition and not a Limitation for the nature of a Condition is to draw back the estate to the Feoffor Donor or Lessor but a Limitation carrieth the estate further And he conceived That the Condition is not broken by this Act for the intent of the Devisor is pursued for his meaning was That the wife should have a Ioynture indefeisable against the issue in tail and that the inheritance should be preserved that both should be observed And he said that this Fine being levied by him in the Reversion upon an estate for life is not any discontinuance but yet shall bar the estate Tail. And the Iustices were clear of opinion that the Condition is broken and also that the intent of the Condition is broken for it might be that Charles had issue by a former wife which by this Fine should be disinherited and a new Entail set on foot against the meaning of the Devisor c. and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCX Simmes and Wescots Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 355. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 147. That in consideration that he would marry the Defendants Daughter the Defendant promised to give him 20 l. and also to procure him all the Corn growing upon such Lands and to provide necessaries for the wedding dinner the Defendant did confess the communication betwixt them and that he promised to give the Plaintiff 20 l. so as he would procure a Lease of certain Lands to his Daughter for her life absque hoc that he promised modo forma The Iury found the promise of the 20 l. but not any other thing it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Assumpsit whereof the Plaintiff hath declared although it consist of divers things yet it is entire and if the whole is not found nothing is found and the Case of 21 E. 4. 22. was cited touching variance of Contract as where an Action of Debt is brought upon a Contract of a Horse and the Iury found a Contract for two Horses the Plaintiff shall never have Iudgment On the other side it was said That the Plaintiff shall recouer damages for the whole that is found i. for the 20 l. See 32 H. 8. Br. Issue 90. In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant did promise to deliver four Woollen-cloaths the Defendant pleaded That he did promise to deliver four Linnen-cloaths absque hoc that he promised c. the Iury found That the Defendant did promise to deliver two Woollen-cloaths and the Plaintiff did recover damages for the two So in Wast the Wast is assigned in succidendo 20 Oaks upon which they are at Issue the Iury find but ten Oaks the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for so much and shall be amerced for the residue Gawdy Iustice Here are several Assumpstis in Law as Br. 5. Ma. Action sur le Case 108. a man in consideration of a Marriage assumes to pay 20 l. per Annum for four years two years incur the party brings an Action upon the Case for the arrearages of the two years Wray In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff ought not to vary from his Case as if a promise be grounded upon two considerations Ragula and in an action upon it the Plaintiff declares upon one only he shall never have Iudgment and here the Iury have not found the same promise Clench If promise be made to deliver a Horse and a Cow and the Horse is delivered but not the Cow the party shall have an Action for the Cow but he shall declare upon the whole matter and afterwards Iudgment was given quod querens nihil capiat per billam CCCCXI Stile and Millers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Tithes 1 Cro. 161 578. 11 Co 13. A Parson Leased all his Glebe Lands for years with all the profits and commodities rendring 13 s. 4 d. pro omnibus exaction ibus demandis and afterwards libelled in the Spiritual Court against his Lessees for the Tithes thereof the Lessee obtained a Prohibition See 32 H. 8. Br. Dis 17. 8 E. 2. Avowry 212. Wray Tithes are not things issuing out of Lands nor any secular duty but spiritual and if the Parson doth release to
the Seisin or possession of the Tenant in Demesn who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent so behind to the Testator in his life or in the Seisin or possession of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by Purchase Gift or Discent in like manner as the Testator might or ought to have done in his life time And now it was moved to the Court. If A. grant a Rent-charge to B. the Rent is behind B. dyeth A. infeoffeth C. of the Lands in Fee who diverse years after infeoffeth D. who divers years after infeoffeth E. It was holden by Walmesey Periam and Windham Iustice against Anderson Lord chief Iustice that E. should be chargeable with the said arrearages to the Executors of A. But they all agreed That the Lord by Escheat Tenant in Dower or by the curtesie should not be charged for they do not claim in by the party only but also by the Law. CCCCXIX Wigot and Clarks Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Right by Wigot against Clark for the Mannor of D. in the County of Glocester the four Knights gladiis cincti did appear Writ of Right and took their corporal Oath that they would choose 12 c. ad faciendum magnam Assisam and by direction of the court they withdrew themselves into the Exchequer chamber and there did return in Parchment the names of the Recognitors and also their own names and at the day of the return of the Pannel by them made the 4 Knights and 12 others were sworn to try the issue and it was ordered by the Court That both the parties scil the Demandant and the Tenant or their Attornies attend the said 4 Knights in the Exchequer chamber and to be present at the making of the Pannel so as each of them might have their challenges for after the return of the Pannel no challenge lieth and thereupon the said 4 Knights went from the Bar and within a short time after sitting the Court they returned the Pannel written in Parchment in this form Nomina Recognitorum c. inter A. petentem B. tenentem and so set down their names six other Knights ten Esquires and four Gentlemen and the Iustices did commend them for their good and sufficient Pannel and thereupon a Venire facias was awarded against the said parties CCCCXX Pory and Allens Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot. 611. In the Common Pleas. THe case was That Lessee for 30 years leased for 19 years 1 Cro. 173. Owen 97. Post 322 323. Surrender 1 Cro. 302. and then the first Lessee and one B. by Articles in writing made betwixt them did conclude and agree That the Lessee for 19 years should have a Lease for three years in the said Lands and others and that the same should not be any surrender of his first Term to which Articles the said Lessee for 19 years did after agree and assent unto and it was the opinion of all the Iustices of the Court that the same was not any surrender and they also were of opinion That one Termor could not surrender to another Termor CCCCXXI Glanvil ane Mallarys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 321. In the Common Pleas. GLanvil was Plaintiff in Audita Querela Audita Querâ—la 1 Cro. 2â—8 against Mallary upon a Statute Staple for that the conusor was within age at the time of the acknowledging of it it was moved for the Defendant that the Court ought not to hold Plea of this matter because there was no Record of the Statute remaining here and therefore by Law he was not compellable to answer it c. and a President was disallowed 5 H. 8. where such a pleading was allowed and judgment given that the Defendant eat sine die Loves Case Dudley and Skinners Case vide 16 Eliz. Dier 332. But on the other side divers presidents were shewed that divers such Writs had been shewed in the Common Pleas as 30 Eliz. Loves case and the Lord Dudley and Skinners case and thereupon it was adjudged that the Action did well lye in this Court. CCCCXXII Pet and Callys Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt IN Debt upon a Bond for performance of covenants the case was I. S. by Indenture covenanted with I.D. that such a woman viz. R.S. at all times at the request and charges of I.D. should make execute and suffer such reasonable assurances of such Lands to the said I.D. or his heirs as the said I. D. or his heirs should reasonably devise or require I.D. devised a Fine to be levied by the said Woman and required her to come before the Iustices of Assise to acknowledge it and the woman came before the said Iustices to that intent and because the said woman at that time was not compos mentis the said Iustices did refuse to take the Conusans of the said Fine and this was averred in the pleading in an Action brought upon the said Bond for performance of Covenants where the breach was assigned in not acknowledging of the said Fine and upon the special matter the party did demur in Law and the opinion of the whole Court was that the condition was not broken for the words are general to make such reasonable assurances which c. but if the words had been special to acknowledge a Fine there if the Iustice doth refuse to take such acknowledgment the Bond is forfeited for the party hath taken upon him that it should be done Wangford and Sextons Case Mich. 22 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 174. Kel 87. a. THe Plaintiff had recovered against the Defendant in an Action of Debt and had execution The Defendant after the day of the Teste of the Fierifacias and before the Sheriff had medled with the execution of the Writ bona fide for money sold certain goods and chattels and delivered them to the buyers it was holden by the Court that notwithstanding the said Sale that the Sheriff might do execution of those goods in the hands of the buyers Executions for that they are liable to the execution and execution once granted or made shall have relation to the Test of the Writ CCCCXXIV Wilmer and Oldfields Case Trin. 29 Eliz. Rot. 2715. In the Common Pleas. Award IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was to perform the Award of I. S Antea 140. c. the Arbitrators make Award That the Defendant before such a day shall pay to the Plaintiff 1000 l. or otherwise procure one A. being a stranger to the Bond to be bound to the Obligee for the payment of 12 l. per annum to the Plaintiff for his life the Defendant pleaded the performance of the Award generally the Plaintiff assigned the breach of the Award in this That the said A. had not paid the said 100 l. without speaking of the cause of the award of the 12 l. per annum upon which the
