the Feoffee and another is not any new thing but the pernancy of the old profits of the Land which well may be limited to the Feoffee and another joyntly But if the use had been onely limited to the Feoffee and his Heirs there because there is not any limitation to another person nec in praesenti nec in futuro he shall be in by force of the Feoffment And it was resolved That Ioynt-tenants might be seised to an use although that they come to it at several times as if a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and to such a woman which he shall after marry for term of their lives or in tayl or in fee in this case if after he marryeth a Wife she shall take joyntly with him although that they take the use at several times for they derive the use out of the same fountain and Freehold scil the Feoffment See 17 Eliz. Dyer 340. So if a Disseisin be had to the use of two and one of them agreeth at one time and the other at another time they shall be Ioynt-tenants but otherwise it is of Estates which pass by the common Law and therefore if a Grant be made by deed to one man for term of life the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. and B. in Fee and A. hath issue and dyeth and afterwards B. hath issue and dyeth and then the Tenant for life dyeth in that case the Heirs of A. and B. are not Ioynt-tenants nor shall joyn in a Scire facias to execute the Fine 24 E. 3. Joynder in Action 10. because that although the remainder be limited by one Fine and by joynt words yet because that by the death of A. the Remainder as unto the moyety vested in his Heir and by the death of B. the other moyety vested in his Heir at several times they cannot be Ioynt tenants But in the case of a use the Husband taketh all the use in the mean time and when he marryeth the Wife takes it by force of the Feoffment and the limitation of the use joyntly with him for there is not any fraction and several vesting by parcels as in the other case and such is the difference See 18 E. 3. 28. And upon the whole matter it was resolved That because in the principal case the Father and Son were Ioynt-tenants by the original purchase that the Son having the Land by Survivor should not be in Ward and accordingly it was so decreed XXIV Pasc 39 Eliz. Rot. 233. In the Kings-Bench Collins and Hardings Case THe Case between Collins and Harding was A man seised of Lands in Fee and also of Lands by Copy of Court Roll in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor made one entire Demise of the Lands in Fee and of the Lands holden by Copy according to the Custom to Harding for years rendering one entire Rent and afterwards the Lessor surrendered the Copyhold Land to the use of Collins and his Heirs and at another time granted by Deed the Reversion of the Freehold Lands to Collins in Fee and Harding attorned and afterwards for the Rent behinde Collins brought an Action of Debt for the whole Rent And it was objected That the reservation of the Rent was an entire contract and by the Act of the Lessee the same cannot be apportioned and therefore if one demiseth three Acres rendering 3 s. Rent and afterwards bargaineth and selleth by Deed indented and inrolled the Reversion of one Acre the whole Rent is gone because that the Contract is entire and cannot be severed by the Act of the Lessor Also the Lessee by that shall be subject to two Fealties where he was subject but to one before As to these points it was answered and resolved That the Contract was not entire but that the same by the Act of the Lessor and the assent of the Lessee might be divided and severed for the Rent is incident to the Reversion and the Reversion is severable and by consequence the Rent also for accessorium sequitur naturam sui principalis and that cannot be severed or divided by the assent of the Lessee or express attornment or implyed by force of an Act of Parliament to which every one is a party as by force of the Statute of Inrolments or of Vses c. And as to the two Fealties to that the Lessee shall be subject although that the Rent shall be extinct for Fealty is by necessity of Law incident to the Reversion and to every part of it but the Rent shall be divided pro rata portionis and so it was adjudged And it was also adjudged That although Collins cometh to the Reversion by several Conveyances and at several times yet he might bring an Action of Debt for the whole Rent Hill 43 Eliz. Rot. 243. West and Lassels Case A man made a Lease for years of certain Lands and afterwards deviseth the Reversion of two parts to one he shall have two parts of the Rent and he may have an Action of Debt for the same and have Iudgment to recover Hill 42 Eliz. Rot. 108. in the Common-Pleas Ewer and Moyls Case The Devisee of the Reversion of part shall avow for part of the Rent and such Avowry shall be good and maintainable Note well these Cases and Iudgments for they are given upon great reason and consideration for otherwise great inconvenience would ensue if by severance of part of the Reversion the entire Rent should be lost and the opinion reported by Serjeant Bendloes in Hill 6 and 7 E. 6. to the contrary nihil valet scil That the Rent in such case shall be lost because that no contract can be apportioned which is not Law For 1. A Rent reserved upon a Lease for years is more then a Contract for it is a Rent-service 2. It is incident to the Reversion which is severable 3. Vpon recovery of part in Waste or upon entry in part for a forfeiture or upon surrender of part the Rent is apportionable 25. Note It was adjudged 19 Eliz. in the Kings-Bench That where one obtained a Prohibition upon Prescription de Modo Decimandi by payment of a certain sum of mony at a certain day upon which Issue was taken and the Iury found the Modus Decimandi by payment of the said sum but that it had been payd at another day and the Case was well debated and at the last it was resolved That no Consultation should be granted for although that the day of payment be mistaken yet it appeareth to the Court that no Tythes in kinde were due for which the suit was in the spiritual Court and the Tryal of the Custom de Modo Decimandi belongeth to the Common Law and a Consultation shall not be granted where the Spiritual Court hath not Iurisdiction of the Cause Tanfield chief Baron hath the Report of this Case XXV Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis IN an Ejectione Firmae the Writ and Declaration were of two parts of
VVillowes all his Right Estate c. of and in the Tenements aforesaid in which c. The Plaintiff surjoyneth and saith that the said summ of five pounds six shillings eight pence c. was not rationabilis finis as the said Thomas Bradye above hath alledged c upon which the Defendant doth demur in Law And in this Case these points were resolved by Coke chief Iustice VValmesly VVarberton Daniel and Foster Iustices 1. And principally If the Fine assessed had been reasonable yet the Lords ought to have set a certain time and place when the same should be paid because the same stands upon a point of forfeiture As if a man bargains and assures Land to one and his heirs upon condition that if he pay to the Bargaines or his heirs ten pounds at such apiace that he and his heirs shall re-enter In that case because no time is limited the Bargainor ought to give notice to the Bargaines c. when he will tender the money and he cannot tender it when he pleaseth and with that agrees 19 Eliz. Dyer 354. For a man shall not lose his Land unlesse an expresse default be in him and the Bargaineein such Case is not tied to stay alwaies in the place c. So in the Caseat Bar the Copyholder is not tied to carry his Fine alwaies with him when he is at Church or at Plow c. And although that the Rejoynder is that the Plaintiff refused to pay the Fine so he might well do when the request is not lawfull nor reasonable for in all cases when the request is not lawfull nor reasonable the party may without prejudice deny the payment And he who is to pay a great Fine as a 100 l. or more it is not reasonable that he carry it alwaies with him in his Pocket and presently the Copyholder was not bound to it because that the Fine was uncertain arbitrable as it was resolved in Hulbarts Case in the fourth part of my Reports amongst the Copyhold Cases 2. It was resolved that although the Fine be incertain and arbitrable yet it ought to be secundum arbitrium boni viri And it ought to be reasonable and not excessive for all excessivenesse is abhorred in Law Excessus in re qualibet jure reprobatur Communi For the Common Law forbids any excessive distresse as it appeareth in 41 E. 3. 26. Where a man avowed the taking of sixty Sheep for 3 d. Rent and the Plaintiff prayed that he might be amerced for the Distresse And the Court who is alwaies the Iudge whether the Distresse be reasonable or excessive held that six Sheep had been a sufficient Distresse for the said Rent and therefore he was Vi. F. N. B 82 a reasonable Aid incertain untill the Statute of Glanvi lib. 9. fol. 70. 14 H. 4 9. by Hill 14 H. 4. 1. 3. amerced for so many of them as wereabove six Sheep And the Court said that if the Avowant shall have return he shall have a return but of six Sheep And this appeareth to be the Common Law for the Statute of Artieuli super Cartas extends only where a grievous Distress is taken for the Kings Debt See F. N. B. 174. a. and 27. Ass 51. 28. Ass 50. 11 H. 4. 2. and 8 H. 4. 16. c. Non Capiatur gravis Districtio c. And so if an excessive or an unreasonable Amerciament be imposed in any Court Baron or other Court which is not of Record the party shall See Glanvil lib. 9. cap. 8. Optime B. rationabilibus auxiliis ita tamen moderat secund Quantitatem feodorum suorum secundum facultates ut nemini gravidae viderentur c. Vide Bracton 84. b. cationab relev 1. quod rationem mensuram non excedat and see him there 86. optime c have Moderata Misericordia And the Statute of Magna Charta is but an affirmance of the Common Law in such point See F. N. B. 75. Nullus liber homo amercietur nisi secundum quantitatem delicti And gravis Redemptio non est exigenda And the Common Law gives an Assise of Sovient Distresse and Multiplication of Distresse found which is excessive in respect of the multiplicity of vexation And therewith agreeth 27. Ass 50 51. Non Capiatur multiplex districtio F. N. B. 178. b. And if Tenant in Dower hath Villains or Tenants at Will who were rich and she by excessive Tallages and Fines makes them poor and Beggers the same is adjudged Wast And therewith agreeth F. N. B. 61. b. 16 H. 3. Wast 135. and 16 H. 7. And see the Register Iudiciall fol. 25. b. Wast lieth in exulando Henricum Hermanum c. Villeius Quorum quilibet tenet unum Messuagium unam virgat terrae in Villinagio in praedict villa de T. by grievous and intollerable Distresses By all which it appeareth That the Common Law doth forbid intollerable and excessive oppressing and ransoming of Villains whereby of Rich they become Poor And yet it may be said that a man may do with his Villain what he pleaseth or with his Tenant at Will but the Law limits the same in a reasonable and convenient manner For it appeareth that such intollerable oppression of the poor Tenants is to the disinherizin of him in the Reversion So in the Case at Bar Although that the Fine is incertain yet it ought to be reasonable and so it appeareth by the said Custome which the Defendant hath alledged And therefore in such Case the Lord cannot take as much as he pleaseth but the Fine ought to be reasonable according to the Resolve of the Court in the said Case of Hubbard in the fourth part of my Reports 30. Vide 14 H. 4. 4. by Hill It was resolved That if the Lord and Tenant cannot agree of the Fine but the Lord demandeth more then a reasonable Fine that the same shall be decided and adjudged by the Court in which any Suit shall be for or by reason of the denying of tho Fine And the Court shall adjudge what shall be said a reasonable Fine having regard to the quality and value of the Land and other necessary circumstances which ought to appear in pleading upon a Demurrer or found by Verdict And if the Fine which the Lord or his Steward assesseth be reasonable Bracton l. 2 fo 51. Quam longuin debet esse tempus non definitur in jure sed pendet â—ex justicianorum discretiono Let the Copyholder well advise himself before he deny the payment of it And alwaies when reasonablenesse is in question the same shall be determined by the Court in which the Action dependeth As reasonable time 21 H. 6. 30. 22 E. 4. 27. 50. 29 H. 8. 32. c. So if the Distresse be reasonable and the like c. It was resolved That the said Fine in the Case at the Bar was unreasonable viz. To demand for a Cottage and an acre of Pasture five pounds six
