offences Therefore his sentence was That his Name should be put out of the Roll and thrust over the Bar and committed to the Fleet Which was executed accordingly 20 H. 6. 37. 41. E. 3. 1. Which Cases prove the same Iames and Thoroughgood against Collins IAmes and Thoroughgood brought Trespass against Collins And the Case was this A man makes his Testament and gives to 5 men their heirs and assigns certain Houses in Fleet-street c. All of them to have part and part alike and the one to have as much as the other And whether the Defendants were Iointtenants or tenants in Common was the Question and it was adjudged and resolved that they were Tenants in Common And the same Case in 2. 3 Phil. Mary in Bendlows Reports is adjudged so And also in Lucan and Locks Case in the Kings Bench It was afterwards remembred and agreed to be good Law Ratcliff Case Advise to two and his Heirs in Ioynt-tenency by the whole Court against the opinion of Audley It was said by the Court that an Officer of the Court ought to be answered in any action de die in diem Quod nota c. Beguall against Owen BEguall brought a Writ of Partition against Owen before the Iustices of Assise at the grand Sessions in Anglesey And the Defendant pleaded the general issue The Plaintiff prefers a Bill in English and says that Owen is Tenant in Common with him and that divers of his VVitnesses which can prove his Title are so aged that they cannot come to the Sessions and desires a Commission to examine the Witnesses concerning the Title in perpetuam rei memoriam And Henden moved for a Prohibition For that that Cause would be dangerous for the Subject that such Testimonies taken in his absence should be for tryal of his Title Secondly That that examination before the Tryal is against the Statute of 26 H. 8. And although they have it in Chancery yet it is not so here But it was denied by the Court For there was never seen such a President Of a Prohibition to a grand Sessions And by Yelverton They have it in Chancery and if it be not prescribed in what manner they shall have it it should be as in the Chancery Hutton That Commission is not prejudicial to the Subject although a Prohibition be grantable For such Testimonies are not used but after the Witnesses are dead And a man cannot preserve them alive and perchance his Title rests upon their Testimonies Iane Heeles Case IAne Hee le Administratrix of her Husband brought an action of Debt upon an Obligation made to her Husband the Testator The Defendant pleads a Recovery by the Testator upon the same Obligation and that he was taken in execution and that the Sheriff suffered him voluntarily to escape The Plaintiff replies Null tiel Record of the Recovery Vpon which there is a demurrer Davenport That the Iudgement was but a conveyance to their matter in Bar and it ought not to be traversed But it was said by the whole Court That the Iudgement in it self is a good bar if it be not reversed 6 Rep. 45. Higgins case The execution upon that is not but a consequence upon the Iudgement And without the Iudgement Escape is not material for to make the traverse good And so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Issues If the King by his Letters Patents grant to the Corporation all Issues within any places The issue that the Corporation it self shall forfeit shall be excepted by intendment of law For otherwise it would be a defrauding of Iustice For then the Corporation would never appear Which note in the Case of Dean and Chapter of Ely Provender against Wood. PRovender brought an action upon the case against Wood For that the Defendant assumed to the Father of the Plaintiff upon a mariage to be solemnised betwéen the Plaintiff and the Daughter of the Defendant to pay him 20 l. And it was agreed by Richardson and Yelverton nullo contradicent That the action well lies for the same And the party to whom the benefit of a promise accrews may bring his action Mrs. Rowes Case MIstris Rowe was arrested by a capias corpus ad satisfaciendum by a Bayliff in Middlesex within the Bars in Holborn which is within the liberty of London And Hitcham the Kings Sergeant prayed a Supersedeas For that that the arrest was false And the Court agreed that a Supersedeas cannot be granted For a Supersedeas it cannot be alleged Executio erronice emanavit but there the Execution is well granted And if it be returned by the Sheriff generally It ought to be intended well served although that the Affidavit be made to the contrary But in this case a Corpus cum causa shall be granted Booth against Franklin BOoth Farmor of a portion of Tithes for 5 years without Deed demises a Farm which he had in the same Parish to Franklin for years and afterwards he libells against him for tithe of that Farm And Franklin said he was not Farmour And Henden prays a Prohibition for that First That the Lease for Tithes is without Deed but he may be discharged of his own Tithes without Deed As was adjudged before in this Court Secondly the Lessee is not to pay tithes for that Farm For although the Parson makes a Lease of the Glebe for years he paid tithes But if a Layman who had the impropriation leases the Glebe the Lessee does not pay tithes But the Court denied the case of the lease of the Parsonage impropriate And said that the case of Perkins and