yet afterwards he seemed to be of other opinion And as to that which hath been objected That the Lease is void to all intents and purposes according to the words of the Statute for by some it cannot be resembled to the case cited before of the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfeild that such a Grant should bind him and not his Successors for if this Grant in our Case shall not be void presently it shall never be void for the Colledge never dieth no more than Dean and Chapter Mayor and Commonalty To that it was answered by Drew That although there be some difference betwixt such Corporations and that the words of the Statute are general void to all intents constructions and purposes yet they shall construed according to the meaning of the makers of the Act whose scope was to provide for the Successors and not for the present Incumbent and to the utter impoverishing of all Successors without any respect to the party himself as it appeareth by the preamble of the said Statute where it is observed That by long and unreasonable Leases the decay of Spiritual Livings is procured for the remedying and preventing of which long Leases this Act was made and that the Successors should not be bound thereby And these Leases are not void simpliciter sed secundum quid i. e. as to the Successors As upon the Statute of 11 H. 7. cap. 20. Discontinuances made by Women c. shall be void and of none effect yet such a Discontinuance made is good against the Woman her self So upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. concerning Bishops See now Coke Lincoln Colledge Case 37 Eliz. in the third Reports 60. A Lease made by Dean and Chapter not warranted by the said Statute shall not be void untill after the death of the Dean who was party to the Lease So upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. of fraudulent Conveyances such fraudulent Conveyance is not void against the Grantor but against those who are provided for by the said Statute and that the Lease in the principal case is not void but voidable all the Iustices agreed to be avoided by the Colledge or any other who claim by it and by Anderson If such a Lease should be void then great mischief would fall to the Colledge for whose benefit this Statute was made for if such Lease be made rendring a small Rent then if before the defect be found or espied the Rent was arrear the Colledge could not have remedy for the said Rent Also by Periam Such a Lessee might have an Action of Trespass against a stranger who entreth upon the Land which proves that the Lease is not void but voidable and afterwards notwithstanding all the Objections Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and the chief Authority which moved Periam Iustice to be of such opinion was Lemans case cited before 28 H. 8. Dyer 27. where a Lease was made to a Spiritual person against the Statute of 21 H. 8. and a Bond or Obligation for performance of covenants and thereupon an Action was brought and the Plaintiff therein had Iudgment and recovered which could not have been if the Lease were utterly void against the Lessor and Lessee as the very words of the Statute are and although it is not alledged in the Book that that was any cause of the Iudgment yet in his opinion it was the greatest cause of the Iudgment in that case CCCCXXVIII Bighton and Sawles Case Pasch 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the case it ws agreed by the whole Court 1 Cro. 235. That where Iudgment is given that the Plaintiff shall recover and because it is not known what damages therefore a Writ issueth to enquire of the damages That the same is not a perfect Iudgment before the damages returned and adjudged and therefore they also agreed that after such award and before the damages adjudged that any matter might be shewed in Court in arrest of the Iudgment and by Periam Iustice the difference is where damages are the principal thing to be recovered and where not for if damages be the principal then the full Iudgment is not given until they be returned but in Debt where a certain sum is demanded it is otherwise CCCCXXIX Maidwell and Andrews Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. MAidwell brought an Action of Covenant against Andrews Covenant and the Case was this That R. was seised of Lands and leased the same for life rendring Rent and afterwards devised the Reversion to his wife for life and died Andrews the Defendant took to wife the wife of the Devisor the Devisee of the Reversion afterwards Andrews bargained and sold the said Reversion to one Marland and his heirs during his own life and afterwards granted the Rent to the Plaintiff and covenanted that the Plaintiff should enjoy the said Rent during his Term absque aliquo legitimo impedimento of the said Andrews his Heirs or Assigns or any other person claiming from the said Marland Marland died seised and the same descended to B. his heir and the breach of the Covenant was assigned in this i. in the heir of Marland who hath the Rent by reason of the Grant of the Reversion to Marland ut supra the Defendant pleaded the Grant of the Reversion to Marland per scriptum without saying Sigillo suo sigillat hic in Curia prolat absque hoc that the said Reversion and Rent descended to B. and thereupon the Plaintiff did demur in Law and the causes of the Demurrer was assigned by Yelverton Serjeant 1. The Grant of the Reversion is pleaded per sciptum and he doth not say sigillat for a Reversion cannot pass without Deed although it be granted but for years and a bare writing is not a Deed without sealing of it and therefore the pleading ought to be per scriptum suum sigillat or per factum suum for factum suum implies the ensealing and delivery 2. It ought to be pleaded hic in Cur. prolat for the Court is to see such Deed to the end they may know if it be a lawful Deed Traverse 1 Cro. 278. without razure interlining or other defects 3. The Defendant hath traversed the descent where he ought to have traversed the dying seised for of every thing descendable the dying seised is the substance and the descent is but the effect And although the Grant of the Reversion was but for the life of the Grantor yet the estate granted is descendable as 27 E. 3. 31. Tenant by the Courtesie leaseth his estate to one and his heirs the Grantor dieth his Heir entreth and a good Bar against him in the Reversion and see 14 E. 3. Action 56. Annuity granted to one and his Heirs for the term of another mans life the Grantor dieth living Cestuy que vie the Heir of the Grantor brings a writ of Annuity and it was holden maintainable and he said that were the dying seised is confessed and avoided by
the other side there the Descent is traversable and not the dying seised and that was the Case betwixt Vernon and Gray Vernon and Grays Case In an Avowry Vernon conveyed the Lands from the Lord Powes to him as next Heir to him because the Lord Powes died seised in his Demesn as of Fee without issue and the Plaintiff conveyed from the said Lord Powes by Devise and traversed the Descent to the Avowant for the dying seised was confessed and avoided by the Devise 22 Eliz. Dyer 366. See 21 H. 7. 31. In Trespass the Defendant saith That T. was seised and died seised and that the Lands descended to him as Son and Heir and that he entred the Plaintiff said That T. was seised and took to wife K. and they had issue the Plaintiff and died seised and the Land descended to him and teaversed the descent to the Defendant and see Sir William Merings Case 14 H. 8. 22 23. But if the parties do not claim by one and the same person or the dying seised be not confessed and avoided there the dying seised shall be traversed and not the descent Glanvil Serjeant Be the Bar insufficient or not if the Declaration be not sufficient the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment and here is not any breach of Covenant viz. that the Plaintiff shall enjoy it without any lawful impediment of the Defendant his Heirs or Assigns or any claiming by Marland and then if the Heir of Marland cannot make any lawful claim then there is not any breach of Covenant assigned and he said because it is not shewed that the Land is not holden in Socage the Devise is not good for it may be that the Land is holden in Capite but admit the Devise good that when Andrews bargains and sells unto Marland and the Tenant never attorns then nothing passeth and then the Heir of Marland cannot make any lawful claim or lawful impediment Periam Iustice Here Marland was assignee of Andrews and if he or his heirs make claim although that the assignment be not sufficient in Law yet because he hath colour by this assignment his claim is lawful and so there is a breach of the Covenant and although it is not alledged that the Land devised is holden in Socage yet the Devise is good for two parts of the Land. Anderson Iustice If it be good but for two parts then is the Reversion apportioned and the Rent destroyed and so Marland hath not any Rent by his purchase of the Reversion and so he can't lawfully disturb the Plaintiff The Law doth create his apportionment which grows by the Devise and therefore the Rent shall not be destroyed but if it had been done by the Act of the party it had been otherwise and I would willingly hear if the Heir of Marland be assignee of Andrews for otherwise he is not within the words of the Covenant for Marland hath an estate to him and his heirs for the life of another Now after the death of Marland his heir is a special occupant and vide H. 26 Eliz. Rot. 560. in the Common Pleas such an Heir shall not have his age CCCCXXX Oglethorpe and Hides Case Pasch 33 liz In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Bond for the performance of Covenants Debt it was holden by the whole Court That if the Defendant pleaded generally the performance of the Covenants and the Plaintiff doth demur generally upon it without shewing cause of Demurrer Iudgment shall be given according to the truth of the cause for that default in pleading is but matter of form and is aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz. But if any of the Covenants be in the disjunctive so as it is in the Election of the Covenantor to do the one or the other then it ought to be specially pleaded and the performance of it for otherwise the Court cannot know what part hath been performed CCCCXXXI Tracy and Ivies Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower by Margaret Tracy against Ivie the Case was Dower That John Finch was seised and enfeoffed Shipton and others of two parts of the Lands to the use of himself and the Defendant his then wife and their heirs for ever with Condition That if his said wife did survive him Co. 4. Vernons Case she should pay such sums of mony not exceeding two hundred pounds to such persons which the Feoffor by his last Will should appoint and afterwards he declared his Will and thereby appointed certain sums of mony to be paid to divers persons amounting in the whole to the sum of one hundred and fifty one pounds and by his said Will devised the residue of his Lands to divers of his Kindred having no issue and died The wife married Tracy and they brought Dower against the Devisees who pleaded the Feoffment aforesaid and averred the same was made for the Ioynture of the Demandant And because that no other matter or circumstance was proved to verifie the Averment the Court incited the Iury to find for the Demandant which they did accordingly CCCCXXXII Bond and Richardsons Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Bond Debt 1 Cro. 142. the Condition was to pay a lesser sum such a day and at such a place the Defendant pleaded payment according to the Condition upon which they were at issue And it was found by Verdict That the lesser sum was paid such a day before the day contained in the Condition of the Bond and then received and upon this Verdict Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the day is not material nor the place but the payment is the substance CCCCXXXIII Marshes Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Trover had Conversion GOods came to a Feme covert by Trover and she and her Husband did convert them to their own use It was holden per Curiam That the Action upon the Case shall be brought against the Husband and Wife and not against the Husband only for the Action doth sound in Trespass and it is not like unto Detinue for upon a Detainer by the Wife the Action lieth against the Husband only CCCCXXXIV Corbets Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt 2 Len. 60. AN Action of Debt was brought by Original Writ against an Administrator in another County than where the Administrator was commorant and before notice of the Suit he paid divers Debts of the Intestate due by specialty and so he had not Assets to pay the Debt in demand having Assets at the day of the Teste of the Original And now Plainment Administred 1 Cro. 793. the Defendant appearing pleaded this special matter and concluded so he had nothing remaining in his hands And it was holden per Curiam to be a good Plea. See 2 H. 4. 21 22. CCCCXXXV Gillam and Lovelaces Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Administration KAtharine Gillam Administratrix of John Gillam brought Ejectione