agrees with our Law And he goeth further In tempore vero Novae Legis etiam est determinatio partis solvendae authoritate Ecclesiae That is by their Canons Instituta secundum quandam humanitatem ut scilicet non minus populus Novae Legis Ministros novi Testamenti exuberat quam populus veteris Legis ministris veteris Testamenti exhibebat praesertim cum Ministri Novae Legis sunt Majores Dignitate ut probat Apostolus 2 Cor. 3. Sic ergo patet Quod ad solutionem Decimarum tenentur homines partim quidem ex jure naturali quantum ad hoc quod aliqua portio data est ministris Ecclesiae partim vero ex institutione Ecclesiae quantum ad determinationem Decimae Partis See Doctor and Student Lib. 2. cap. 55. fol. 164. That the tenth part is not due by the Law of God nor by the Law of Nature which he calleth the Law of Reason And he citeth John Gerson who was a Doctor of Divinity in a Treatise which he calleth Regulae morales scil Solutio Decimaram sacerdotibus est de jure Divino quatenus inde sustententur sed quo ad tam hanc vel illam assignare aut in alios redditus Commutare positivi juris est And afterwards Non vocatur Portio Curatis debita propterea Decimae eo quod est Decima pars imo est interdum vicesima aut tricesima And he holdeth That a Portion is due by the Law of Nature which is the Law of God but it appertaineth to the Law of Man to assign Hanc vel illam portionem as necessity requireth for their Sustenance And further he saith That Tithes may be exchanged into Lands Annuity or Rent which shall be sufficient for the Minister c. And there he saith That in Italy and in other the East Countries they pay no Tithes but a certain Portion according to the Custome c. And all this is true if not that Tithes be discharged or changed by one of the said five waies And forasmuch as it appeareth by themselves that the part or value was part of the Iudiciall Law certainly the same doth not bind any Christian Common-wealth but that the same may be altered by reason of time place or other consideration as it appeareth in all punishments inflicted by the Iudiciall Law they do not bind none for Felony is now punished by death c. which was not so by the Iudiciall Law c. Also forasmuch as now it is confessed that the tenth part is now due Ex institutione Ecclesiae that is to say By their Canons and it appeareth by the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. That all Canons c. made against the Prerogative of the King in his Laws Statutes or Customes of the Realm are void and that was but a Declaratory Law For no Statute or Custome of the Realm can be taken away or abrogated by any Canon c. made out or within the Realm but only by Act of Parliament and that well appeareth by 10 H. 7. f. 17. c. 18. That there is a Canon or Constitution That no Priest ought to be impleaded at the Common Law And there Brian saith That a grave Doctor of the Law once said unto him That Priests and Clarks might be sued at the Common Law well enough For he said that Rex est persona mixta and is Persona unita cum Sacerdotibus Statutis Ecclesiae In which case the King might maintain his Iurisdiction by prescription By which it appeareth that prescription doth prevail against expresse Canons or Constitutions and is not taken away by them which proves that the Statute of 25 H. 8. was but a Declaration of the ancient Law before And there is an expresse Prohibition in Numb 18. Nihil aliud possedebunt Decimarum oblatione contenti quas in usus eoram necessaria separavi Which was not part of the Morall Law or Law of Nature but part of the Iudiciall And therefore men of the holy Church at this day do possesse Houses Lands and Tenements and not Tithes only The second point which agrees with the Law at this day which was adjudged in the said Record of 25 H. 3. is That the limits and bounds of Towns and Parishes shall be tried by the Common Law and not in the Spirituall Court and in this the Law hath great reason for thereupon depends the Title of Inheritance of the Lay Fee whereof the Tithes were demanded for Fines and Recoveries are the common assurances of Lay Inheritances and if the Spirituall Court should try the bounds of Towns if they determine that my Land lyeth in another Town then is contained in my Fine Recovery or other assurance I shall be in danger to lose my Inheritance and therewith agreeth 39 E. 3. 29. 5 H. 5. 10. 32 E. 4. t. Consultation 3 E. 4. 12 19 H. 6. 20. 50 E. 3. 20. many other Presidents untill this day And note there is a Rule in Law that when the Right of tithes shall be tried in the Spiritual Court the Spirit Court hath jurisdiction therof that our Courts shall be ousted of the Iurisdiction 35 H. 6. 47. 38 H. 6. 21. 2 E 4. 15. 22 E. 4. 23. 38 E. 3. 36. 14 H 7. 17. 13 H. 2. Jurisd 19. but that is when debate is between Parson and Vicar or when all is in one Parish but when they are in severall Parishes then this Court shall not be ousted of the Iurisdiction See 12 H. 2. to Jurisdiction 17. 13 R. 2. ibid. 19. 7 H. 4. 34. 14 H. 4. 17. 38 E 3. 56. 42 E. 3. 12. And yet there is a Canon expresly against this which see in Linwood titulo de penis 55. And so fol. 227 228. amongst the Canons or Constitutions of Bonaface An. Dom. 1277. And the causes wherefore the Iudges of the Common Law would not permit the Ecclesiasticall Iudges to try Modum Decimandi being pleaded in their Court is because that if the Recompence which is to be given to the Parson in satisfaction of his tythes both not amount to the value of the Tythes in kinde they would overthrow Note this difference Although that the parties do admit the Jurisdiction of the Court yet upon the pleading if the right of the Tythes shall come in debate there this Court shall be ousted of the Jurisdiction the Spiritual Court shall have Jurisdiction But when the right of tythes cometh in debate and the Spiritual Court cannot have Jurisdiction or Conusance of it as where a Lay-man is Plaintiff as Farmor or Defendant as Servant of the Parson as a Lay man Farmor cannot sue there nor he who justifies as Servant cannot be sued in Trespass But if the Suit be between Parson and Vicar or Parson and Parson and other Spiritual persons if the Kings Court be ousted of the Jurisdiction after severance of the ninth part yet the Libel ought to be for substraction of Tythes for of that they have jurisdiction and
not of Tythes severed from the nine parts for that shall be in Case of a Praemunire and it appeareth to the Common Law See 16 H. 2. in the Case of Mortuary Vide Decretalia Sexti Lib. 3. tit de Decimis cap. 1. fo 130. Col. 4. Et summa Angelica fo 72. the same And that also appeareth by Linwood amongst the Constitutions Simonis Mephum tit de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter fo 139. 6. verbo Consuetudines Consuetudo ut non solvantur aut minus plene solvantur Decimae non valet and ibidem secundum alios Quod in Decimis realibus non valet Consuetudo ut solvatur minus decima parte sed in personalibus c. And ibidem Litt. M. verbo Integre faciunt expresse contra opinionem quorundum Theologorum qui dicunt sufficere aliquid dari pro Decima And that is the true Reason in both the said Cases scil de modo Decimandi de Limitibus Parochiorum c. that they would not adjudg according to their Canons and therefore a Prohibition lieth and therewith agreeth 8 E. 4. 14. and the other Boóks abovesaid and infinite presidents and the rather after the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. And also the Customs of the Realm are part of the Laws of the Realm and therefore they shall be tryed by the Common Law as is aforesaid See 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. the Opinion of all the Iustices VI. Mich. 6 Jacob. in the Exchequer Baron and Boys Case IN the Case between Baron and Boys in an Information upon the Sur Stat. 2 E. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers after Verdict it was found for the Informer That the Defendant had ingrossed Apples against the said Act The Barons of the Exchequer held clearly That Apples were not within the said Act and gave Iudgment against the Informer upon the matter apparent to them and caused the same to be entered in the Margent of the Record where the Iudgment was given and the Informer brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer chamber and the only Question was Whether Apples were within the said Act the letter of which is That whatsoever person or persons c. shall ingross or get into his or their hands by buying contracting or promise taking other then by Demise Grant or Lease of Land or Tythe any Corn growing in the Fields or any other Corn or grain Butter Cheese Fish or other dead Victual within the Realm of England to the intent to sell the same again shall be accepted c. an unlawful Ingrosser And although that the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. made against Sellers of Victual which for their great gain conspire c. numbereth Butchers Brewers Bakers Cooks Costermongers and Fruterers as Victualers yet Apples are not dead Victuals within the Statute of 5 E. 6. For the Buyers and Sellers of Corn and other Victuals have divers Provisoes and Qualifications for them as it appeareth by the said Act but Costermongers and Fruterers have not any Proviso for them also always after the said Act they have bought Apples and other Fruits by Ingross and sold them again and before this time no Information was exhibited for them no more then for Plums or other fruit which serveth more for delicacy then for necessary Food But the Statute of 5 E. 6. is to be intended of things necessary and of common use for the sustenance of man and therefore the words are Corn Grain Butter Cheese or other dead Victual which is as much to say as Victual of like quality that is of like necessary and common use But the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. made against Conspiracies to enhaunce the prices was done and made by express words to extend it to things which are more of pleasure then of profit So it was said That of those Fruits a man cannot be a Forestaller within this Act of 5 E. 6. for in the same Branch the words are any Merchandize Victual or any other thing But this was not resolved by the Iustices because that the Information was conceived upon that branch of the Statute concerning Ingrossers VII Hill 27 Eliz. in the Chancery HIllary Term the 27 of Eliz. in the Chancery the Case was thus One Ninian Menvil seised of certain Lands in Fee took a wife Fine Dower Relation and levyed a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations and afterwards was indicted and out-lawed of High Treason and dyed The Conusees convey the Lands to the Queen who is now seised the five years pass after the death of the Husband The Daughters and Heirs of the said Ninian in a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench reverse the said Attainder M. 26 and 27 Eliz. last past and thereupon the Wife sueth to the Queen who was seised of the said Land as aforesaid by Petition containing all the special matter scil the Fine with proclamations and the five years passed after the death of her Husband the Attainder and the reversal of it and her own title scil her marriage and the seisin of her Husband before the Fine And the Petition being endorsed by the Queen Fiat droit aux parties c. the same was sent into the Chancery as the manner is And in this case divers Objections were made against the Demandant 1. That the said Fine with proclamations should bar the Wife of her Dower and the Attainder of her Husband should not help her for as long as the Attainder doth remain in force the same was a bar also of her Dower so as there was a double bar to the Wife viz. the Fine levyed with proclamations and the five years past after the death of her Husband and the Attainder of her Husband of his Treason But admit that the Attainder of the Husband shall avail the Wife in some manner when the same is now reversed in a Writ of Error and now upon the matter is in Iudgment of Law as if no Attainder had been and against that a man might plead That there is no such Record because that the first Record is reversed and utterly disaffirmed and annihilated and now by Relation made no Record ab initio and therewith agreeth the Book of 4 H. 7. 11. for the words of the Iudgment in a Writ of Error are Quod Judicium praedict Errores praedict alios in Recordo c. revocetur admittetur c. quod ipsa ad possessionem suam sive seisinam suam as the case requireth tenementorum suorum praedictorum una cum exitibus proficuis inde a tempore Judicii praedict reddit praecept ad omnia quae occasione Judicii illius omisit restituatur By which it appeareth that the first Iudgment which was originally imperfect and erroneous is for the same Errors now adnulled and revoked ab initio and the party against whom the Iudgment was given restored to his possession and to
all the mean profits from the time of the erroneous Iudgment given until the Iudgment in the Writ of Error so as the Reversal hath a Retrospect to the first Iudgment as if no Iudgment had been given And therefore the Case in 4 H. 7. 10. b. the case is A. seised of Land in Fee was attainted of High Treason and the King granted the Land to B. and afterwards A. committed Trespass upon the Land and afterwards by Parliament A. was restored and the Attainder made voyd as if no Act had been and shall be as available and ample to A. as if no Attainder had been and afterwards B. bringeth Trespass for the Trespass Mesue and it was adjudged in 10 H. 7. fo 22. b. That the Action of Trespass was not maintainable because that the Attainder was disaffirmed and annulled ab initio And in 4 H. 7. 10. it is holden That after a Iudgment reversed in a Writ of Error he who recovered the Land by Erroneous Iudgment shall not have an Action of Trespass for a Trespass Mean which was said was all one with the principal case in 4 H. 7. 10. and divers other Cases were put upon the same ground It was secondly objected That the Wife could not have a Petition because there was not any Office by which her title of Dower was found scil her marriage the seisin of her Husband and death for it was said that although she was marryed yet if her Husband was not seised after the age that she is Dowable she shall not have Dower as if a man seised of Land in Fee taketh to Wife a woman of eight years and afterwards before her age of nine years the Husband alieneth the Lands in Fee and afterwards the woman attaineth to the age of nine years and the Husband dyeth it was said that the woman shall not be endowed And that the title of him who sueth by Petition ought to be found by Office appeareth by the Books in 11 H. 4. 52. 29 Ass 31. 30 Ass 28. 46 E. 3. bre 618. 9 H. 7. 