Hinde was adjudged to the contrary in that very point And also if he purchase other lands in the Parish which are discharged of tithes in his hands and he demises them yet the Lessee pays him tithes And the opinion of the Court was If one contract with the Parson for discharge of the Tithes of his lands for years and demises his lands to another yet he shall not have tithes but the discharge runs with the land But if one take a lease of his Tithes by deed and makes a demise of his land he has tithes of the Lessee And the direction was that the Lessee of the Farm ought to shew expresly in the Ecclesiastical Court that the Farmour had not a Lesse by Deed and a Prohibition was granted And it shall be admitted that the words of the libell being Firmator conductor occupator was good Ralph Andrews against Bird. ANdrews brought an action upon the Case against Bird and declares that Bird sued a Trespass in this Court against him and upon not guilty pleaded the issue betwéen the aforesaid Ralph Andrews and Robert Bird was tryed at the Assises c. And that there Andrews shew'd in evidence a Deed of feoffment concerning his Title and the verdict passed for Andrews And afterwards Bird spoke these words scilicet That Andrews procured the Deed to be forged And upon not guilty pleaded it
the Issue Ganfords Case ONe Ganford was bound in an Obligation of 200 l. to Char. Rogers to pay him 100 l. But that was in trust to the use of Mary Watkins during her life and after to George Powell Powell cannot release that bond neither in Law nor Equity during the life of the Wife For then it destroys the use to the Wife As it was agreed But if it was to her benefit solely The Release is good in Equity Woolmerstons Case ONe libells against Woolmerston for the herbage of young Cattel â—…cil for a penny for every one And Hitcham moved for a Prohibition And said that he ought not to have Tithes If they are young Beasts brought up for the Cart or Plough And so it hath been adjudged As if a Parson prescribe to have Tithes for hedgeing stuff he cannot Because that he preserves the Land out of which he had Tithes And then a Parson libells for Tithes of an Orchard for that that it was a young Orchard And the Custome of the place was to pay 4 d. for an Orchard Hitcham said There is not any such difference between old and new Orchards For if the Custome be that he shall pay 4 d. for every Orchard It will reach to the new Orchard And then he libells for a Harth-penny for the Wood burnt in his House Hutton said the Harth-penny c. is more doubtfull For it is a Custome in the North parts to give an Harth-penny for Estovers burnt For which he prescribes to be free of every thing which comes to the Fire And in some parts by the Custome they had pasturage for the Tenth Beast or the tenth part of the Gains which is barrain for the time But he and Yelverton who only were present That no Tithes are due for them without Custome Hitcham they also will have Tithes for a thing before it comes to perfection which would be tithable afterwards But I agrée If he sells them before they come to perfection then the Parson will have tithes But by Hutton and Yelverton There may be a Custom to have every year a penny for them Sed adjournatur c. Viner against Eaton VIner against Eaton Where a Sute was betwéen them in the Spritual Court for striking in the Church which by the second branch of the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 4. It is excommunication ipso facto By which he surmised him incidisse in poenam excommunicationis And being granted if c. And Ashley shew'd cause why it should not issue viz. There ought to be a Declaration in the Christian Court of the Excommunication before any may prohibit him the Church Richardson said That their procéedings are not contrary to the Statute But stood with the Statute And it was said by Yelverton It is seen that there ought to be a Declaration in the Spiritual Court But the difference is where it is officium Judicii or ad instantiam partis they will give costs which ought not to be Hutton and Richardson If the party will not follow it none will take notice of it And they proceed to give costs Then a Hrohibition may be granted And if he be a Minister he ought to be suspended for an offence against that Statute And it ought to be first declared and so to excommunication And that cannot be pleaded if it be not under Seal Dyer 275. And after all these were agreed by the Court and no Prohibition was granted Fox against Vaughan and Hall SIr Charles Fox was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Sir George Vaughan and Iacob Hall for taking of his Beasts in Rustock The Defendant was known as Bayliff of Tho. Vaughan at the day quod William Vaughan was seised of the place quo c. And being seised the 9th of Maii 10 Iac. by Indenture granted to Thomas Vaughan a Rent of twenty Nobles per annum out of the place in quo c. to commence after the death of Anne Vaugham for life payable at the Feasts of St. Michael and the Annunciation And if the Rent be in Arrear at any day of payment or fourteen daies after the demand at a place out of the Land scil his Capital Messuage in Orleton Then it should be lawfull for him to distrein And he shews that twenty Marks were in arrear And that 22 Iac. 22 Octob. He