then the Tenant so distraining them ought to bring them to the Lords Pound which if he shall not do at the next Court he shall be amerced in a certain sum to the Lord of a Manor to be paid and that was holden no good custom because it is against common Right and the common Law for by the common Law and common Reason every one finding Cattel in his own Land Damage Feasant may impound them in his own Land and the Lord is not damnified thereby So it is of a By-law That every one who holdeth so many Acres of Lands in such a Town shall yearly pay a certain sum of mony to the Church of the same Town and shall forfeit for every default of payment thereof twenty pounds such By-law although it hath continued time out of mind yet it is not of any validity because for not payment of the said sum to the Church the Lord of the Manor is not damnified and therefore he shall not have any gain contrary if the penalty had been limited to the Church-wardens because they are bound to repair the Church Another Exception was taken to the form of the Prescription Quandocunque eaedem sepes defensiones in decasu extiterint and that is too general for so they might be in decay by his own default as if he himself wrongfully pull up the Hedges in which case there is no reason but that he should repair them at his own costs and charges and therefore he ought to have pleaded cum in de casu extiterint in the default of the Tenant of the Wood. Another Exception was taken because that here this custom is pleaded particularly and appropriated to the eleven Acres only and is not extended to the whole Manor and to that purpose the case of 40 E. 3. 27. was cited where a custom is applied to one part of a Town as to say that such a House within such a Town is of the nature of Gavelkind and the rest of the Town is guildable See 21 Eliz. Dyer 363. It was adjorned c. CCCCXXXIX Hare and Okelies Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. MIchael Hare and others Trespass brought an Action of Trespass against Okelie for breaking of their close and carrying away their corn And upon Not guilty it was found by special Verdict That the said Michael Hare was sole seised of the said Close where c. and so seised exposuit ad culturam Anglice did put forth to Tillage the said Land to the other Plaintiffs in form following viz. That the said Michael should find one half of the Corn sowed and the other Plaintiffs the other half and that the said Land should be ploughed and tilled and the Corn thereof coming should be reaped and cut at the charges of the other Plaintiffs and so cut should be divided by the Shock and the said Michael to have the one half and the other Plaintiffs the other half c. And it was the opinion of the whole Court That notwithstanding these words exposuit ad culturam that no estate in the soil passed to the other Plaintiffs Exposition of words but the said Michael did remain sole seised as before but by Anderson upon the severance of the Corn peradventure a property in the said Corn might be in all the Plaintiffs But because it appeareth that Michael was sole seised and the other Plaintiffs had not any thing in the Land Therefore it was adjudged that they could not joyn in the Action of Trespass for breaking of the Close and therefore it was awarded by the Court that the Plaintiffs nihil Cap. per breve CCCCXL. Beares Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon by Beare Formedon the Defendant pleaded in Bar a warranty with Assets And upon the Issue nothing by descent it was found That the Ancestor of the Defendant whose warranty was pleaded in Bar was seised of Land in the nature of Gavelkind Bar. and by his Will devised the same to his two Sons whereof the Defendant was the Eldest and their heirs equally between them to be divided and it was adjudged no Assets wherefore the Defendant had Iudgment to have seisin of the Land. CCCCXLI Austin and Smiths Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Copyholder of Grants That Austin being a Copyholder by License of the Lord leased his Copyhold to Smith for years rendring rent and afterwards by Deed granted the rent to another to have during the Term c. to which Grant the Lessee did attorn Rents 1 Cro. 637. 651. 895. 1 Roll. 598. 1 Inst 317. a. Litt. 151. b. 152. a. and paid the Rent to the Grantee It was holden by Gawdy Iustice That the Grant was good but now it is but a Rent-seck And it was said by some That the Lessor cannot surrender such a Rent unless he surrender the Reversion also Quaere if the Grantee may have an Action of Debt for it It was conceived he could not for he is not party nor privy to the Contract nor hath the Reversion CCCCXLII Underhill and Savages Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SAvage was presented to a Benefice and afterwards was presented to another Pluralities and then purchased a Dispensation which was too late and then was qualified and afterwards accepted the Archdeaconry of Gloucester And Underhill who had the Archdeaconry libelled in the Spiritual Court against the said Savage where it is holden that all Ecclesiastical Promotions in such cases are void and now Savage sued a Prohibition Prohibition It was argued by Atkinson That the Prohibition did lye for the Patron hath his remedy by our Law by a Writ of Right of Advowson See 29 E. 3. 44. If Avoidance be by Cession or Deprivation and the next Presentment come in question it shall be determined by the Kings Court and here when he accepteth of another Benefice it is cession by the Common Law but there ought to be a Sentence but now there needs not any Sentence for by the Statute of 21 H. 8. Archdeaconry 13. the Church is ipso facto void But it was objected An Archdeaconry is not within the Statute for it is not any Cure with Souls also an Archdeaconry is a late Promotion and therefore it cannot be void by the Statute Lewknor contra The Patronage here doth not come in debate but if the Defendant in the Spiritual Court will plead That the Plaintiff is not Patron but such an one then a Prohibition lieth withal the Iustices granted and it was said by Wray That a Doctor of the civil Law had been with him and affirmed to him that their Law is That if one having a Benefice with cure of Souls accepts an Archdeaconry the Archdeaconry is void but he said That he conceived that upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. the Law is qualified by reason of a Proviso there scil Provided that no Deanry Archdeaconry c.
be taken or comprehended under the name of a Benefice having Cure of Souls in any Article above specified CCCCXLIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Aâ—iâ—d ONe was bounden to stand to the award of two Arbitrators who award that the party shall pay unto a stranger or his assigns 200 l. before such a day the stranger before the day dieth and B. takes Letters of Administration and if the Obligor shall pay the mony to the Administrator or that the Obligor should be discharged was the Question and it was the opinion of the whole Court that the mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is Assignee and by Gawdy Iustice If the word Assignee had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator quod Coke affirmavit CCCCXLIV Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe sued in the Kings Bench for Costs given upon a Suit depending in the Hundred Court and the sum of the Costs was under 40 s. and the Plaintiff declared Steward That at the Court holden before the Steward secundum consuetudinem Manerii praedict It was objected that the Steward is not Iudge in such Court but the Suitors to which it was answered by the Iustices That by a Custom in a Hundred Court a Steward may be Iudge and so it hath been holden and here the Plaintiff hath declared upon the Custom for the Declaration is secund consuetudinem Manerii also the Subject may sue here in the Kings Bench for a lesser sum than 40 s. as if 10 s. Costs be given in any Suit here Suit to such costs lieth here in this Court. CCCCXLV Pigot and Harringtons Case Mich. 30 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PIgot brought a Writ of Error upon a Fine levied by him within age Error 1 Cro. 11. the Case was That the Husband and Wife were Tenants for life the Remainder to the Infant in Fee and they three levied a Fine and the Infant only brought the Writ of Error It was objected by Tanfield that they all three ought to joyn in this Writ and the Husband and Wife ought to be summoned and severed Atkinson contrary for here the Husband and Wife have not any cause of action but the Infant only is grieved by the Fine 35 H. 6. 19 20 21 c. In conspiracy against many it was found for the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants brought Attaint and assigned the false oath in omnibus quae dixerunt but afterwards abridged the assignment of the false oath as to the damages and so the attaint well lies Two women are Ioynt-tenants they take Husbands the Husbands and their Wives make a Feoffment in Fee Attaint the Husbands dye the Wives shall have several Cui in vita's for the coverture of the one was not the coverture of the other 7 H. 4. 112. In Appeal against four they were outlawed and two of them brought Error upon it and good 29 E. 3. 