24. c. As to the first Objection it was resolved That the Wife should be endowed and that the Fine with proclamations was not a bar unto her and yet it was resolved that the Act of 4 H. 7. cap. 24. shall bar a woman of her Dower by a Fine levyed by her Husband with proclamations if the woman doth not bring her Writ of Dower within five years after the death of her Husband as it was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common Pleas and 5 Eliz. Dyer 224. For by the Act the right and title of a Feme Covert is saved so that she take her action within 5. years after she become uncovert c. but it was resolved That the wife was not to be ayded by that saving for in respect of the said Attainder of her Husband of Treason she had not any right of Dower at the time of the death of her Husband nor can she after the death of her Husband bring an Action or prosecute an Action to recover her Dower according to the direction and saving of the said Act But it was resolved That the Wife was to be ayded by another former Saving in the same Act viz. And saving to all other persons scil who were not parties to the Fine such action right title claym and interest in or to the said Lands c. as shall first grow remain descend or come to them after the said Fine ingrossed and proclamations made by force of any Gift in Tail or by any other cause or matter had and made before the said Fine levied so that they take their Actions and pursue their right and Title according to the Law within five years next after such Action Right Claim Title or Interest to them accrued descended fallen or come c. And in this case the Action and right of Dower accrued to the wife after the reversall of the Attainder by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine by reason of the seisin in Fee had and the Marriage made before the Fine levied according to the â—â—â—ention and meaning of the said Act. And as to the said poâ—â—t of Relation It was resolved That sometimes by construction of Law a thing shall relate ab initio to some intent and to some intent not For Relatio est fictio Juris to do a thing which was and had essence to be adnulled ab initio betwixt the same parties to advance a Right or Ut res magis valeat quam pereat But the Law will never make such a construction to advance a wrong which the Law abhorreth Or to defeat Collaterall Acts which are lawfull and principally if they do concern Strangers And this appeareth in this Case scil when an erroneous Iudgment is reversed by a Writ of Error For true it is as it hath been said That as unto the mean Profits the same shall have relation by construction of Law untill the time of the first Iudgment given and that is to favour Iustice and to advance the right of him who hath wrong by the erroneous Iudgment But if any stranger hath done a Trespasse upon the Land in the mean time he who recovereth after the Reversall shall have an Action of Trespasse against the Trespassors and if the Defendant pleadeth that there is no such Record the Plaintiff shall shew the speciall matter and shall maintain his Action so as unto the Trespassors who are wrong Doers the Law shall not make any construction by way of relation ab initio to excuse them for then the Law by a fiction and construction should do wrong to him who recovereth by the first Iudgment And for the better apprehending of the Law on this point it is to know That when any man recovers any possession or seisin of Land in any Action by erroneous Iudgment and afterwards the Iudgment is reversed as is said before and upon that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall have a Writ of Restitution and that Writ recites the first recovery and the reversall of it in the Writ of Error is that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall be restored to his possession and seisin Una cum exitibus thereof from the time of the Iudgment c. Tibi praecipimus quod eadem A. ad plenariam seisinam tenementorum praedict cum pertinentiis sine dilatione restitui facias per sacramentum proborum legalium hominum de Com. suo diligenter inquires ad quantum exitus proficua tenementorum illorum cum pertinentiis a tempore falsi Judicii praedict reddit usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno c. quo die judcium illud per praefat Justiciar nostros revocat fuit se attingunt juxta verum valorem eorundem eadem exitus proficua de terris catallis praedict B. in baliva tua fieri facias denarios inde praefato A. pro exitibus et proficuis
tenementorum per eundem B. dicto medio tempore percept sine dilatione haberi sacias Et qualiter hoc praeceptum nostrum fuerit execut constare facias c. in Octab. c. By which it appeareth That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall have restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error cannot have any remedy against any stranger but only against him who is party to the Writ of Error and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to enquire of the Issues and Profits generally between the Reversal and the Iudgment with all which he who recovers shall be charged and as the Law chargeth him with all the mean profits so the Law gives to him remedy notwithstanding the Reversal against all Trespassors in the interim for otherwise the Law should make a construction by relation to discharge them who are wrong doers and to charge him who recovers with the whole who peradventure hath good right and who entereth by the Iudgment of the Law which peradventure is reversed for want of form or negligence or ignorance of a Clark And therefore as to that purpose the Iudgment shall not be reversed ab initio by a Fiction of Law but as the truth was the same stands in force until it was reversed and therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean because he shall recover all the mean profits against him who recovered nor he recovereth after shall be barred of his Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean by reason that his recovery is reversed because he shall answer for all the mean profits to the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Iustice 4 H. 7. 12. a. Note Reader If you would understand the true sence and Iudgment of the Law it is needful for you to know the true Entries of Iudgments and the Entries of all proceedings in Law and the manner and the matter of Writs of Execution of such Iudgments See Butler and Bakers Case in the third part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was resolved in the Case at Bar Although that to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by Fiction of Law by the Fine with proclamations and five years past after the death of her Husband when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any right or title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do wrong by a Fiction of Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and who had not any means to have any Relief until the Attainder was reversed And as unto the other point or Objection that the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for her it was resolved that it needed not in this case because that the title of Dower stood with the Queens title and affirmed it otherwise if the title of the Demandant in the Petition had disaffirmed the Queens title also in this Case the Queen was not entituled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it c. for then she ought to have had an Office to finde her title But in Case of Dower although that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the title of Dower in such case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office because that Dower is favored in Law she claiming but onely for term of life and affirming the title of the Queen See the Sadlers Case in the fourth part of my Reports And the case which was put on the other side was utterly denyed by the Court for it was resolved That if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife of eight years of age and alieneth his Lands and afterwards the Wife attaineth to the age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that the Wife shall be endowed For although at the time of the alienation the Wife was not dowable yet for as much as the marriage and seisin in Fee was before the alienation and the title of Dower is not consummate until the death of her Husband so as now there was marriage seisin of Fee age of nine years during the Coverture and the death of the Husband for that cause she shall be endowed For it is not requisite that the marriage seisin and age concur together all at one time but it is sufficient if they happen during the Coverture So if a man seised of Lands in Fee take a Wife and afterwards she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the Elopement the Husband alieneth and after the Wife is reconciled the Wife shall be endowed So if a man hath issue by his Wife and the issue dyeth and afterwards Land descendeth to the Wife or the Wife purchaseth Lands in Fee and dyeth without any other issue the Husband for the issue which he had before the Discent or purchase shall be Tenant by the curtesie for it is sufficient if he have issue and that the Wife be seised during the Coverture although that it be at several times But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he alieneth his Lands and afterwards she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was absolutely disabled by the Law and by her birth not capable of Dower but her capacity and ability began onely by her Denization but in the other case there was not any incapacity or disability in the person but onely a temporary Bar until such age or reconcilement which being accomplished the temporary Bar ceaseth As if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife and afterwards the Wife is attainted of Felony and afterwards the Husband alieneth and afterwards the Wife is pardoned and afterwards the Husband dyeth the Wife shall be endowed for by her birth she was not uncapable but was lawfully by her marriage and seisin in Fee entituled to have Dower and therefore when the impediment is removed she shall be endowed VIII Trinit 44 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench Sprat and Heals Case JOhn Sprat Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Walter Heal for Tythes Covin substraction of Tythes the Defendant in the Spiritual Court pleaded that he had divided the Tythes from the nine parts and then the Plaintiff made addition to the Libel in the nature of a Replication scil That the Defendant divided the Tythes from the nine parts quod praedict the Plaintiff non fatetur sed prorsus diffitetur yet presently after this pretended division in fraudem legis he took and carryed away the same Tythes and converted them to his own use and the Plaintiff thereupon obtained sentence in the Spiritual Court and to recover the treble value according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. And thereupon Heal made a
Ayd and therefore a Tenant in Burgage shall be contributary to it And it is to be observed and so it appeareth in the Register fo 1 2. That in a Writ of Right if the Lands or Tenements are holden by Knights service it is said Quas clamat tenere de te per servitium unius feodi Militis and if the Lands be holden in Socage the Writ is Quis clamat tenere de te per liberum servitium unius libri cumini c. so as Socage Tenure in all Writs is called Liberum servitium And by the Writ of Ayd Fitz. N. B. 82. it is commanded to the Sheriff Quod juste c. facias habere A. rationabile Auxilium de Militibus liberis tenentibus suis in Baliva tua c. so as the same Writ makes a distinction of Knights service by the name of Militibus and of Socage by the name of Liberis tenentibus And in the Register fol. 2. 6. the Writ of Right for a House in London which is holden of the King in Burgage is in these words Rex Majori vel Custodi Vicecom London Praecipimus vobis quod sine dilatione teneatis G. de uno Messuagio c. in London quae clamat tenere de nobis per liberum servitium c. which proves That Tenure in Burgage is a Tenure in Socage But it appeareth by the Books of Avowry 26. and 10 H. 6. so Ancient Demesne 11. it was resolved by all the Iustices in the Exchequer Chamber That no Tenure should pay for a reasonable Ayd to marry the Daughter or to make the Son a Knight but Tenure by Knights service and Tenure by Socage but not Tenure by Grandserjanty nor no other and 13 H. 4. 34. agrees to the Case of Grandserjanty and by the said Books it appeareth that Tenure by Frankalmoign and Tenure by Divine Service shall not pay for they are none of them but Tenure in Burgage is a Tenure in Socage and therefore the said Books prove that such a Tenure shall pay Ayd And I conceive that Tenure by Petit-Serjanty shall pay also Ayd for Litt. lib. 2. cap. 8. fo 36. says That such a Tenure is but Socage in effect but Fitz. N. B. 83. a. avoucheth 13 H. 4. 34. That Tenant by Petit-Serjanty shall not pay Ayd but the Book onely extends to Grand-Serjanty If the Houses in a City or Borough are holden of the King in Burgage and the King grant the Seignories to one and the City or Borough to another to hold of him then those Houses shall not be contributary to Ayd for they are not immediately holden of the King as is required by the Law And I conceive that he who holdeth a Rent of the King by Knights service or in Socage shall pay Ayd for the words of the Act of VVestm 1. cap. 35. are From henceforth of a whole Knights Fee onely be taken 20 s. of 20 l. Land holden in Socage 20 s. and the Mean is said in supposition of Law to hold the Land and it is not reason that the Tenant by his Feoffment before the Statute should prejudice the Lord of his benefit And although it was said that a Tenure in Socage in servitium Socae as Littleton saith and the same cannot be applyed to Houses to that it was answered That the Land upon which the House is built or if the House falleth down may be made arable and be ploughed And a Rent may be holden in Socage and yet it is not subject to be plowed but by a possibility after words escheat to the Lord of the Land See Huntington Polidor Virgill and Hollinsheds Chronicle fol. 35. 15 H. 4. Ayd was levyed by Hen. 7. 1. to marry Mawd his eldest Daughter to the Emperor viz. 3 l. of every Hide of Land c. And see The Grand Customary of Normandy cap. 35. there is a Chapter of Ayds whereof the first is to make the eldest Son of his Lord a Knight and the second to marry his eldest Daughter And see a Statute made in anno 19 H. 7. which begineth thus Item praefati Communes in Parliamento praedicto existentes ex assensu duorum Spiritualium Temporalium in dicto Parliamento similiter existen concesserunt praefato Regi quandà m pecuniae summam in loco duorum rationabilium auxiliorum suae Majestatis de jure debit tam ratione creationis nobilissimi filii sui primogeniti bonae memoriae Domini Arthuri nuper Principis VValliae quam ratione Matrimonii traductionis nobilissimi Principis Margaritae filiae suae primogenit quam etiam multiplicare pro Regni sui perpetua pace tranquillitate c. certis viis modis levand cujus quidem concessionis Tenor c. sequitur in haec verba For as much as the King our Soveraign Lord is rightfully intituled to have two reasonable Ayds according to the Laws of this Land the one for the making Knight the right honorable his first begotten Son Arthur late Prince of VVales deceased and the other for that the marriage of the Right Noble Princess his first begotten Daughter Margaret now marryed to the King of Scots and also that his Highness hath born great and inestimable charges for the defence of the Realm c. considering the premisses And if the same Ayds should be levyed and had by reason of their Tenures according to the ancient Laws of the Land should be to them doubtful and uncertain and great unquietness for the search and not knowledg of their several Tenures and their Lands chargeable to the same have made humble Petition unto his Highness graciously to accept and take of them the sum of 40000 l. as well in recompence and satisfaction of the said two Ayds as for the said great and inestimable charges c. as is aforesaid The King to eschew and avoyd the great vexation troubles and unquietness which to them should have ensued if the said Ayds were levyed after the ancient Laws and for the good and acceptable services of the Nobles of this Realm and other his faithful Subjects in their own persons and otherwise done to his Grace and thereby sustained manifold costs and charges to his great honor and pleasure doth pardon the said two Ayds and accepteth the offer aforesaid and that the poorest of his said Commons should not be contributary to the said sum of 40000 l. hath pardoned 10000 l. parcel thereof and doth accept of 30000 l. in full satisfaction c. And that the Cities and Boroughs Towns and places being in every Shire not by themselves accountable in the Exchequer for Fifteens and Tenths be chargeable with the Shires c. And all Cities and Boroughs not contributary c. but accountable by themselves c. shall be chargeable by themselves towards the payment of the said 30000 l. with such sums as under the Act particularly appear c. And there under the Act appear the several Taxations of every several County City