demands it at Orleton c. And the Plea in Bar was That the Grantor was not compos mentis at the time Vpon which Issue was taken But it appeared upon the evidence that at the time of the Grant Gaudebat lucido intervallo Whereupon it was found for the Defendant And Sergeant Barkley moved in arrest of Iudgement For that the Demand appears to be after the 14 daies And he took a difference where the Demand ought to be made upon the Land But there it may be demanded at any time And the Distress it self is a Demand As it was adjudged 20 Iac. in Skinners Case But otherwise it ought to be out of the Land Henden objected because the Issue was joyned That cannot be shewed Richardson Although there was Issue joyned Yet it appears that you cannot distreyn without demand if there be not actual demand of the Distress alleged It is illegal And for the matter he cited Maunds Case 7 Rep. 28. And he doubted if such a difference would hold Berkley This difference was taken by me before cited But lecto recordo the Demand is not ex tunc petito But if it be in arrear and required at the Capital Messuage upon which he demanded it does not refer to any place Richardson If there be a nomine poenae then it ought to be demanded strictly at a day And when it is to be demanded upon the Land it may be at any time For that that Littleton sayes That a Tenant is intended alwaies present upon the Land But when the Demand is to be made at an other day it is only to give notice and so it is demandable upon the Land Hutton by that exposition if he does not hit the demand upon the day he shall lose his Rent Richardson He had lost his Distress by that day only but not his Rent For if he demand it after upon the Land he may have an Assise Hutton you would make that partly a Rent-seck and partly a Rent-charge Harvey If the Rent be not gone but that he may have an assise Richardson It is a Rent-charge generally by the clause of the distress And for that he may have an Assise which is a remedy for a Rent-charge as well as a Distress Hutton If you may make it a Rent-seck you have lost the Rent-charge for ever If a Grantee of a Rent-charge or Rent-seck brought an annuity Richardson If he proceed to Declaration he had lost the Rent-charge Et adjournatur Note It was said if one comming upon an Attachment in any Court And the other does not put in Interogatories against him He shall be dimissed with costs and may
appear gratis if he will Warner against Barret ELizabeth Warner libells for a Legacy in the Spiritual Court against one Barret who moves for a Prohibition Because he had there pleaded plene administ and proved that by one Witness and they would not allow it Richardson before the Statute of E. 6. The proper Sute for Tithes was there and they allow one Witness to prove payment a Prohibition shall be granted And he put Morris Eatons Case in the Bishop of Winchesters Case Where it was ruled if the Spiritual Court will not allow that plea which is good in our Law a Prohibition shall be granted as in Case of Tithes And he said that the Case of a Legacy is all one Crook When one comes to discharge a thing by due matter of Law and proves it by one Witness If it be not allowed no Prohibition shall be granted there Richardson Our Case is proof of plene Administ pleaded which goes in discharge But if there be enough pleaded which goes in discharge and proves that by one Witness and not allowed A Prohibition shall be granted Hutton said that properly for a Legacy the sute is in the Ecclesiastical Court although they may sue in the Chancery for it yet the proper Court is the Ecclesiastical Court And they said they used to allow one Witness with other good circumstantial proofs If they be not in some criminal Causes where of necessity there must be two Witnesses In one Hawkins Case Farm or of a Propriation libells for Tithes of Lambs for seven years And there he proved payment by one Witness and a Prohibition was granted for not allowance Yelverton There may be a difference where the Sute is meerly Ecclesiasticall for a sum of mony as for a Legacy there the payment of the legacy is of the nature of the thing And the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction of the proof and matter But if one gives a legacy of 20 Oxen And the other pleads payment of as much mony in satisfaction there they cannot proceed but upon Common law For that that the legacy is altered And if a proof of one Witness is not accepted a Prohibition shall be granted For now it is a legal Tryall 35 H. 6 If the principal is proper for their Court the accessory is of the same nature Also the Sute is commenced for a Legacy and the other pleads plene administ There they proceed upon the Common law For they sometimes take that for Assets which our Law does not take It was adjudged in the Kings Bench that a proof by one Witness of a Release of a Legacy was disallowed a Prohibition shall be granted Crook In this Case a proof of setting out of Tithes by one Witness a Prohibition shall be granted Hawkeridge's Case IT was agréed by all in Hawkeridge's Case That in a forcible entry or Trespass brought against one If the Defendant is found guilty by verdict and before Iudgement the Plaintiff releases to him Because that by that the Plaintiff is barred The King is also barred of his Fine