14. In Assize against three Coparceners they plead by Bailiff nul tenent de Franktenement c. and found that two of them were disseisors and Tenants and that the third had nothing and afterwards the three Coparceners brought attaint and after appearance the third Sister who was acquit was nonsuit and afterwards by Award the Writ did abate Tanfield Although that the cause be several yet the erronious act was joynt and the receiving of the Fine and that Record being entire ought to be pursued accordingly and then the Husband and Wife shall be summoned and severed and it is not like to the case of 29 E. 3. cited before for there the third coparcener had not any cause of attaint for no verdict passed against her Wray As the Error is here assigned the Writ is well brought for the Error is not assigned in the Record but without it in the person of the Infant Fine upon an Infant reversed and that is the cause of the Action by him and for no other Two Infants levy a Fine although they joyn in Error yet they ought to assign Errors severally and they may sue several Writs of Error and afterwards it was holden by the Court that the Writ was good and the Fine reversed as to the Infant only CCCCXLVI Scovell and Cavels Case Mich. 30 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Scovell against Cavel Leases 1 Cro. 89 the Declaration was general upon a Lease made by William Pain and it was found by special verdict That William Leversedge was seised of the Lands c. and leased the same to Stephen Cavel John Cavel and William Pain habend to them for their lives and for the life of the survivor of them Provided always and it was covenanted granted and agreed betwixt the parties that the said John Cavel and William Pain should not take any benefit profit or commodity of the Land during the life of Stephen Cavel and further that the said William Pain should not take any benefit c. during the life of John Cavel c. Stephen Cavel died John Cavel entred and afterwards William Pain entred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant entred and if the Entry of William Pain were lawful was the Question Gawdy Serjant his Entry is not lawful It will be agreed That if a man lease to three for their lives they are Ioynt-tenants but if by the habendum the estate be limited to them by way of Remainder the joynt estate in the Premises is gone and the Land demised shall go in Remainder and I agree that in deeds Poll the words shall be taken strong against the grantor contrary in the Case of Indentures the words there shall be taken according to the intent of the parties for there the words are the words of both See Browning and Beestons Case 2. and 3. Ma. Plowd 132. where by Indenture the Lessee covenanted to render and pay for the Land Leased such a Rent the same is a good reservation although it be not by apt words and here in our Case this Proviso and Covenant Grant and Agreement doth amount to such a limitation by way of Remainder especially when such a clause followeth immediately after the Habendum Coke contrary The Office of the Habendum is to limit and explain the estate contained in the premises and here the Habendum hath done its Office and made it a joynt estate and therefore the Clause afterward comes too late and in truth is repugnant and utterly void as to such purpose but perhaps an action of Covenant lies upon it Wray It hath been by me adjudged if a Lease be made to three Habendum successive the same is a void word and the Lessees are joynt-tenants contrary of Copyhold by reason of Custom and here the proviso and the clause following is contrary to the Habendum and repugnant and so void as to the dividing of the estate by way of Remainder which Gawdy Iustice granted Heale
Action against the Executor of I.D. And it was agreed by the Court that if a man makes his Debtor and a stranger his Executors and the Debtor dieth the surviving Executor may have an Action of debt against the Executor of the Debtor and so it was adjudged in the principal case CCCCXLIX Wollman and Fies Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 179. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit that the Plaintiff should enjoy such Lands for so many years The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. because the Land is the Glebe Land of such a Parsonage and in truth the Defendant did mis-recite the Statute For the Statute is No Lease after the fifteenth day of May And the pleading is hereafter to be made Secondly the Statute is of any Benefice with cure the pleading is of any Benefice Thirdly The Statute is without absence above eighty and the pleading is without absence by the space of eighty days And for these Causes the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCCL Frond and Batts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt Payment to the wife not good IN debt upon a Bond upon condition to stand to the Award of I.S. The Defendant pleaded That the said I.S. had Arbitrated that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff ten pounds and he said he had paid it to the Plaintiffs wife who received it upon which the Plaintiff did demur And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCLI Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Grants of the King of the Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench. THe Queen granted to George Earl of Shrewsbury An. 15. of her reign the Office of Earl Marshal of England and now came the said Earl and prayed that I. S. one of his Servants to whom he had granted the Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench might be to it because the same is an Office incident to his Office and in his power to grant and that Knowles to whom the Queen had granted the said Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench by the Attainder of North. be removed And a President was shewed 14 15 Eliz. Betwixt Gawdy and Verney where it was agreed That the said office was a several office from the said great office and not incident to it And as to the Case of 39 H. 6. 33 34. the truth is the said office of Marshal of the Kings Bench was granted expresly by the Duke by express words and so he had it not as incident to his office of Marshal of England On the other side there were three Presidents shewed first in the time of E. 2. That the office of the Marshal of the Kings Bench was appendant to the said office of Marshal of England Secondly 8 R. 2. When the said great office was in the King he granted the said office of Marshal of the Kings Bench But 20 R. 2. both offices were rejoyned as they were before in ancient time and there were also shewed Latters Patents of 4 E. 4. and 19 H. 8. by which it appeared That the said inferiour office had time out of mind been part of the great office And it was moved That when the said great office is in the Kings hands and the King grants the said under office if now this office be not severed from the great office for ever Wray It is no severance for the chief office is an office of Dignity which may remain in the King but this under office is an office of necessity and the King himself cannot execute it by which of necessity he ought to grant it Another matter was moved If the Grant of the King unto the Earl of Shrewsbury were good because in it the Grant to Verney of the said under office is not recited according to the Statute of 6 H. 8. 9. As 26 E. 3. 60. The King seised of the Honor of Pickring to which a Forrest was appendant the Bayliwick of which Forrest he granted in fee rendring rent and afterwards he granted the Honor with Appurtenances and afterwards the Bailiff committed a Forfeiture and that was found in Eyre the Grantee of the Honor shall seise it yet the King shall have the Rent And here the Earl of Shrewsbury shall have this office in his power to grant And so much the rather because it was granted but for life CCCCLII Michill and Hores Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. MIchil did affirm a Plaint in the Court of the City of Exeter against Hore for twenty pounds and upon Nihil returned Attachment of goods by custom of Exeter it was surmised That Trosse had certain monies in his hands due to Hore and according to the custom of Exeter the said monies were attached in the hands of Trosse who appeared upon the Attachment and pleaded That he owed nothing to Hore upon which there was a Demurrer Error and Iudgment given against Trosse because that Trosse ought to have pleaded not only that he owed him nothing but further that he had not any goods of Hores in his hands And thereupon Trosse brought a Writ of Error and assigned the Error in the principal matter upon which it was demurred and Iudgment given against the Plaintiff because that the Plea of Trosse that he owed him nothing is good enough for if there be not a Debt it is not attachable upon such Attachment And it is a good Plea to a common intent and altogether in use in London were such custom is Another Error was assingned for that Michill had recovered Costs against Trosse where it ought not to be And also Iudgment is not given that Trosse should be discharged against Hore And afterwards the Iudgment given in Exeter was reversed CCCCLIII Dennis and Saint Johns Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt 1 Cro. 494. IN Debt upon an Obligation against Oliver Saint John and Alice his wife as heir of her Father The Defendants pleaded Non est factum of the Father And it was found by special Verdict That the Obligation was made by the Father of the Wife to the Plaintiff and another whereas in truth The Plaintiff hath declared upon an Obligation made to himself only without speaking of any other joynt Obligee Non est factum and that the Plaintiff as Survivor hath brought the Action and if upon the matter it shall be said the Deed of the Defendant in manner as the Plaintiff hath declared the Iury refer unto the Court And the case 14 E. 4. 1. b. If three enfeoff me and I plead That two did enfeoff me and the same be traversed it shall be found against me for the Feoffment is a joynt act by them all But if a man enfeoffeth me and two others and they dye so as I have all by Survivor in pleading I may shew the Feoffment was made to me alone So 46 E. 3. 17. a. Three Joynt-tenants in Fee make a
Lease for life and afterwards two of the Ioynt-tenants release to the third who brings an Action of Wast against the Lessee and the Writ was That he held of his Lease only and the Writ was awarded good Walmesley This Plea Non est factum upon this matter is no good Plea for he hath not pleaded it Respective as to the Obligation but generally Non est factum suum which refers to the Obligor only and the Issue is not whether he made the Deed to the Plaintiff or not but generally whether he made it at all For there is a difference Nihil debet for that refers to te Plaintiff and where he pleads Non est factum Which that refers to the Plaintiff and where he pleads Non est factum Which Shutteleworth granted See 1 Eliz. Dyer 167. Tawes Case this Plea Non est factum hath not any respect to the Obligee be a Monk and there is another who bears the name of the Obligee yet in those Cases the Obligor cannot safely plead Non est factum but where one is sued who bears the name of the Obligor there Non est factum is a good Plea And see 10 Eliy Dyer 279. W.S. was bound in an Obligation to one H. by the name of I.S. and upon that Obligation an Action was brought against him by the name of W.S. and he pleaded Non est factum and the special matter was found and it was ruled that upon that Verdict the Plaintiff should not recover but the best way for the Plaintiff was to sue the Defendant by the name by which he is bound and then if he appear and plead ut supra he shall be concluded by the Obligation And the Court was clear of opinion That the Plaintiff ought to have declared upon the special matter CCCCLIV Willis and Whitewoods Case Hill. 31. Eliz. Rot. 1428 In the Common Pleas. Leases Ow. â—5 56. Hutt 105. Ant. 158. Surrenders THe case was That A. was seised of certain Lands holden in Socage and leased the same to I.S. for many years and dyed his heir within the age of