in the Information was denied in the Kings Bench was utterly denied for the same was moved when two Iudges were in Court who gave not any opinion therein but required Serjeant Hutton who moved it to move the same again when the Court was full c. XII Pasch 7 Jacobi Regis NOte that this Term a Question was moved at Serjeants-Inne Who by the Common Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-waies and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of the Bridges And as to them it is to be known That of common Right all the Country shall be charged to the Reparation of a Bridge and therewith agreeth 10 E. 3. 28. b. That a Bridge shall be levied by the whole Country because it is a common Easement for the whole Country and as to that Point the Statute of 22 H. 8. cap. 5. was but an affirmance of the Common Law And this is true when no other is bound by the Law to repair it but he who hath the Toll of the men or Cattell which passe over a Bridge or Cawsey ought to repaire the same for he hath the Toll to that purpose Et qui sentit commodum sentire debet onus and therewith agrees 14 E. 3. Bar 276. Also a man may be bounden to repaire a Bridge ratione Tenurae of certain Land But a particular person cannot be bound by prescription scil That he and all his Ancestors have repaired the Bridge if it be not in respect of the Tenure of his Land taking of Toll or other profit for the Act of the Ancestor cannot charge the Heir without profit But an Abbot or other Corporation who hath a lawfull being may be charged scil That he and his Predecessors time out of mind c. have repaired the Bridge For the Abbot and Covent may bind their Successors vide 21 E. 4. 28. 27 E. 3. 8. 22 Ass 8. 5 H. 7. 3. And if an Abbot and his Predecessors time out of mind have repaired a Bridge of Almes they shall be compelled to repaire it and therewith agreeth 10 E. 3. 28. So it is of a High-way of common Right all the Country ought for to repaire it because that the Country have their ease and passage by it which stands with the reason of the Case of the Bridge but yet some may be particularly bounden to repaire it as is aforesaid He who hath the Land adjoyning ought of common Right without prescription to scoure and cleanse the Ditches next to the way to his Land and therewith agreeth the Book of 8 H. 7. 5. But he who hath Land adjoyning without prescription is not bound to repair the way So of a common River of common Right all who have ease and passage by it ought to cleanse and scoure it For a common River is as a common Street as it is said in 22 Ass and 37 Ass 10. But he who hath Land adjoyning to the River is not bounden to cleanse the River unlesse he hath the benefit of it scil a Toll or a Fishing or other profit See 37 Ass p. 10. XIII Pasch 7 Jacobi Sir William Reades and Boothes Case IN the great Case in the Star-Chamber of a Forgery Between Sir William Read Plaintiff and Roger Booth and Cutbert Booth and others Defendants the Case was this The said Roger Booth 38 Eliz. was convicted in that Court of the publication of a Writing under Seal forged in the name of Sir Thomas Gresham of a Rent-charge of a hundred pounds cut of all his Lands and Tenements to one Markham for ninety nine years bearing date the one and twentieth year of Queen Elizabeth the said Roger knowing it to be forged And afterwards the said Sir William Read exhibited the said Bill against the said Boothes and others for forging of another writing under Seal bearing date the twentieth of Eliz. in the name of the said Sir Thomas Gresham purporting a Deed of Feoffment of all his Lands except certain to Sir Rowland Heyward and Edward Hoogon and their Heirs to certain uses which was in effect to the use of Markham the younger and his Heirs And for the publication of the said Writing knowing the same to be forged was the Bill exhibited And now upon the hearing of the Cause in the Star-Chamber this Term These doubts were moved upon the Statute of 5 Eliz 1. If one who is convicted of publication of a Deed of Feoffment of Rent-charge knowing the same to be forged Again at another day forge another Deed of Feoffment or Rent-charge if he be within the case of Felony within the said Act which doubt ariseth upon these words eftsoons committed again any of the said Offences And therefore it was objected that he ought to commit again the same natute of Offence scil If he were convicted of Forgery he ought to forge again and not only publish knowing c. And if first he were convicted of publishing knowing c. he ought to offend again in publication knowing c. and not in Forgery for eftsoons which is iterum implyeth that it ought to be of the same nature of Offence The second doubt was If a man committeth two Forgeries the one in 37 of Eliz. and the other in 38. and he is first convicted of the last if he may be now impeached for the first The third doubt was when Roger Booth was convicted in 38 Eliz. and afterwards is charged with a new Forgery in 37 Eliz. If the Witnesses proving in truth that it was forged after the first conviction if the Star Chamber hath Iurisdiction of it The last doubt was when Cutbert Booth who never was convicted of Forgery before if in truth the Forgery was done and so proved in 38 Eliz If he might be convicted upon this Bill because that the Forgery is alledged before that it was done As to the first and second doubts it was resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron that if any one be convicted of Forgery or publication of any Writing concerning Freehold c. within the first Branch or concerning Interest or Term for years c. within the second Branch and be convicted if afterwards he offend either against the first Branch or second that the same is Felony As if he forgeth a Writing concerning interest for years within the second branch and be convicted and afterwards he forgeth a Charter of Feoffment within the first branch or è converso that that is Felony and that by expresse words of the Act That if any person or persons being hereafter convicted or condemned of any of the said Offences which words any of the said Offences extend to all the Offences mentioned before either in the first branch or in the second branch by any the waies or means above limited shall after any such conviction or condemnation eftsoons commit or perpetrate any of the said Offences in form aforesaid which words Any of the said Offences c.
in the case of Modus Decimandi before and see Register fo 38. when Lands are given in satisfaction and discharge of Tythes 4. See the Statute of Circumspecte agatis Decimae debitae seu consuetae which proves that Tythes in kinde and a Modus by custom c. 5. 8 E. 4. 14. and Fitz. N. B. 41. g. A Prohibition lieth for Lands given in discharge of Tythes 28 E. 3. 97. a. There Suit was for Tythes and a Prohibition lieth and so abridged by the Book which of necessity ought to be upon matter De Modo Decimandi or discharge 7. 7 E. 6. 79. If Tythes are sold for mony by the sale the things spiritual are made temporal and so in the case De modo Decimandi 42 E. 3. 12. agrees 8. 22 E. 3. 2. Because an Appropriation is mixt with the Temporalty scil the Kings Letters Patents the same ought to be shewed how c. otherwise of that which is meer Temporal and so it is of real composition in which the Patron ought to joyn Vide 11 H. 4. 85. Composition by writing that the one shall have the Tythes and the other shall have mony the Suit shall be at the Common Law Secondly By Acts of Parliament 1. The said Act of Circumspecte agatis which giveth power to the Ecclesiastical Iudg to sue for Tythes due first in kinde or by custom i. e. Modus Decimandi so as by authority of that Act although that the yearly sum soundeth in the Temporalty which was payd by Custom in discharge of Tythes yet because the same cometh in the place of Tythes and by constitution the Tythes are changed into mony and the Parson hath not any remedy for the same which is the Modus Decimandi at the Common Law for that cause the Act is clear that the same was a doubt at the Common Law And the Statute of Articuli Cleri cap. 1. If corporal pennance be changed in poenam pecuniariam for that pain Suit lieth in the Spiritual Court For see Mich. 8 H. 3. Rot. 6. in Thesaur A Prohibition lieth pro eo quod Rector de Chesterton exigit de Hagone de Logis de certa portione pro Decimis Molendinarium so as it appeareth it was a doubt before the said Statute if Suit lay in the Spiritual Court de Modo Decimandi And by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 20. it is provided and enacted That every of the subjects of this Realm according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church and after the laudable usages and customs of the Parish c. shall yield and pay his Tythes Offerings and other duties and that for substraction of any of the said Tythes offerings or other duties the Parson c. may by due Proces of the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws convent the person offending before a competent Iudg having authority to hear and determine the Right of Tythes and also to compel him to yeild the Duties i. e. as well Modus Decimandi by laudable usage or Custom of the Parish as Tythes in kinde and with that in effect agrees the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7. By the Statute of 2 E. 3. cap. 13. it is enacted That every of the Kings Subjects shall from henceforth truly and justly without fraud or guile divide c. and pay all manner of their predial Tythes in their proper kinde as they rise and happen in such manner and form as they have been of Right yielded and payd within forty years next before the making of this Act or of Right or Custom ought to have been payd And after in the same Act there is this clause and Proviso Provided always and be it enacted That no person shall be sued or otherwise compelled to yield give or pay any manner of Tythes for any Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or by any priviledg or prescription are not chargeable with the payment of any such Tythes or that be discharged by any compositions real And afterwards there is another Branch in the said Act And be it further enacted That if any person do substract or withdraw any manner of Tythes Obventions Profits Commodities or other Duties before mentioned which extends to Custom of Tything i. e. Modus Decimandi mentioned before in the Act c. that then the party so substracting c. may be convented and sued in the Kings Ecclesiastical Court c. And upon the said Branch which is in the Negative That no person shall be sued for any Tythes of any Lands which are not chargeable with the payment of such Tythes by any Law Statute Priviledg Prescription or Real Composition And always when an Act of Parliament commands or prohibits any Court be it Temporal or Spiritual to do any thing temporal or spiritual if the Statute be not obeyed a Prohibition lieth as upon the Statute de articulis super Cartas ca. 4. Quod Communia Placita non tenentur in Scaccario a Prohibition lieth to the Court of Exchequer if the Barons hold a Common-Plea there as appeareth in the Register 187. b. So upon the Statute of West 2. Quod inquisitiones quae magnae sunt examinationis non capiantur in patria a Prohibition lieth to the Iustices of Nisi Prius So upon the Statute of Articuli super Cartas cap. 7. Quod Constabularius Castr Dover non teneat Placitum forinsecum quod non tangit Custodiam Castri Register 185. So upon the same Statute cap. 3. Quod See Lib. Entr. 450. a Prohibition was upon the Statute that one shall not maintain and so upon every penal Law See F. N. B 39. b. Prohibition to the Common Pleas upon the Stat. of Magna Charta that they do not proceed in a Writ of Praecipe in Capite where the Land is not holden of the King 1 2 Eliz. Dy. 170 171. Prohibition upon the Statute of barrenes and pettit is onely prohibited by implication Senescallus Mariscallus non teneant Placita de libero tenemento de debito conventione c. a Prohibition lieth 185. And yet by none of these Statutes no Prohibition or Supersedeas is given by express words of the Statute So upon the Statutes 13 R. 2. cap. 3. 15 R. 2. cap. 2. 2 H. 4. cap. 11. by which it is provided That Admirals do not meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Seas c. a Prohibition lieth to the Court of Admiralty So upon the Statute of West 2. cap. 43. against Hospitalers and Templers if they do against the same Statute Regist 39. a. So upon the Statute de Prohibitione regia Ne laici ad citationem Episcopi conveniant ad recognitionem faciend vel Sacrament praestanda nisi in casubus matrimonialibus Testamentariis a Prohibition lieth Regist 36. b. And so upon the Statute of 2 H. 5. cap. 3. at what time the Libel is grantable by the Law that it be granted and