fourteen years the wife of A. being Guardian in Socage leased the same Land by Indenture to the same I.S. for years if the first Lease was surrendred or determined was the Question Anderson Surrendred it cannot be for the Guardian hath not any Reversion capable of a Surrender but only an Authority given to her by the Law to take the profits to the use of the Heir But yet perhaps it is determined by consequence and operation of Law As if A. lease to B. for one hundred years and afterwards granteth the Reversion to C. for two years who leaseth to B. for two years who accepts the Lease the same is not any Surrender Ante. 303. for a term of one hundred years cannot be drowned in a Reversion for two years yet the first Lease is determined which Periam granted And by Windham If a Lease be made to begin at Michaelmas and before that time the Lessor makes a new Lease to the same Lessee to begin presently the same is not any Surrender and yet thereby the first Lease is determined and so in the principal case which Anderson granted but Periam doubted of it and he said Guardian in Socage hath such an estate in the Reversion that he may enter for a condition broken Anderson The same is not in respect of any estate that he hath but in the name and right of the heir and not by reason of any Reversion CCCCLV Norwood and Dennis Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit by Norwood against Dennis the Issue was Quare Impedit If the Advowson was appendant to the Manor of D. or in gross and the Iury â—â—und that it was appendant and further found that the Queen had right and title to present for she had presented at the two last Avoidances Anderson and Periam Iustices If it appeareth unto the Court upon the pleading that the King hath title to present The Court shall award a Writ to the Bishop for the King but here appeareth no title for the the Queen upon the pleading but only upon the Verdict so as the one part or the other may answer to it And because the Iury have found for the Plaintiff the title found for the Queen shall not be respected but as a meer Nugation and Surplusage for the same was out of their Issue and their Charge and it is no more then if one comes into the Court and informs us of any title for the Queen there the Court ought not to regard it CCCCLVI Green and the Hundred of Buccle-churches Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry the Case was Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry. 1 Cro. 14. That Green did deliver a certain sum of money to a Carryer who put the â—ame amongst other things in his Cart and sent a boy of the age of twelve years with the Cart before and he himself stayed a short time in the Inn and afterwards went his way and before he could get to the Cart the Cart was robbed and the money carryed away The boy made Huy and Cry and came unto a Iustice of Peace and prayed he would examine him but he would not but the Carryer himself would not go to be examined wherefore Green himself wen to a Iustice of Peace to be examined and so was and afterwards brought this Action And it was holden by the Court that here the Plaintiff had failed of his Action for want of sufficient examination for the Servant who was robbed ought to be examined and the examination of the Master or Owner of the goods who was not present at the Robbery is not at any purpose to enable the Plaintiff to this Action for the party robbed ought to be examined And it was said by some That where an Action doth not lye upon the new Statute of 27 Eliz. the party may have an Action upon the old Statute but others were against it for the Statute of 27 Eliz. is in the Negative so as if the Action doth not lye upon it no Action lyeth at all And it was moved by Periam and Anderson That the Plaintiff might have an Action upon his Case framed upon the said Statute of 27 Eliz. against the Iustice of Peace who refused to examine the boy But Windham doubted of it because the Iustice of Peace is a Iudge of Record and for such thing as he doth as Iudge no Action lieth To which it was answered by Periam and Anderson That the Examination in such case is not made by him as Iudge or Iustice of Peace but as a Minister appointed for the examination by the Statute c. CCCCLVII Stevinson Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff had covenanted with the Defendant that
that was holden by the Court clearly to be Error and afterwards at another day it was moved by Coke That a man attainted of Felony could not make Executors for he is dead in Law and as Bracton saith solus Deus facit Haeredes homo nominat Executores and therefore the Heir only shall have a Writ of Error also an Executor cannot have a Writ of Error but only upon a Iudgment given in a personal Action but this Attainder is a thing of a higher nature as where a Woman poysoneth her Husband the Heir shall not have an Appeal for Murder is changed into Treason and that offence is a thing of a higher nature so this Attainder is of a higher nature than in the personalty Also it may be mischievous to the Heir for the Executor may forthwith bring and pursue his Writ of Error by which the Iudgment shall be affirmed and so the right of the Heir shall be bound also when Error is brought to reverse an Outlawry of Felony a Scire facias ought to be sued against the Lords mediate and immediate which cannot be here at the Suit of the Executors also it was found by Enquest of the Coroner that the Testator fugam fecit so that thereby if he had been acquitted he shall lose his goods and then the Executors have not any reason to bring this Writ of Error but see 11 H. 4. Error 51. That Executors shall have a Writ of Error of an Outlawry pronounced against their Testator and if it be reversed they shall have restitution of the goods of the Testator but it doth not appear there that it was upon an Indictment of Felony Altham As well the Executor as the Heir is a person able for to sue a Writ of Error in such case as 13 E. 4. where a false oath is given against one in Assise and dieth the Heir shall have an Attaint for the Land and the Executor in respect of the damages Popham Attorney General This Outlawry is a real Iudgment therefore the Executor cannot have Error upon it Wray It is good that this case be considered for it may be mischievous for thereby the Executor shall avoid the Attainder against the King and the Lords Fenner That cannot be without a Scire facias Gawdy The Executors shall have this Action and as to that which hath been objected that the party attainted cannot make Executors the same is no reason for the Executors do pretend that their Testator was not lawfully outlawed and so by this Suit they do endeavour to take away that disability and therefore it ought not to be objected against the Executor and if the Case here be That the Testator had not lands but only goods there is no reason but that the Executors should have a Writ of Error otherwise the goods of the Testator should be lost and it was clearly holden by Wray chief Iustice That the Executor might have and pursue this Writ of Error the Outlawry of the Testator notwithstanding and afterwards the Outlawry was reversed accordingly CCCCLX Trussels Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Habeas corpus Owen Rep. 69. ◠Cro. 213 516. Co. 3 Inst 213 215. TRussel was removed out of the Counter of London by Habeas corpus into the Kings Bench. Egerton The Queens Solicitor moved the Court that Trussel was a person attainted of Felony and so had not any lands or goods to satisfie c. and also his life was not his own and upon the Return of the Habeas corpus it appeared that Trussel was detained in Prison for an Execution and for divers Actions and it was the opinion of the Court Executions Post 329 330. that as to the Execution he ought not to be discharged for then the party should lose his debt for ever but as to the other actions it was the opinion of all the Iustices that Trussel ought to be discharged of them for a man so attainted ought not to be put to answer nor taken in Execution and so are all our Books And they said that they had conferred with the Iustices of the Common Pleas and with the Barons of the Exchequer which were of a contrary opinion in this case upon the very matter and not upon the manner of the pleading but yet we will discharge our Consciences as we have done for there is not any Book against us Egerton stetit super semitas antiquas and at last it was awarded That Trussel should be discharged of all Actions brought against him CCCCLXI Sovers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SOver and others were Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. Indictments upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible Entry because they had expulsed one A. out of his Land and disseised the Mayor and Commonalty of London who were in Reversion and the same being removed hither Restitution was prayed thereupon and White for the City who was in Reversion and the Lessor prayed that no Restitution might be for they had let the House to another Restitution Yelv. 81. Dy. 141 142. and that he who had procured this Indictment claimed in by a Custom of London That the Executor of the last Termor should not be put out if he shall give as much for it as any other will whereas in truth there is not any such Custom and for that cause the Restitution was stayed and it was said by the Court that Restitution shall be always made to him in the Reversion and not to the Lessee for years for he who is disseised shall be restored and then the Lessee may re-enter CCCCLXII Beal and Carters Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of false Imprisonment False Imprisonment Owen Rep. 98 287. the Defendant justified because the Plaintiff brought a Child of the age of six years and not above into the Parish Church of W. eundem ibidem relinquere voluisset intendisset without keeping or nourishment to the danger and destruction of the Child contra pacem for which the Defendant being Constable of the said Parish arrested the Plaintiff and put him in prison until he did agree and promise to carry the Child from whence it came upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was moved that the Iustification was good for every Subject might do it à fortiori a Constable and if in this case the Child being so exposed should be famished for want of nourishment it had been murder as it was holden at Winchester before the Lord chief Baron 20 Eliz. Another Exception was taken to the Plea because he saith quendam infantem without naming him and he ought to say Quendam infantem ignotum Antea 56. but that Exception was not allowed Another Exception ibidem relinquere intendisset but he doth not say that he did depart from it and then his meaning is not traversable or issuable or to be tried by Iurors See 22 E. 4. 45. Gawdy