delivered to the party without difficulty if the Ecclesiastical Iudg when the cause which depends before him is meer Ecclesiastical denyeth the Libel a Prohibition lieth because that he doth against the Statute and yet no Prohibition by any express words is given by the Statute And upon the same Statute the Case was in 4 E. 4. 37. Pierce Peckam took Letters of Administration of the Goods of Rose Brown of the Bishop of London and afterwards T. T. sued to Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury That because the said Rose Brown had Goods within his Diocess he prayed Letters of Administration to be committed to him upon which the Bishop granted him Letters of Administration and afterwards T. T. libelled in the Spiritual Court of the Archbishop in the Arches against Pierce Peckam to whom the Bishop of London had committed Letters of Administration to repeal the same and Pierce Peckam according to the said Statute prayed a Copy of the Libel exhibited against him and could not have it and thereupon he sued a Prohibition and upon that an Attachment And there Catesby Serjeant moved the Court that a Prohibition did not lie for two causes 1. That the Statute gives that the Libel shall be delivered but doth not say that the Plea in the Spiritual Court shall surcease by Prohibition 2. The Statute is not intended of matter meer spiritual as that case is to try the Prerogative and the Liberty of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London in committing of Administrations And there Danby Chief Iustice If you will not deliver the Libel according to the Statute you do wrong which wrong is a temporal matter and punishable at the Common Law and therefore in this case the party shall have a special Prohibition out of this Court reciting the matter and the Statute aforesaid commanding them to surcease until he had the Copy of the Libel delivered unto him which case is a stronger case then the case at the Bar for that Statute is in the Affirmative and the said Act of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. is in the Negative scil That no Suit shall be for any Tythes of any Land in kinde where there is Modus Decimandi for that is the effect of the said Act as to that point And always after the said Act in every Term in the whole Reigns of King E. 6. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth until this day Prohibitions have been granted in Causa Modi Decimandi and Iudgments given upon many of them and all the same without question made to the contrary And accordingly all the Iudges resolved in 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. Et contemporanea expositio est optima fortissima in lege a communi observantia non est recedendum minime mutanda sunt quae certam habuerunt interpretationem And as to the first Objection That the Plea of Modus Decimandi is but accessary unto the Right of Tythes it was resolved that the same was of no force for three causes 1. In this case admitting that there is Modus Decimandi then by the Custom and by the Act of 2 E. 6. and the other Acts the Tythes in kinde are extinct and discharged for one and the same Land cannot be subject to two manner of Tythes but the Modus Decimandi is all the Tythe with which the Land is chargeable As if a Horse or other thing valuable be given in satisfaction of the Duty the Duty is extinct and gone and it shall be intended that the Modus Decimandi began at the first by real composition by which the Lands were discharged of the Tythes and a yearly sum in satisfaction of them assigned to the Parson c. So as in this case there is neither Principal nor Accessary but an Identity of the same thing 2. The Statute of 2 E. 6. being a Prohibition in it self and that in the Negative If the Ecclesiastical Iudg doth against it a Prohibition lieth as it appeareth clearly before 3. Although that the Rule be general yet it appeareth by the Register it self that a Modus Decimandi is out of it for there is a Prohibition in Causa Modi Decimandi when Lands are given in satisfaction of the Tythes As to the second Objection it was answered and resolved That that was from or out of the Question for status Quaestionis non est deliberativus sed judicialis what was fit and convenient but what the Law is and yet it was said It shall be more inconvenient to have an Ecclesiastical Iudg who is not sworn to do Iustice to give sentence in a case between a man of the Clergy and a Lay-man then for twelve men sworn to give their Verdict upon hearing of Witnesses viva voce before an indifferent Iudg who is sworn to do Right and Iustice to both parties But convenient or inconvenient is not the Question Also they have in the Spiritual Court such infinite exceptions to Witnesses that it is at the Will of the Iudg with which party he shall give his sentence As to the third Objection it was answered and resolved First That satisfactio pecuniaria of it self is Temporal But for as much as the Parson hath not remedy pro Modo Decimandi at the Common Law the Parson by force of the Acts cited before might sue pro Modo Decimandi in the Ecclesiastical Court but that doth not prove That if he sueth for Tythes in kinde which are utterly extinct and the Land discharged of them that upon the Plea de Modo Decimandi that a Prohibition should not lie for that without all question appeareth by all that which before hath been said that a Prohibition doth lie See also 12 H. 7. 24. b. Where the original cause is Spiritual and they proceed upon a Temporal a Prohibition lieth See 39 E. 3. 22 E. 4. Consultation That Right of Tythes which is meerly Ecclesiastical yet if the question ariseth of the limits of a Parish a Prohibition lieth and this case of the limits of a Parish was granted by the Lord Chancellor and not denyed by the other side As to the Objection That an Averment is taken of the refusal of the Plea de Modo Decimandi it was answered and resolved That the same is of no force for divers causes 1. It is onely to inforce the contempt 2. If the Spiritual Court ought to have the Tryal de Modo Decimandi then the refusal of acceptance of such a Plea should give cause of Appeal and not of Prohibition as if an Excommunication Divorce Heresie Simony c. be pleaded there and the Plea refused the same gives no cause of Prohibition as if they deny any Plea meer spiritual Appeal and no Prohibition lieth 3. From the begining of the Law no Issue was ever taken upon the refusal of the plea in Causa Modi Decimandi nor any Consultation ever granted to them because they did not refuse but allowed the plea. 4. The refusal is no part of the matter issuable or material in
the plea for the same is no part of the suggestion which onely is the substance of the plea and therefore the Modus Decimandi is proved by two Witnesses according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and not the refusal which proveth that the Modus Decimandi is onely the matter of the suggestion and not the refusal 5. All the said five matters of Discharge of Tythes mentioned in the said Branch of the Act of 2 E. 6. being contained within a suggestion ought to be proved by two Witnesses and so have been always from the time of the making of the said Act and therefore the Statute of 2 E. 6. clearly intended that Prohibitions should be granted in such causes 6. Although that they would allow bona fide de Modo Decimandi without refusal yet if the Parson sueth there for Tythes in kinde when the Modus is proved the same being expresly prohibited by the Act of 2 E. 6. a Prohibition lieth although the Modus be spiritual as appeareth by the said Book of 4 E. 4. 37. and other the Cases aforesaid And afterwards in the third day of debate of this case before his gracious Majesty Dr. Bennet and Dr. Martin had reserved divers consultations granted in Causa Modi Decimandi thinking that those would make a great impression in the Opinion of the King and thereupon they said That Consultations were the Iudgments of Courts had upon deliberation whereas Prohibitions were onely granted upon surmises And they shewed four Presidents One where three joyntly sued a Prohibition in the case of Modo Decimandi and the Consultation saith Pro eo quod suggestio materiaque in eodem contenta minus sufficiens in Lege existit c. 2. Another in Causa Modo Decimandi to be payd to the Parson or Vicar 3. Where the Parson sued for Tythes in kinde and the Defendant alledged Modus Decimandi to be payd to the Vicar The fourth where the Parson libelled for Tythe Wool and the Defendant alledged a custom to reap corn and to make it into sheaves and to set forth the tenth sheaf at his charges and likewise of Hay to sever it from the nine cocks at his charge in full satisfaction of the Tythes of the Corn Hay and Wool To which I answered and humbly desired the Kings Majesty to observe that these have been reserved for the last and center point of their proof And by them your Majesty shall observe these things 1. That the Kings Courts do them Iustice when with their consciences and oaths they can 2. That all the said Cases are clear in the Iudgment of those who are learned in the Laws that Consultation ought by the Law to be granted For as unto the first president the case upon their own shewing appeareth to be Three persons joyned in one Prohibition for three several parcels of Land each of which had a several manner of Tything and for that cause they could not joyn when their interests were several and therefore a Consultation was granted As to the second president The manner of Tything was alledged to be payd to the Parson or Vicar which was altogether uncertain As to the third president The Modus never came in debate but whether the Tythes did belong to the Parson or Vicar which being betwixt two spiritual persons the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction and therewith agreeth 38 E. 3. 6. cited before by Bacon and also there the Prior was of the Order of the Cistertians for if the Tythes originally belonged to the Parson any recompence for them shall not bar the Parson As unto the last president the same was upon the matter of a Custom of a Modus Decimandi for Wool for to pay the Tythe of Corn or Hay in kinde in satisfaction of Corn Hay and Wool cannot be a satisfaction for the Wool for the other two were due of common right And all this appeareth in the Consultations themselves which they shew but understand not To which the Bishop of London said that the words of the Consultation were Quod suggestio praedicta materiaque in eadem contenta minus sufficiens in Lege existet c. so as materia cannot be referred to form and therefore it ought to extend to the Modus Decimandi To which I answered That when the matter is insufficiently or uncertainly alledged the matter it self faileth for matter ought to be alledged in a good sentence and although the matter be in truth sufficient yet if it were insufficiently alledged the plea wanteth matter And the Lord Treasurer said openly to them that he admired that they would alledg such things which made more against them then any thing which had been said And when the King relied upon the said Prohibition in the Register when Land is given in discharge of Tythes the Lord Chancellor said that that was not like to this case for there by the gift of the Land in discharge of Tythes the Tythes were actually discharged but in the case De Modo Decimandi an annual sum is payd for the Tythes and the Land remains charged with the Tythes but ought to be discharged by plea de Modo Decimandi All which was utterly denyed by me for the Land was as absolutely discharged of the Tythes in casu de Modo Decimandi when an annual sum ought to be payd as where Land is given For all the Records and presidents of Prohibition in such cases are That such a sum had been always c. payd in plenam contentationem satisfactionem exonerationem omnium singularium Decimarum c. And although that the sum be not payd yet the Parson cannot sue for Tythes in kind but for the mony for as it hath been said before the Custom and the said Acts of Parliament where there is a lawful manner of Tything hath discharged the Lands from Tythes in kinde and prohibited that no suit shall be for them And although that now as it hath been said the Parsons c. may sue in the Spiritual Court pro Modo Decimandi yet without question at the first the annual payment of mony was as Temporal as annual profits of Lands were All which the King heard with much patience And the Lord Chancellor answered not to that which I had answered him in c. And after that his most excellent Majesty with all his Councel had for three days together heard the allegations on both sides He said That he would maintain the Law of England and that his Iudges should have as great respect from all his Subjects as their predecessors had had And for the matter he said That for any thing that had been said on the part of the Clergy that he was not satisfied and advised us his Iudges to confer amongst our selves and that nothing be encroached upon the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and that they keep themselves within their lawful Iurisdiction without unjust vexation and molestation done to his Subjects and without delay or hindering
of Iustice And this was the end of these three days consultations And note That Dr. Bennet in his discourse inveighed much against the opinion in 8 E. 4. 14. and in my Reports in Wrights Case That the Ecclesiastical Iudg would not allow a Modus Decimandi and said That that was the mystery of iniquity and that they would allow it And the King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books To which I answered that it appeareth in Linwood who was Dean of the Arches and of profound knowledg in the Canon and Civil Law and who wrote in the Reign of King Henry the sixth a little before the said Case in 8 E. 4. in his title de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter c. fo 139. b. Quod Decimae solvantur c. absque ulla diminutione and in the gloss it is said Quod Consuetudo de non Decimando aut de non bene Decimando non valet And that being written by a great Canonist of England was the cause of the said saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said plea de Modo Decimandi for always the Modus Decimandi is lesse in value then the Tithes in specie and then the same is against their Canon Quod decimae solvantur absque diminutione quod consuetudo de non plene Decimando non valet And it seemed to the King that that Book was a good Cause for them in the time of King Edward the fourth to say as they had said but I said That I did not relie upon that but upon the grounds aforesaid scil The common Law Statute-Laws and the continuall and infinite judgements and judiciall proceedings and that if any Canon or Constitution be against the same such Canon and Constitution c. is void by the Statute of 25. H. 8. Cap. 19. which see and note For all Canons Constitutions c. against the Prerogative of the King the common Laws Statutes or Customs of the Realm are void Lastly the King said That the high Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which is enormious and exorbitant and cannot permit the ordinary Proces of the Ecclesiasticall Law and which the same Law cannot punish And that was the cause of the institution of the same Commission and therefore although every offence ex vi termini is enormious yet in the Statute it is to be intended of such an offence is extra omnem normam as Heresie Schisme Incest and the like great offences For the King said That it was not reason that the high Commission should have conusance of common offences but to leave them to Ordinaries scil because that the party cannot have any appeal in case the high Commisson shall determine of it And the King thought that two high Commissions for either Province one should be sufficient for all England and no more XV. Mich. 39 and 40 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Bedell and Shermans Case MIch 39 and 40 Eliz. which is entred Mich. 40 Eliz. in the com-Pleas Rot. 699 Cantabr the Case was this Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his wife Farmors of the Rectory of Litlington in the County of Cambridge brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman in the custody of the Marshall of the Marshalsey and demanded 550 l. And declared that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge were seised of the said Rectory in fee in right of the said Colledge and in June 10. 29 Eliz. by Indenture demised to Christopher Phesant the said Rectorie for 21 years rendering 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn according to the Statute c. which Rent was the ancient Rent who entred into the said Rectory and was possessed and assigned all his interest thereof to one Matthew Batâ— who made his last Will and Testament and made Sarah his wife his Executrix and died Sarah proved the Will and entred and was thereof possessed as Executrix and took to husband the said Robert Bedel by force whereof they in the Right of the said Sarah entred and were possessed thereof and that the Defendant was then Tenant and seised for his life of 300 acres of arable Lands in Litlington aforesaid which ought to pay Tithes to the Rector of Litlington and in anno 38 Eliz. the Defendant grano seminavit 200 acres parcel c. And that the Tithes of the same did amount to 150 l. and that the Defendant did not divide nor set forth the same from the 9 parts but took and carried them away against the form and effect of the Statute of 2 E. 6 c. And the Defendant pleaded Nihil debet and the Iury found that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to the residue they found Nihil debet c. and in arrest of Iudgement divers matters were moved 1. That grano seminata is too generall and incertain but it ought to be expressed with what kinde of corn the same was sowed 2. It was moved If the Parson ought to have the treble value the forfeiture being by expresse words limited to none by the Act or that the same did belong to the Queen 3. If the same did belong to the Parson if he ought to sue for the same in the Ecclesiasticall Court or in the Kings Temporall Court 4. If the husband and wife should joyn in the Action or the husband alone should have the Action and upon solemn argunent at the Barre and at the Bench the Iudgement was affirmed XVI Trinity Term 7 Jocob in the Court of Wards John Bailies Case IT was found by Writ of Diem clausit extremum That the said John Bailie was seised of a Messuage or Tenement and of and in the fourth part of one acre of land late parcel of the Demesne lands of the Mannor of Newton in the County of Hereford in his Demesne as of fee and found the other points of the Writ and it was holden by the two chief Iustices and the chief Barons 1. That Messuagium vel Tenementum is uncertain for Tenementum is nomen collectivum and may contain land or any thing which is holden 2. It was holden that is was void for the whole because that no Town is mentioned in the Office where the Messuage or Tenement or the fourth part of the acre lieth and from the Visne of the Mannor upon a Traverse none can come because it is not affirmed by by the Office that they are parcel of the Mannor but Nuper parcel of the Mannor which implieth that now they are not and it was holden by them that no Melius inquirendum shall issue forth because that the whole Office is incertain and void XVII Trinity 7 Jacobi Regis in the Court of Wards THe Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two chief Iustices and chief Baron in this Case That a man seised of lands in fee-simple covenants for the advancement of his son and of his name and blood and posterity that he will stand seised
of them to the use of himself for the term of his life and after to the use of his eldest sonne and to such a woman which he shall marry and to the heirs males of the body of the son and afterwards the father dieth and after the son taketh a wife and dieth if the wife shall take an Estate for life and the doubt was because the wife of the son was not within the Considerations and the use was limited to one who was capable scil the son and to another who was not capable and therefore the son should take an estate in tail executed But it was resolved by the said two chief Iustices and chief Baron That the Wife should take well enough and as to the first Reason they resolved That the Wife was within the consideration for the consideration was for the advancement of his posterity and without a Wife the Son cannot have posterity also when the Wife of the Son is sure of a Ioynture the same is for the advancement of the Son for thereby he shall have the better marriage And as to the second it was resolved That the Estate of the Son shall support the use to the Defendant and when the contingent happeneth the Estate of the Son shall be changed according to the limitation scil to the Son and the woman and the Heirs of the body of the Son And so it was resolved in the Kings-Bench by Popham chief Iustice and the whole Court of the Kings-Bench in the Reign of Queen Eliz. in Sheffields Case for both points XVIII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Sparies Case JOhn Spary seised in fee in the right of his Wife of Lands holden of the Crown by Knights service had issue by her and 22 Decemb. anno 9 Eliz. aliened to Edward Lord Stafford the Wife dyed the issue of full age the Lands continue in the hands of the Alienee or his Assigns and ten years after the death of the Father and twelve years after the death of the Mother Office is found 7 Jacobi finding all the special matter after the death of the Mother the Question was Whether the mean profits are to be answered to the King and it was resolved by the said two chief Iustices and the chief Baron That the King should not have the mean profits because that the Alienee was in by title and until Entry the Heir hath no remedy for the mean profits but that the King might seise and make Livery because that the Entry of the Heir is lawful by the Statute of 32 H. 8. XIX Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards IT was found by force of a Mandamus at Kendal in the County of VVestmerland the 21 of December 6 Jacobi Regis That George Earl of Cumberland long before his death was seised in tayl to him and to the Heirs males of his body of the Castles and Mannors of Browham Appleby c. the Remainder to Sir Ingram Clifford with divers Remainders over in tayl the Remainder to the right Heirs of Henry Earl of Cumberland Father of the said George and that the said George Earl so seised by Fine and Recovery conveyed them to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for their lives for the Ioynture of the said Margaret and afterwards to the Heirs males of the body of George Earl of Cumberland and for want of such issue to the use of Francis now Earl of Cumberland and to the Heirs males of his body begotten and for want of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said George and afterwards by another Indenture conveyed the Fee-simple to Francis Earl By force of which and of the Statute of uses they were seised accordingly and afterwards 30 Octob. anno 3 Jacobi the said George Earl of Cumberland dyed without Heir male of his body lawfully begotten and further found that Margaret Countess of Cumberland that now is was alive and took the profits of the premisses from the death of the said George Earl of Cumberland until the taking of that inquisition and further found the other points of the Writ And first it was objected that here was no dying seised found by Office and therefore the Office shall be insufficient But as to that it was answerod and resolved That by this Office the King was not entitled by the common Law for then a dying seised or at first a dying the day of his death was necessary But this Office is to be maintained upon the Statute of 32 and 34 H. 8. by force of which no dying seised is requisite but rather the contrary scil If the Land be as this case is conveyed to the Wife c. And so it was resolved in Vincents case anno 23 Eliz. where all the Land holden in Capite was conveyed to the younger Son and yet the eldest Son was in Ward notwithstanding that nothing descended The second Objection was It doth not appear that the Estate of the Wife continued in her until the death of the Earl for the Husband and Wife had aliened the same to another and then no primer seisin shall be as it is agreed in Binghams case As to that it was answered and resolved That the Office was sufficient prima facie for the King because it is a thing collateral and no point of the Writ and if any such alienation be which shall not be intended then the same shall come in of the other part of the Alienee by a Monstrans de droit and the case at Bar is a stronger case because it is found that the said Countess took the profits of the premisses from the death of George the Earl until the finding of the Office XX. Trinity Term 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Wills Case HEnry Wills being seised of the fourth part of the Mannor of Wryland in the County of Devon holden of Queen Elizabeth in Socage-tenure in capite of the said fourth part enfeoffed Zachary Irish and others and their Heirs to the use of the said Henry for the term of his life and afterwards to the use of Thomas Wills his second son in tayl and afterwards to the use of Richard Wills his youngest son in tayl and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said Henry and afterwards the said Henry so seised as abovesaid dyed thereof seised William Wills being his Son and Heir of full age Thomas the second son entered as into his Remainder All this matter is found by Office and the question was If the King ought to have primer seisin in this case and that Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued in this case by the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. And it was resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron that not if in this case by the common Law no Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued and that was agreed by them all by the experience and course of the
Court. See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. If Tenant in Socage dyeth seised in possession his Heir within the age of fourteen years he shall not sue Livery but shall have an Ouster le main una cum exitibus but otherwise it is if the Heir be of the age of fourteen years which is his full age for Socage and therewith agreeth 4 Eliz. Dyer 213. And two presidents were shewed which were decreed in the same Court by the advice of the Iustices Assistants to the Court. One in Trinity Term 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely the Father enfeoffed William Strelley and Thomas Law of the Mannor of Ryndly in the County of Nottingham upon condition that they re-enfeoff the Feoffor and his Wife for their lives the remainder to Thomas Stavely son and heir apparent of tho Feoffor in Fee which Mannor was holden of Queen Elizabeth in Socage in capite and upon consideration of the saving in the Statute of 32 H. 8. next after the clause concerning Tenure in Socage in chief it was resolved That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the reason was because that the precedent clause giveth liberty to him who holdeth in Socage in chief to make disposition of it either by act executed or by Will at his free will and pleasure and before the said act no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the words of the Saving are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seisin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath been used and accustomed But there was no use or custom before the Act that the King should have any primer seisin or relief in such case and the words subsequent in the said Saving depend upon the former words and do not give any primer seisin or relief where none was before Another president was in Pasc 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fo 444. where the case was that William Allet was seised of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seised to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger son in Fee and dyed his Heir of full age and all that was found by Office and it was resolved ut supra That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in that case but the doubt in the case at Bar was because that Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said VVilliam his eldest son XXI Trinity Term anno 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bill was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins Vice Admiral of the County of Devon and was charged that one William Hull and others were notorious Pirats upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Piracy they had committed the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did them receive abet and comfort within the body of the County and for bribes and rewards suffered them to be discharged And what offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Serjeants Inn. And first it was by them resolved that by the Common Law the Admirals ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Sea and that appeareth fully by the Statute of 13 R. 2. cap. 5. by which it appeareth that such was the Common Law in the time of King Edw. the third and therewith agreeth the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. and the Statute of 15 H. 2. cap. 3. That because the Admirals and their Deputies encroach to themselves divers Iurisdictions and Franchises more then they ought to have Be it enacted that all Contracts Pleas and Complaints and all other things arising within the bodies of the Counties as well by Land as by Water as also of Wreck of the Sea the Admiral Court shall not have any conusance power or jurisdiction c. Nevertheless of the death of a man and of Mayheme done in great Ships being in the main stream of great Rivers onely below the Bridges nigh to the Sea and not in other places of the same Rivers and to arrest Ships in the great Flotes for the great Voyage of the King and of his Realm and by the Statute of 2 H. 5. cap. 6. the Admirals of the King of England have done and used reasonably according to the ancient Law and Custom upon the main Sea See the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 5. And all this appeareth to be by the common Law and with that agreeth Stamford fo 51. And if a man be killed or slain within the Arms of the Sea where a man may see from the one part of the Land to the other the Coroner shall enquire of it and not the Admiral because that the Country may well know it and he voucheth 8 E. 2. Coron 399. So saith Stamford the same proves that by the common Law before the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. the Admiral shall not have Iurisdiction unless upon the High Sea See Pla. Com. 37. 