Iustice It was a great offence in the Plaintiff but the same ought to be punished according to Law but the Constable cannot imprison a Subject at his pleasure but according to Law i. to stay him and bring him before a Iustice of the Peace to be there examined Wray If the Defendant had pleaded that he stayed the Plaintiff upon that matter to have brought him before a Iustice of Peace it had been a good Plea. Fennor The justification had been good if the Defendant had pleaded that the Plaintiff refused to carry away the Child so all the Iustices were of opinion against the Plea but they would not give Iudgment by reason of the ill Example but they left the parties to compound the matter CCCCLXIII Cole and Walles Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ejectione Custodiae lieth not upon a Copy-hold Estate 1 Cro. 224. IN an Ejectione Custodiae the Plaintiff declared that A. was seised of the Manor of D. within which Manor are diverse Copyholds of Inheritance and that the Custom of the Manor is that if any Copy-holder of Inheritance of the said Manor dieth his heir within the age of 14 years that then the Lord of the Manor might grant the custody of his Body and Lands to whom he pleased and shewed that one Clevertie a Copyholder of Inheritance of the said Manor died his son and heir within the age of 14 years Hob. 215. Dyer 302 303. upon which the Lord of the Manor committed the custody of his Body and Lands to the Plaintiff and the Defendant did eject him and upon Not guilty it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment That this Action would not lye upon a Copyhold estate Quod tota Curia concessit and yet it was said that an Ejectione firmae lieth upon a demise of Copy-hold Land by Lease of a Copyholder himself but not upon a demise by the Lord of the Copyhold Quod fuit concessum and afterwards the Case was moved on the Plaintiffs side and it was said That this was but an Action upon the Case in the nature of an Ejectione firmae and this interest is not granted by Copy but entred only into the Court Roll so it is not an interest by Copy but by the Common Law for the words are Quod Dominus commisit custodiam c. and doth not say in Curia and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCLXIV Bond and Bailes Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Judgment upon a Bond where satisfied before a Statute â— Len. 37â— Roll. 926. BOnd brought a Scire facias against Bailes Administrator of one T. B. upon a Recovery had against the Intestate in Action of Debt The Defendant pleaded That before the said Iudgment given the Testator did acknowledge a Statute Staple to one C. and that the Son was not paid in the life of the Testator nor after and that they have not in their hands any goods of the Intestate beyond what will satisfie the said Statute upon which there was a demurrer in Law. And Coke argued That the Bar is not good for here is not pleaded any Execution upon the Statute and then the Iudgment the Statute being of things of as high nature that of which Execution is sued shall be first served and if this Action had been brought upon a Bond the Plea had not been good for although that Brian saith 21 E. 4. That Recognizances shall be paid by Executors before Bonds yet that it is to be intended when a Scire facias is to be sued upon it otherwise not And 4 H. 6. 8. in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment fully administred at the day of the Writ brought is a good Plea by which it appeareth That if the Executors had paid the Debt upon the Obligation before the Writ brought it had been good See 12 E. 3. Executors 73. in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment in Debt given against the Testator Enquiry shall be what goods the Executors had the day of the Scire facias and he said it was moved by Anderson 20 Eliz. in this Court. In Debt upon a Bond against Executors the Defendant pleaded that the Testator was indebted by Iudgment to A. and that they had not more than to satisfie the same and it was holden no plea if not that he pleaded further that a Scire facias was sued upon it Wray said The same is not Law and there is a difference when the Iudgment is given against the Testator himself and where against the Executors for where Iudgments are given against Executors the Iudgment which was given before shall be first executed but if two Iudgments be given against the Testator he who first sues Execution against the Executors shall be first satisfied because they are things of equal nature and before Suit it is in the election of the Executor which of them he will pay See 9 E. 4. 12. As if two men have Tallies out of the Exchequer he which first offers his Tally to the Officer shall be first paid but before that it is in the choice of the Officer which of them shall be first satisfied and therefore 19 H. 6. If the Lease enrolled be lost the Enrolment is not of any effect and Pasch 20 Eliz. our very case was moved in the Common Pleas in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment given against the Testator the Executor pleaded That the Testator had acknowledged a Statute before not satisfied Ultra quae c. and it was holden no Plea for a Statute is but a private and pocket Record as they called it and 32 Eliz. betwixt Conny and Barham the same Plea was pleaded and holden no Plea. Also if this Plea should be allowed Conny and Barhams Case great mischiefs would follow for then no Debts should be satisfied by the Executors for it might be that the Statute was made for performance of Covenants which Covenants perhaps shall never be broken and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCLXV Crew and Bails Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas Error 1 Cro. 216. in a Bill of priviledge brought by an Attorney of the said Court upon an Obligation and upon the said Iudgment issued forth process of Execution upon which the Defendant was Outlawed and the Error was assigned in this That upon that Iudgment process of Outlawry doth not lie for Capias is not in the original Action Priviledge and so was the opinion of the whole Court being upon a Bill of priviledge and the Outlawry was reversed and the Error was assigned in the first Iudgment because there were not fifteen days betwixt the Teste of the Venire facias and the return of it but that was not allowed for it is helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 14. CCCCLXVI Wade and Presthalls Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings
Bench. WIlliam Wade brought an Action of Debt against Presthall the Defendant pleaded That he was attainted of Treason Debt Ante 326. not restored nor pardoned and demanded Iudgment if he should be put to answer upon which the Plaintiff did demur It was argued for the Plaintiff that the Plea is not good for the Defendant shall not take benefit of his own wrong A person attainted gives his goods Plea in disability of himself not aâ—loâ—ed he shall not avoid it A Woman takes a Husband thereby she hath abated her own Writ It is true That a person attainted is a dead man it is so as to himself but not as to others 33 H. 6. a person attainted is murdered his Wife shall have an Appeal so as to all respects he is not dead and although as yet the Plaintiff cannot have any Execution against the Defendant yet here is a possibility to have Execution if the Defendant get his pardon As a man shall have Warrantia Chartae although he be not impleaded and yet cannot have Execution but there is a possibility to have Execution 22 E. 3. 19. A Rent granted to one in Fee upon condition that if the Grantee die his heir within age that the Rent shall cease during the nonage the Grantee dieth his heir within age his Wife brought Dower presently and recovered and yet she cannot have Execution but yet there is a possibility to have Execution viz. upon the full age of the heir Coke contr By his Attainder he hath lost his Goods Lands Life Degree for he is now become Terrae filius and he cannot draw blood from his Father nor afford blood to his Son or his posterity so as he hath neither Ancestor nor Heir and as to the possibility the same is very remote for the Law doth not intend that he shall be pardoned and see 6 H. 4 64. A man committed a Felony and afterwards committed another Felony and after is attainted of one of them he shall not be put to answer to the other but if he obtain his Charter of pardon he shall answer to the other See also 10 H. 4. 227. tit Coronae Popham Attorney General The Defendant ought to answer for none shall have advantage of his own wrong The Plaintiff is made a Knight pendant the Writ it shall abate because his own Act but here Treasons are so heinous that none shall have ease benefit or discharge thereby And if the Defendant shall not be put to answer until he hath his pardon then the Action is now suspended and an Action personal once suspended is gone for ever and he cited 29 E. 3. 61. in the Book of Assizes where it is said by Sharp Execution upon a Statute may be sued against a man attainted and he said Execution against a person Attainted That if the Enemy of the King comes into England and becomes bounden to a Subject in twenty pounds he shall be put to answer notwithstanding that interest that the King hath in him Harris Serjeant to the same intent he conceived by 33 H. 6. 1. That Traitors are to answer for if Traitors break the Goal the Goaler shall answer for their escape for the Goaler hath remedy against them contrary of the Kings Enemies Burchets Case and he cited the case of one Burchet who being attainted of Treason struck another in the Tower for which notwithstanding his Attainder he was put to answer Egerton Solicitor General And he said That the Action is not suspended but in as much as every Action is used to recover a thing detained or to satisfie a wrong if it can appear that the party cannot be satisfied according to his case he shall not proceed And in this case the Plaintiff if he should obtain Iudgment could not have Execution by the Common Law Ante 213. for he hath no Goods nor by the Statute of Westm 2. by Elegit for he hath no Lands nor by the Statute of 25 E. 3. by his body for it is at the Kings pleasure and then to what purpose shall the Plaintiff sue and it is a general Rule Regula That in all Actions where the thing demanded cannot be had or the person against whom the thing is demanded cannot yield the thing that the Writ shall abate As in a Writ of Annuity by Grantee of an Annuity for years the term expireth the Writ shall abate Abatement of Writ Tenant in special tail brings Wast and pendant the Writ his issue dieth the Writ shall abate c. 2 E. 4. 1. A man Outlawed of Felony pleaded in dis-affirmance of the Outlawry and yet he was not put to answer until he had his pardon and then he shall answer And as to the Case of 33 H. 6. 1. It doth not appear that the Traitors were attainted and then there is good remedy enough And Burchets Case cannot be resembled to our Case for although that by the Attainder the body of the party might be at the Kings pleasure yet his body may be punished for another offence for the example of others And as to Tressels Case who in such case was put to answer I grant it for he concluded Iudgment if Action and so admitted him a person able to answer and then it could not be a good plea in Bar. And in Ognels Case the Retorn of the Sheriff shall bind them for upon Process against a person attainted they returned Cepi where they ought to have returned the special matter without a Cepi but now this general Return shall bind them and by that he shall be concluded to say that the party was not in Execution And this Plea is not any disabling of the Defendant but he informs the Iudges that he is not a person able to answer to the Plaintiff As in a Praecipe quod reddat the party pleads Non-tenure the same is no disabling of his person but a shewing to the Court that he cannot yield to the party his demand A man shall not take advantage of his own wrong i. in the same thing in which the wrong is supposed or against him against whom the wrong is supposed to be done but in other Cases he shall take advantage of his own wrong as Littleton If a Lease for life be made the Remainder over in Fee and he in the Remainder entreth upon Tenant for life and disseiseth him the same is a good Seisin Cases where a man shall take advantage of his own wrong Marbery and Worrals Case upon which he may have a Writ of Right Littleton 112. 35 E. 3. Droit 30. And yet this Seisin was by wrong And there was a Case betwixt Marbery and Worral in the Exchequer The Lessor entred upon his Lessee for life made a Feoffment in Fee with clause of Re-entry the Lessee re-entred the Lessor at the day came upon the Land and demanded the Rent which was not paid it was holden the same is a good demand of the Rent and yet