6. If the Marshal holdeth Plea out of the Verge or the Admiral within the body of the County the same is voyd See 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was resolved that the said Statutes are to be intended of a power to hold Plea and not of a power to award execution scil de jurisdictione tenendi placiti non de jurisdictione exequendi For notwithstanding the said Statutes the Iudg of the Admiralty may do execution within the body of the County and therefore in 19 H. 6. 7. the case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Court of Admiralty before the Steward of the Earl of Huntington against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High Sea upon which issued a Citation to cite the said J. B. to appear before the Steward aforesaid at the common day then next ensuing directed to P. who served the said Citation at which day the said J. B. made default and the usage of the Court is that if the Defendant maketh default he shall be amerced by the discretion of the Steward to the use of the Plaintiff The which J. B. for his default aforesaid was amerced to twenty marks whereupon command was made to the said P. as Minister of the Court aforesaid to take the goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the beforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said twenty marks took five Cows and an hundred sheep in execution for the mony aforesaid in the County of Leicester And there it is holden by Newton and the whole Court that the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty to hold Plea of a thing done
his Deed indented dated the 22 of December in the first year of King James made between him of the one part and the said John Sammes and George Sammes Son and Heir apparent of the said John of the other part did bargain sell grant enfeoff release and confirm unto the said John Sammes the said Mead called Grany Mead to have and to hold the said Mead unto the said John Sammes and George Sammes and their Heirs and Assigns to the onely use and behoof of the said John Sammes and George Sammes their Heirs and Assigns for ever and by the same Indenture Sir Thomas did covenant with John and George to make further assurance to John and George and their Heirs to the use of them and their Heirs and Livery and Seisin was made and delivered according to the true intent of the said Indentures of the within mentioned premisses to the uses within mentioned John Sammes the Father dyeth George Sammes his Son and Heir being within age the Question was Whether George Sammes should be in Ward to the King or no And in this case three points were resolved 1. For as much as George was not named in the premisses he cannot take by the Habendum and the Livery made according to the intent of the Indenture doth not give any thing to George because the Indenture as to him is voyd but although the Feoffment be good onely to John and his Heirs yet the use limited to the use of John and George and their Heirs is good 2. If the Estate had been conveyed to John and his Heirs by the Release or Confirmation as it well may be to a Tenant by Copy of Court Roll the use limited to them is good for upon a Release which creates an Estate a use may be limited or a Rent reserved without question but upon a Release or Confirmation which enures by way of Mitter le droit an use cannot be limited or a Rent reserved But the third was of greater doubt If in this case the Father and Son were Ioynt-tenants or Tenants in common For it was objected when the Father is onely enfeoffed to the onely use of him and his Son and their Heirs in the Per that in this case they shall be Tenants in common By the Feoffment the Father is in by the common Law in the Per and then the limitation of the use to him and his Son and to their Heirs cannot devest the Estate which was vested in him by the common Law out of him and vest the Estate in him in the Post by force of the Statute according to the limitation of the use and therefore as to one moyety the Father shall be in by force of the Feoffment in the Per and the Son as to the other moyety shall be in by force of the Statute according to the limitation of the use in the Post and by consequence they shall be Tenants in common But it was answered and resolved That they were Ioynt-tenants and that the Son in the Case at Bar should have the said Grange by the Survivor for if at the common Law A. had been enfeoffed to the use of him and B. and their Heirs although that he was onely seised of the Land the use was joyntly to A. and B. For a use shall not be suspended or extinct by a sole seisin or joynt seisin of the Land and therefore if A. and B. be enfeoffed to the use of A. and his Heirs and A. dyeth the entire use shall descend to his Heir as it appeareth in 13 H. 7. 6. in Stoners Case and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. of Vses it appeareth That when several persons are seised to the use of any of them that the Estate shall be executed according to the use And as to that which was said That the Estate of the Land which the Father hath in the Land as to the moyetyof the use which he himself hath shall not be devested out of him To that it was answered and resolved That that shall well be for if a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee to one to tho use of him and the Heirs of his body in this case for the benefit of the issue the Statute according to the limitation of the uses devests the Estate vested in him by the common Law and executes the same in himself by force of the Statute and yet the same is out of the words of the Statute of 27 H. 8. which are Where any person c. stand or be scised c. to the use of any other person and here he is seised to the use of himself and the other clause is Where divers and many persons c. be joyntly seised c. to the use of any of them c. and in this case A. is sole seised But the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath been always beneficially expounded to satisfie the intention of the parties which is the direction of the uses according to the Rule of the Law So if a man seised of Lands in Fee-simple by Deed covenant with another that he and his Heirs will stand seised of the same Land to the use of himself and the Heirs of his body or unto the use of himself for life the remainder over in Fee in that case by the operation of the Statute the Estate which he hath at the common Law is devested and a new Estate vested in himself according to the limitation of the use And it is to be known that an use of Land which is but a pernency of the profits is no new thing but part of that which the owner of the Land had and therefore if Tenant in Borrough-English or a man seised of the part of his Mother maketh a Feoffment to another without consideration the younger Son in the one case and the Heir on the part of the Mother on the other shall have the use as they should have the Land it self if no Feoffment had been made as it is holden in 5 E. 4. 7. See 4 and 5 Phil. and Mar. Dyer 163. So if a man maketh a Feoffment unto the use of another in tayl and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs the Feoffor hath the Reversion of the Land in him for if the Donee dyeth without isse the Law giveth the use which was part of the Land to him and so it was resolved Trinity 31 Eliz. between Fenwick and Milford in the Kings-Bench So in 28 H. 8. Dyer 11. the Lord Rosses Case A man seised of one Acre by Priority and of another Acre by Posteriority and makes a Feoffment in Fee of both to his use and it was adjudged that although both pass at one instant yet the Law shall make a Priority of the uses as if it were of the Land it self which proves that the use is not any new thing for then there should be no Priority in the Case See 13 H. 7. b. by Butler So in the Case at Bar The use limited to
certain Lands in Hetherset and Windham in Norfolk and doth not say in two parts in three parts to be divided and yet it was good as well in the Declaration as in the Writ for without question the Writ is good de duabus partibus generally and so is the Register See 4 E. 3. 162. 2 E. 3. 31. 2 Assis 1. 10 Assis 12. 10 E. 3. 511. 11 Ass 21. 11 E. 3. Bre. 478. 9 H. 6. 36. 17 E. 4. 46. 19 E. 3. Bre. 244. And upon all the said Books it appeareth that by the intendment and construction of the Law when any parts are demanded without shewing in how many parts the whole is divided that there remains but one part not divided As if two parts are demanded there remains a third part and when three parts are divided three remains a fourth part c. But when any demand is of other parts in other form there he ought to shew the same specialty as if one demandeth three parts of five parts or four parts of six c. And according to this difference it was so resolved in Jourdens Case in the Kings-Bench and accordingly Iudgment was given in this Term in the Case at Bar. XXVI Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Muttons Case AN Action upon the Case was brought against Mutton for calling of the Plaintiff Sorcerer and Inchantor who pleaded Not-guilty and it was found against him to the damages of 6 d. And it was holden by the whole Court in the Common-Pleas that no Action lieth for the said words for Sortilegium est rei futuri per sortes exploratio Et Sortilegus sive Sortilegista est qui per sortes futura praenunciat Inchauntry est verbis aut rebus adjunctis aliquid praeter naturam moliri whereof the Poet saith Carminibus Circes socios mutavit Ulyssis See 45 E. 3. 17. One was taken in Southwark with the Head and Visage of a Dead man and with a Book of Sorcery in his Mail and he was brought into the Kings-Bench before Knevet Iustice but no Indictment was framed against him for which the Clarks made him swear that he should never after commit any Sorcery and he was sent to prison and the Head and the Book were burned at Tuthill at the charges of the Prisoner And the ancient Law was as it appeareth by Britton that those who were attainted of Sorcery were burned but the Law is not such at this day but he who is convicted of such imposture and deceit shall be fined and imprisoned And it was said that it was adjudged That if one calleth another Witch that an Action will not lie for it is too general Et dicitur Latine Venefica But if one saith She is a Witch and hath bewitched such a one to death an Action upon the Case lieth if in truth he be dead Conjuration is derived of these words Con and juro Et propria dicitur quando multi in alicujus pernitiem jurant And in the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 16. it is taken for Invocation of any evil and wicked Spirits i. est conjurare verbis conceptis aliquos malos iniquos spiritus the same is made Felony But Witchcraft Inchantment Charm or Sorcery is not felony if not by them any person be killed or dyeth So that Conjuration est verbis conceptis compellere malos iniquos spiritus aliquod facere vel dicere c. But a Witch who works any thing by any evil spirit doth not make any Conjuration or Invocation by any powerful names of the Devil but the wicked spirit comes to her familiarly and therefore is called a Familiar But if a man be called a Conjurer or a Witch he shall not have any Action upon the Case unless that he saith That he is a Conjurer of the Devil or of any evil or wicked spirit or that one is a Witch and that she hath bewitched any one to death as is before said And note that the first Statute which was made against Conjuration Witchcraft Sorcery and Inchantment was the Act of 33 H. 8. cap. 8. and by it they were Felony in certain cases special but that Act was repealed by the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 12. XXVII Mich. Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Sir Allen Percies Case SIr John Fitz and Bridget his Wife being Tenants for life of a Tenement called Ramshams the remainder to Sir John Fitz in tail the remainder to Bridget in tail the Reversion to Sir John and his Heirs Sir John and Bridget his Wife by Indenture demised the said Tenement to William Sprey for divers years yet to come except all Trees of Timber Oaks and Ashes and liberty to carry them away rendering Rent and afterwards Sir John dyed having issue Mary his daughter now the Wife of Sir Allen Percy Knight and afterwards the said William Sprey demised the same Tenement to Sir Allen for seven years The Question was Whether Sir Allen having the immediate inheritance in the right of his Wife expoctant upon the Estate for the life of Bridget and also having the possession by the said Demise might cut down the Timber Trees Oaks and Ashes And it was objected that he might well do it for it was resolved in Saunders Case in the fifth part of my Reports fo 12. That if Lessee for years or for life assigns over his term or Estate unto another excepting the Mines or the Trees or the Clay c. that the exception is voyd because that he cannot except that which he cannot lawfully take and which doth not belong unto him by the Law But it was answered and resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron That in the Case at Bar the Exception was good without question because that he who hath the Inheritance joyns in the Lease with the Lessee for life And it was further resolved That if Tenant for life Leaseth for years excepting the Timber Trees the same is lawfully and wisely done for otherwise if the Lessee or Assignee cutteth down the Trees the Tenant for life should be punished in Waste and should not have any remedy against the Lessee for years and also if he demiseth the Land without exception he who hath the immediate Estate of Inheritance by the assent of the Lessee may cut down all the Timber Trees which when the term ended all should be wasted and then the Tenant for life should not have the Boots which the Law giveth him nor the pawnage and other profits of the said Trees which he lawfully might take But when Tenant for life upon his Lease excepteth the Trees if they be cut down by the Lessor the Lessee or Assignee shall have an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis and shall recover damages according to his loss And this case is not like to the said case of Saunders which was affirmed to be good Law for there the Lessee assigned over his whole interest and therefore could not except the Mines