he is a Trespassor to the Lessee And in another Case A man shall take advantage of his own wrong Fitz. N.B. 35. N. An Infant hath an Advowson by descent the Church becomes void he who hath Right paramount usurps and presents to the Church and the 6 months pass now by this tortious usurpation he is remitted and the Infant out of possession and without remedy And he cited the Case 16 H. 7. 10. A Scire facias out of a Fine was brought against an Abbot by which Fine the Predecessor of the Abbot granted to find a Priest to sing Mass in such a Chappel c. and the Abbot pleaded That the said Chappel was become ruinous and decayed so as no Priest could sing Mass there and it was prayed on the part of the Plaintiff that forasmuch as the Covenant is confessed that Iudgment be given but that Execution should cease until the Chappel be rebuilt but it was not allowed for this is a good Bar for the time and no Iudgment shall be given for it shall be in vain for it cannot be executed because there is no Chappel and it may be the Chappel shall never be built again And so in the principal Case c. It was adjorned CCCCLXVII Knightley and Spencers Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN a Prohibition betwixt Knightley and Spencer The Case was Prohibition More Rep. 528. 2 Co. 47 48. 2 Cro. 452. That Ph. Abbot of Evesham and all his Predecessors time out of mind c. were seised as well of the Rectory impropriate of B. in the County of N. and also of the Manor of B. in the same Parish c. until the dissolution of his House and that by reason thereof the said Abbot and all the Predecessors had holden the said Manor discharged of payment of Tithes until the dissolution c. and shewed the branch of the Statute of 31 H. 8. And that the said Abbot did surrender the Possessions of the said House to the King and that the King held the same discharged of the payment of Tithes and that afterwards the King granted unto the Ancestor of Knightley the said Manor and to the Ancestor of Spencer the said Rectory and although the Plaintiff ought de jure to hold the said Manor discharged of Tithes yet the Defendant sued him in the Spiritual Court c. To which the Defendant confessing the Impropriation pleaded That the said Abbot was seised ut supra but that before the making of the said Statute of 31 H. 8. the said Abbot demised Decimas Rectoriae praedict to one Spencer for 70 years who made the Defendant his Executor and died and that at the time of the said Demise and dissolution of the said Abby one Goodman and others were possessed of the said Manor until the year 1585. which was the year before the Suit began in the Spiritual Court and that at the time of the dissolution he paid Tithes for it and now the Plaintiff refuseth to pay c. absque hoc That the Abbot and his Predecessors held the said Manor quit of the payment of Tithes time out of mind c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Coke for the Plaintiff That this Vnity of possession is a discharge within the Statute of 31 H 8. the words of which are Unity of possession a discharge of Tithes That the King and his assigns shall have and enjoy the Lands discharged and acquitted of Tithes as freely as the said Abbot held the same at the day of the dissolution And see before whereas divers Abbots were acquitted and discharged of and for the payment of Tithes for the Statute doth not intend a real discharge as by composition or such manner which is not here but only a suspension which is not any discharge in Law and yet in speaking of discharge ordinarily an actual discharge is understood As if I be bound by Obligation to discharge one of such a Bond it is not enough to pay the mony but I ought to procure an actual Discharge where it is put generally but where it is put secundum quid as it is here referred to the Dissolution a suspension is a Discharge intended in the said Statute but where the Statute is indefinite there an actual Discharge is understood but restrained to a time a suspension sufficeth and truly it is a discharge within the intent of the Statute for if the Statute shall be intended of an absolute discharge and a Discharge in Law only the Statute had been superfluous for the Law said so much before for without such provision the King and his Assigns held discharged from payment of Tithes But the makers of the Statute knew well enough that the Abbot might have such discharge by divers means and it should be infinite for the party interessed to enquire of them all and therefore they did enact briefly That if at the time of the dissolution they were in any manner freed of payment of Tithes the same should be sufficient and so here is not any wrong unto any for the Parson had all as he had before and the same is like to the case betwixt Wharton and Morley 7 Eliz. in the Exchequer the Report of which Mr. Plowden communicated unto me and it was upon the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 14. of Monasteries That all Grants made to the King by any Provost Wharton and Marleys Case Governour c. of any Manor c. shall be good c. and the Case was That a Prebend of the Church of York surrendred to the King but the Surrender was never enrolled and yet adjudged good upon the Statute for if it was a lawful Surrender the same had been good of it self without any aid of the Statute which was made to supply insufficient assurances and so in our Case for the cause aforesaid and it should be injurious to drive the Iury to enquire of the manner of the Discharge if it were by composition upon the foundation or by dispensation of the Pope as Cistere Templarii And here the Plaintiff hath declared of an Impropriation before time of memory and so before the Council of Lateran which was within those 400 years and 25 Eliz. there was a Sussex Case where the Plaintiff declared as here but they would not proceed and see Dyer 10 Eliz. 277 278. The Prior of St. John hath priviledge from Rome that he shall not pay Tithes for any Land quas propriis manibus aut sumptibu◠excolant but their Farmers have paid Tithes and it was holden that in the hands of the Farmers Tithes should be paid but after the Term ended the Patentee should hold discharged so as the Statute hath a favourable construction upon this point Now it is 〈◊〉 if the Lease of the Rectory by which the Defendants claim be good or not and then admitting that Tithes are due in this Case yet if his Lease be void he shall not have a Consultation especially if it
293 306 362 383 387 409 436 Construction of them 16 42 To Executors to sell 38 42 78 254 To an use 342 Diminution 28 Distress 16 64 78 315 338 Discontinuance of suit 142 Discontinuance of Lands and Estate 150 157 172 Distent 154 163 Where it takes away Entry 293 Disseisin 163 Dower 48 71 118 119 187 233 383 Of Gavelkind 83 182 431 Dutchy Lands 307 The Kings prerogative in them 15 E. EJectione firmae 331 Not of a Tenement 265 Ejectione Custodiae lieth not of a Copihold estate 463 Elegit 65 247 Election 36 52 67 92 289 342 360 Enrolment 10 Endowment 13 Enfant 156 297 Entry 46 66 79 163 165 427 446 For forfeiture 345 Enquiry of damages 197 278 Escape 165 145 203 321 274 Estates 150 219 221 297 288 311 Vested shall not be divested 345 Essoin 184 Estoppell 122 220 224 286 437 Error 12 28 52 71 137 207 228 238 245 246 260 452 By Executors to reverse an Attainder of their Testator 452 278 317 327 328 343 346 363 397 402 412 415 445 365 By Journeys accounts 28 Upon Outlawry 37 Upon Recovery in Assize 69 In assessing damages 71 For want of Averment 121 Upon a common Recovery 181 To reverse a Fine by an Enfant 445 Evidence 70 192 215 414 Exchange 386 Executors 78 311 459 Where they shall have Error or other Actions 459 Where charged of their own goods 87 121 153 Renunciation of them 185 Have action de bonis testatoris 278 Execution 65 202 247 460 200 313 378 Where joynt where several 392 Against a person attainted where not 466 Exception 158 160 79 Extortion 114 327 Extent 366 Extinguishment 15 135 250 56 Exposition of words and sentences 240 326 439 468 Of the word De and vocat 22â— Of the word Term 306 Of the word Uterque 326 Of the Statute of 32 and 33 H. 8. 358 Of the Statute of 21 H. cap. 19. 413 Examination who is to be examined upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. of Huy and Cry 456 F. FAlse imprisonment 462 Feoffments and faits 31 171 172 204 256 288 Per nomen 343 Upon condition 361 Feme covert 166 Fine upon Jurors 181 For Alienation without License 11 50 113 Not paid by Non compos mentis 11 Not payable upon settlement by Parliament 113 Post Fines 338 Fines levied 51 66 81 85 102 187 188 297 330 Where shall not bind a Feme covert 386 Reversed 157 445 Where shall be a breach of Condition 409 Levied by Prescription 265 By Tenant in tail in Remainder 361 Formedon 105 154 Forgery of false Deeds 192 Forfeiture 51 66 84 139 171 297 254 400 Founder and Foundation 49 Fresh Suits 72 Fugitives 12 G. GUardian in socage 454 Gavelkind 154 450 Grants 205 433 380 Of Executors of omnia bona sua 351 Grants of the King 12 33 36 49 162 179 237 280 334 338 451 467 Grants insufficient in point of Limitation shall not be supplied with subsequent words 14 H. HAbendum 13 73 446 Habeas Corpus 93 94 460 I. INtrusion 12 46 49 223 Indictments 9 146 337 363 404 Upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. 461 Upon the Statute of 23. of Recusancy 321 326 322 Upon the Statute of News 390 Informations 162 Upon Statute 1 Eliz. 405 Upon Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 6. 60 Upon the Statute of Usury 125 161 Upon the Statute of Maintenance 231 291 Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for Tillage 319 Joynture 44 205 Joynder in Action 402 439 445 Issue 89 169 192 241 Judgment 89 428 In the Kings Court not defeated by particular customs 35 Where satisfied before a Statute 464 Jurors receiving mony doth not make the Verdict void 21 Fined for eating 181 Justification 462 K. KIng not bound to demand Rent 16 L. LEases 44 46 165 198 205 239 274 286 308 316 320 332 391 425 446 454 By Bishops 77 By Guardian of a Colledge 183 Within the Statute of 13 Eliz. 427 Leet 33 Letter of Attorney 427 Livery of Seisin 10 48 276 287 349 427 Doth prevent Enrolment 10 Libel in spiritual Court 13 127 151 174 175 M. MArriage 67 235 In right and possession 67 Mannor 33 289 Misnosmer 25 49 183 204 298 In Indictments 337 Where material where not 228 Mittimus 200 Monstrans de droit 279 Monstrans de faits 427 N. NOn-residency 129 Non-suit 142 Notice 39 139 141 Nusance 234 318 O. OBligation 129 132 164 192 214 281 Office of Marshal of the King 451 Of Herald 337 Of Marshal of the Kings Bench 451 Office Trove 27 50 85 223 Outlawry 84 280 108 148 190 Lies not upon a Judgment upon a Bill of Priviledge 465 P. PArtition 33 68 136 283 Payment where not good to the Wife 450 Post Fines 338 Plaint 415 Plenarty no Plea against the King 307 Pleadings 21 84 102 167 169 176 186 211 274 339 407 430 449 Non cepit where good 47 Nul tiel Record 85 114 Where Recovery is no Bar 90 Wherein Pleading must make a Title 58 Non damnificatus 95 General and particular ib. Good to common intent 102 Of a Fine ib. Amounts to the general Issue 251 Of Nonest factum 257 453 Out of his Fee 294 Fully administred 434 In disability where not allowed 466 Property 54 Primer seisin 85 341 Protection 93 258 Priviledge 365 Of Exceptions from Juries 287 Of London 384 Plurality 442 Prerogative 11 15 Prescription 14 100 102 143 147 199 249 299 315 336 Words of it 318 In a Stranger not Tenant 14 To erect Herdels 14 147 Where it shall not bind the King 438 For Common 100 To be a Justice of Peace 143 To levy a Fine not good 265 To distrain for Amerciaments 327 To Repair 438 by taking Wood in the Lands of another Man ib. Presentation 50 58 84 207 Repealed by the King 218 Passeth not by a Grant of Bona Catalla 28 By the Bishop who Collates shall not put the King out of possession 307 Praemunire 399 Proof 349 Process 65 Prohibition 123 127 174 175 176 177 208 255 325 336 376 367 318 325 388 411 442 467 Q. QUare Impedit 39 50 58 84 85 190 277 213 232 278 280 284 307 312 284 289 455 Causes of Refusal when good c. contr 39 312 R. RAzure of Deeds 381 Ravishment of Ward 152 Refusal of the Bishop 312 Remitter 40 48 85 118 172 Remainder 134 256 266 336 Upon a Contingent 330 Remitter 48 Redisseisin 90 Receipt 105 Retainer 153 320 Return of the Sheriff 65 200 201 202 312 459 Relation 11 355 Of matter of Record 257 Of a Judgment 264 Of an Execution 423 Rents 187 198 209 280 362 441 Reserved upon a Lease of Dutchy Lands 15 To be paid without demand ib. Charge parcel of a Manor 18 Cannot issue out of a Right 205 Charge out of Copyholds 8 Suspended by Entry 110 240 How to be demanded and when severally 271 425 In esse to some purposes and suspended to others 467 Reputation 18 33 49 Replication 56 102 194 Reversion 362 Cannot pass without Deed 429 Reservation 25 446 Restitution 461 Request 167 303 389 Repleader 102 114 Replevin 33 54 56 64 294 Revocation 113 Recovery 30 In Assise where a Bar 30 Vouchee must appear in person 101 Common Recovery by an Infant 296 S. SAles 225 Seals 12 310 Seisin 271 356 In Fact and in Law 318 Seisure 12 84 119 Scire facias 58 84 187 402 Where for the King è contr 84 Against Executors 84 Upon Audita Querela 195 Summons and Severance 445 Stewards of Manors and Courts 309 294 444 Statutes Construction of them 44 Where they ought to be pleaded where not 427 Supersedeas 189 Sur cui in vita 210 Surrenders 378 385 420 226 454 By the Steward out of Court 309 Vide Copyholds Amounts to an Attornment 408 Of one Termor to another not good 420 By Attorney not good 45 T. TAil 297 Tenant by the Curtesie 233 Tender 88 95 Upon a Mortgage 43 Upon an Award 55 Where it is no Revocation of uses 113 Toll 315 Traverse 12 49 53 56 58 64 68 102 207 213 277 304 331 340 429 467 Where the descent where the dying seised 429 Trespass Vi armis 110 Trover and Conversion 304 305 335 Not against a Feme Covert 433 Tithes 13 25 122 174 175 177 208 325 336 367 380 411 467 In London 25 Become Lay Chattels 29 Jurisdiction of them 76 Claimed by Prescription ib. Discharged by Unity 467 Trial 67 116 148 203 206 255 285 310 413 V. VAriance 175 228 33â—â— Verdict 86 118 181 426 View 30 106 59 Usurpation 58 84 307 Uses 188 288 330 What it is 279 And Declaration of them ib. Not rise out of an Use 10 Not out of a Possibility 279 Contingent raised 31 Void for want of Consideration 279 Limitation of them ib. Raised by Covenant and by Feoffment do differ ib. Suspended yet the Land devised 345 Contingent shall bind the Execution of an Estate in possession 345 Executed to the Possession 409 W. WAger of Law 119 229 282 VVardship 347 VVarning 82 VVills 155 311 VVitherâ—â—m 302 VVarrant of Attorney 246 VVarranty 252 VVast 62 79 86 220 282 359 By Cestuy que use 409 VVrit To the Bishop 84 85 278 289 Of right 212 236 the manner of proceeding in it 419 Of Enquiry of damages 278 FINIS
Language may easily be learned in a short time by converse with Welsh-men And the Statute of 1 Eliz. which establisheth the Book of Common Prayer ordaineth that the said Book of Common Prayer shall be put in use in all the Parish Churches of Eng. and Wa. without any provision there for the translation of the said Book into the Welsh Language But afterwards by a private Act it was done by which it is enacted That the Bishop of Wales should procure the Epistles and Gospels to be translated and read in the Welsh Language which matter our Presentee might do by a Curate well enough And he conceived that by divers Statutes Aliens by the Common Law were capable of Benefices See the Statute of 7 H 2. Cap. 12. 1 H 5 Cap. 7. 14 H 6. Cap. 6. and before the said last Statute Irish-men were capable of Benefices Gawdy Serjeant contrary and he confessed that at the Common Law the defects aforesaid were not any causes of refusal but now by reason of a private Act made 5 Eliz. Entituled An Act made for the translating of the Bible and of the Divine Service into the Welsh tongue the same defect is become a good cause of refusal in which Act the mischief is recited viz. That the Inhabitants of Wales did not understand the Language of England therefore it was Enacted That the Bishops of Wales should procure so many of the Bibles and Books of Common Prayer to be imprinted in the Welsh Language as there are Parishes and Cathedral Churches in Wales and so upon this Statute this imperfection is become a good cause of refusal And he likened it to the Case of Coparceners and Ioynt-tenants Ante 28. who now because that by the Statute of 32 H 8. Ioynt-tenants are equally capable to make partition as Coparceners were by the Common Law Now Partition betwixt Ioynt-tenants within age is as strong as betwixt Parceners within age But as to that point it was said by the Lord Anderson that it is very true that upon the said Statute the want of the Welsh Language in the Presentee is now become a good cause of refusal but because the said Act being a private Act hath not been pleaded by the Defendant we ought not to give our Iudgment according to that Act but according to the Common Law. Another matter was moved because here appeareth no sufficient notice given to the Patron after the said Refusal for the Plaintiff did present the thirtenth of August the Church voyding the fourteenth of March before the nine and twentieth of August the six months expired the fourth of September the Defendant gave notice to the Patron of the refusal and the fourteenth of September was the Collation and it was said by the Lord Anderson that it appeareth here that there are two and twenty days between the Presentment and the Notice which is too large a delay And the Defendant hath not shewed in his Plea any cause for the justifying or excuse of it and therefore upon his own shewing we adjudge him to be a disturber See 14 H. 7. 22. 15 H. 7. 6. and note by Periam it was adjudged in the Case of Mollineux if the Patron present and the Ordinary doth refuse he ought to give notice to the person of the Patron thereof if he be resident within the County and if not at the Church it self which is void XL. Mich. 27 28 Eliz. At Serjeants Inn. THis Case was referred by the Lords of Council to the Iustices for their opinions I.S. by Indenture between the Queen of the one part and himself of the other part reciting that where he is indebted to the Queen in eight hundred pounds to be paid in form following twenty pounds at every Feast of St. Michael until the whole sum aforesaid be paid covenanted and granted with the said Queen to convey unto the Lord Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer and to their Heirs certain Lands to the uses following viz. to the use of the said I.S. and his Heirs until such time as the said I. S. his Heirs Executors or Administrators shall make default in payment of any of the said sums and after such default to the use of the said Queen her Heirs and Successors until her Heirs and Successors shall have received of the issues and profits thereof such sums of money parcel of the said debt as shall be then behind and upaid and after the said debt so paid and received then to the use of the said I.S. and his Heirs for ever I.S. levyeth a Fine of the said Land to the said Lord Treasurer and the Barons to the uses aforesaid and afterwards being seised accordingly by deed indented and enrolled bargains and sels the said Land to a stranger default of payment is made the Queen seizeth and granteth it over to one and his Heirs quousque the money be paid and after the money is paid And upon conference of the Iudges amongst themselves at Serjeants Inn they were of opinion that now I.S. against his Indenture of bargain and sale should have his Lands again for at the time of the bargain and sale he had an estate in Fee determinable upon a default of payment ut supra Post 93. 3 Len. 43. Owen Rep. 6. 1 Inst 49. 2 which accrued to him by the first Indenture and the Fine which estate only passed by the said Indenture of bargain and sale and not the new estate which is accrued to him by the latter limitation after the debt paid for that was not in esse at the time of the bargain and sale but if the conveyance by bargain and sale had been by Feoffment or Fine then it had been otherwise for by such conveyance all uses and possibilities had been carried by reason of the forcible operation of it XLI Taylor and Moores Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TAylor brought Debt upon an Obligation against Moore Debt Error who pleaded in Bar upon which the Plaintiff did demurre and the Court awarded the Plea in Bar good upon which Iudgment the Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error and assigned Error in this that the Bar upon which he had demurred as insufficient was adjudged good Vpon which now in this Writ of Error the Bar was awarded insufficient and therefore the Iudgment reversed But the Court was in a doubt what Iudgment shall be given in the Case viz. whether the Plaintiff shall recover his debt and damages as if he had recovered in the first Action or that he shall be restored to his Action only c. And Wray cited the Case in 8 E. 4. 8. and the Case of Attaint 18 E. 4. 9. And at last it was awarded that the Plaintiff should recover his debt and damages See to that purpose 33 H 6. 31. H 7. 12 20. 7. Eliz. Dyer 235. XLII Higham and Harewoods Case Hill. 28. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. More Rep. 221. 3 Len. 132. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was