Trees and Clay c. which he had not but as things annexed to the Land and therefore he could not have them when he had departed with his whole interest nor he could not take them either for Reparations or otherwise But when Tenant for life Leaseth for years except the Timber Trees the same remaineth yet annexed to his Freehold and he may command the Lessee to take them for necessary Reparations of the Houses And in the said case of Saunders a Iudgment is cited between Foster and Miles Plaintiffs and Spencer and Bourd Defendants That where Lessee for years assigns over his term except the Trees that Waste in such case shal be brought against the Assignee but in this case without question Waste lieth against the Tenant for life and so there is a difference c. XXVIII Mich. Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Hulmes Case THe King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Lord Richard Hulm seised of the Mannor of Male in the County of Lancaster holden of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights service Mesne and Robert Male seised of Lands in Male holden of the Mesn as of his said Mannor by Knights service Tenant Richard Hulm dyed after whose death 31 Hen. the eight it was found that he dyed seised of the said Menalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during the time that he was within age Robert Male the Tenant dyed after which in anno 35 H. 8. it was found by Office That Robert Male dyed seised of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Heir within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulm then in Ward of the King as of his Menalty for which the King seised the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards anno quarto Jacobi Regis that now is after the death of Richard Male who was lineal Heir of the said Robert Male by another Office it was found That the said Richard dyed seised of the said Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights service his Heir within age whereupon Richard Hulm Cosin and Heir of the said Richard Hulm had preferred a Bill to be admitted to his Traverse of the said Office found in quarto Jacobi Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found in 35 H. 8. be any estoppel to the said Hulm to Traverse the said last Office or if that the said Hulm should be driven first to Traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. And it was objected That he ought first to Traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case of 26 E. 3. 65. That if two Fines be levyed of Lands in ancient Demesn the Lord of whom the Land is holden ought to have a Writ of Deceit to reverse the first Fine and in that the second Fine shall not be a Bar And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remains in force To which it was answered and resolved by the two Chief Iustices and the Chief Baron and the Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any estoppel for that is but an enquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it as it hath been confessed and therefore without question the same is no estoppel But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir sueth a general Livery now it is holden in 46 E. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after add that the Land is not holden of the King but that is not any estoppel to the Heir himself who sueth the Livery and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly in 44 Assis pl. 35. That an Estoppel by suing of Livery shall estop onely himself the Heir during his life And in 1 H. 4. 6. b. there the case is put of express confession and suing of Livery by the issue in tayl upon a false Office and there it is holden that the Iurors upon a new Diem clausit extremum after the death of such special Heir are at large according to their conscience to finde that the Land is not holden c. for they are sworn ad veritatem dicendum and their finding is called veredictum quasi dictum veritatis which reason also shall serve when the Heir in Fee-simple sueth Livery upon a false Office and the Iurors after his death ought to finde according to the truth So it is said 33 H. 6. 7. by Laicon that if two sisters be found Heirs whereof the one is a Bastard if they joyn in a Suit of Livery she which joyneth with the Bastard in the Livery shall not alledg Bastardy in the other but there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer then during his life and when Livery is sued by a special Heir the force and effect of the Livery is executed and determined by his death and by that the Estoppel is expired with the death of the Heir but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one But as it is expressed the words of a general Livery are When the Heir is found of full age Rex Escheatori c. Scias quod cepimus homigium I. filii haeredis B. defuncti de omnibus terris tenementis quae idem B. Pater suus tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit ei terras tenement illa reddidimus ideo tibi praecipimus c. And when the Heir was in Ward at his full age the Writ of Livery shall say Rex c. Quia I. filius haeres B. defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in capite aetatem suam coram te sufficienter probavit c. Ceperimus homagium ipsius I. de omnibus terris tenementis quae idem B. Pater suus tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit ei terras tenement illa reddidimus ideo tibi praecipimus ut supra c. Which Writ is the Suit of the Heir and therefore although that all the words of the Writ are the words of the King as all the Writs of the King are and although that the Livery be general de omnibus terris tenementis de quibus B. pater I. tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit without direct affirmation that any Mannor in particular is holden in capite and notwithstanding that the same is not at the prosecution of the Kings Writ and no Iudgment upon it yet because the general Livery is founded upon the Office and by the Office it was found That divers Lands or
same but they estreat the same into the Exchequer which hath power by the Law to writ forth Proces to the Sheriff to levy the same But if a man be convicted in the Star-Chamber for Forgery upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. that in that case for the double costs and damages that an English Writ shall be made directed to the Sheriff c. reciting the conviction and the Statute for the levying of the said costs and damages of the goods and chattels and profits of the Lands of the Defendant and to bring in the mony into the Court of Star-Chamber and the Writ shall be sealed with the great Seal and the Test of the King For the Statute of 5 Eliz. hath given Iurisdiction to the Court of Star-Chamber and power to give Iudgment amongst other things of the costs and damages which being given by force of the said Act of Parliament by consequence the Court by the Act hath power to grant Execution Quia quando aliquid conceditur ei omnia concedi videntur per quod devenitur ad illud And it was resolved That the giving of the damages to the Plaintiff was begun but of late times and although that one or two Presidents were shewed against this Resolution they being against the Law the Iudges had not any regard to them The like Resolution was in the Case of Langdale in that Court XXXI Hillary Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Morse and Webbs Case IN a Replevin brought by John Morse against Robert Webb of the taking of two Oxen the last day of November in the third year of the Reign of the King that now is in a place called the Downfield in Luddington in the County of Worcester The Defendant as Bayliff to William Sherington Gent. made Conusance because that the place where is an Acre of Land which is the Freehold of the said William Sherington and for damage-feasants c. In Bar of which Avowry the Plaintiff said That the said Acre of Land in parcel of Downfield and that he himself at the time and before the taking c. was and yet is seised of two yard Land with the appurtenances in Luddington aforesaid And that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said two yards of Land time out of minde c. have used to have Common of pasture per totam contentam of the said place called the Downfield whereof c. for four Beasts called Rother Beasts and two Beasts called Horse-beasts and for sixty Sheep at certain times and seasons of the year as to the said two yards Lands with the appurtenances appertaining and that he put in the said two Oxen to use his Common c. And the Defendant did maintain his Avowry and traversed the Prescription upon which the parties were at issue and the Iury gave a special Verdict That before the taking one Richard Morse Father of the said John Morse and now Plaintiff whose Heir he is was seised of the said two yards Lands and that the said Richard Morse c. had the Common of Pasture for the said Cattel per totum contentum of the said Downfield in manner and form as before is alledged and so seised The said Richard Morse in the twentieth year of Queen Elizabeth demised to William Thomas and John Fisher divers parcels of the said two yards Lands to which c. viz. the four Buts of arable with the Common and intercommon to the same belonging for the term of four hundred years by force of which the said William Thomas and John Fisher entered and were possessed and the said Richard so seised dyed thereof seised by which the said two yards Lands in possession and Reversion descended to the said John Morse the now Plaintiff And if upon the whole matter the said John Morse now hath and at the time of the taking c. had Common of Pasture c. for four Beasts called Rother Beasts and two Beasts called Horse-beasts and for sixty Sheep c. as to the said two Acres of Land with the appurtenances belonging in Law or not the Iury prayed the advice of the Court. Note that this Plea began Trin. 5 Jacobi Rot. 1405. And upon Argument at the Bar and at the Bench it was resolved by the whole Court that it ought to be found against the Defendant who had traversed the Prescription For although that all the two years Lands had been demised for years yet the Prescription made by the Plaintiff is true for he is seised in his Demesn as of Fee of the Freehold of the two yards of Land to which c. And without question the Inheritance and Freehold of the Common after the years determined is appendant to the said two yard Lands and therefore clearly the issue is to be found against the Defendant But if he would take advantage of the matter in Law he ought confessing the Common to have pleaded the said Lease but when he traverseth the Prescription he cannot give the same in evidence 2. It was resolved That if the said Lease had been pleaded that the Common during the Lease for years is not suspended or discharged for each of them shall have Common Rateable and in such manner that the Land in which c. shall not be surcharged and if so small a parcel be demised which will not keep one Ox nor a Sheep then the whole Common shall remain with the Lessor so always as the Land in which be not surcharged 3. It was resolved That Common appendant unto Land is as much as to say Common for Cattel levant and couchant upon the Land in which c. So that by the severance of part of the Land to which c. so prejudice can come to the Ter-tenant in which c. 4. See the Case of in the fourth part of my Reports fo was affirmed for good Law and there is no difference when the Prescription is for Cattel levant and couchant and for a certain number of Cattel levant and couchant But when the Prescription is for Common appurtenant to Land without alledging that it is for Cattel levant and couchant there a certain number of the Cattel ought to be expressed which are intended by the Law to be levant and couchant XXXII Hill 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Hughes and Crowthers Case IN a Replevin between Robert Hughs Plaintiff and Richard Crowther Defendant which began Trin. 6 Jacobi Rot. 2220 The Case was that Charls Fox was seised of six acres of Meadow in Bedston in the County of Salop in Fee and 10 Octob. 9 Eliz. leased the same to Charls Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens for 60 years if the aforesaid Charls Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens should so long live and afterward Charls died and if the Lease determine by his death was the Question and it was adjudged That by his death the Lease was determined for the life of a man is meer collaterall unto the Estate for years otherwise it is if a