Falkners Case ATthow Sergeant said That if these words were wanting in a Déed In cujus rei Testimon That the Déed is not good And he said that all Covenants Grants and Agréements which came after those words in a Déed are not of force nor shall be pleaded as parcell of the Déed It was observed by the Court That the Wife of a Duke Earl or Baron in all writings they shall be named Ladies But the Wives of Knights shall be named Dames And it was likewise observed that if a Wife of a Duke Earl or Baron takes a new Husband of a more base degrée That she loses her name of Dame or Lady and shall be named in every Writ according to the degrée of her Husband As it happened in the Case of the Lady Johnsons Case IT was said if a Parson leases his Rectory for years or parcel of his Glebe reserving a Rent and dies his Successor accepts she Rent That acceptance does not make the Lease good Because by his death the Franktenement is in abeyance and in no Man And also a Parson cannot discontinue And by consequence That that he did without Livery is determined by his death And it is not like to the Case of an Abbot Prior or Tenent in tayl Joyce Norton and Thomas Ducket against Harmer IOyce Norton and Thomas Ducket Plaintiffs against George Harmer the Vicar of c. In a Prohibition the Libel was for Wood imployed in Hedging and for Fire-wood Issue was joyned that there was in the Parish a great quantity of Land inclosed And that they used to take Wood for Hedge-boot and Fire-boot and they were discharged of Tithes in consideration that he payed Tithes in kind of Hay and Corn c. And it was found for the Defendant Crowley moved That a Consultation cannot be granted for that that they ought to be acquitted of Tithes for those of Common right And for that although prescription was alleged it is nothing to the purpose Atthowe For Fire-wood it was proved that Tithes alwaies were paid Richardson There is no doubt but the discharge also ought to be by Custome and to be grounded upon modus decimandi Yelverton and Crook otherwise that it is not upon modus decimandi But by the Common law And the reason is for that that when a man is Owner of arable Land and he pay tithe-milk and Corn And for that they are discharged of things consumed in the House Which are to make Masters and Servants fit to manure the Land c. Richardson said It is seen that it shall alwaies be discharged in consideration it is alleged how a small consideration will serve Crook It is not modus decimandi but the discharge is for that that the Parson for them had a benefit for he had by them better means of Tithes Hutton If a man had an House of Husbandry and demises all the Lands but the House He shall pay tithes for them absumpt in the House Crook not No profit is made by them to the party but the Parson had a benefit by him And a day was given to search Presidents Bibble against Cunningham BIbble brought an Action upon the Case against Cunningham and declares That there was a Communication between him and the Defendant of the sale of a Banck and an acre of Land And that in consideration thereof and that the Plaintiff would assure and deliver to the Defendant possession of all the Banck assoon as he could and that at all times upon request to be made to the Plaintiff by the Defendant the Plaintiff would become bound in a Statute Merchant to make the Assurance to the Defendant The Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 72 l. at the end of 3 years from Michaelmas next ensuing And that in the mean time for the forbearance he would give after 8 l. in the 100 l. and that he became bound in a Statute Merchant for the
to be done every such assurance as the Council of the Obligee should devise when he should be thereunto required And it was shewn by Ward That the Obligee made such a request scil That the Obligor and his wife should levy a Fine If that Request were sufficient was the Question Hutton I think that the Request is not sufficient Because it is not pursuant according to the Obligation Richardson I think although the request be void for the wife and that she is not bound to make an assurance Yet the Obligor is bound to do it For against him the Request is good enough Thompson against Thompson IT was said by Hutton In debt against Executors if the Plaintiff had Iudgement against the Defendant and sued a levare fac de bonis Testatoris If the Sheriff upon that return a Devastavit the better form is upon that to award a scire fac against the Executor before that a fieri fac shall issue of their own goods For that writ of Execution is warranted by the first Iudgement which was but of the Goods of the deceased But now if there be issued a fieri fac de bonis testat si habuerint et si devastaverint de bonis propriis Then I will agree that upon that shall issue a Capias against the Executors ad satisfacieudum Dixson and his Wife against Blyth IN this Case a Question was demanded by Atthowe If a man seised in right of his wife leases for life the Remainder over in Fee And afterwards he and his wife recover the same Land in a Writ of Entry in the post against the Lessee for life If the Wife by that shall be remitted Hutton seemed that she shall be remitted As well as where a Feoffment is made to Baron and Feme For that Recovery countervails a Feoffment and no laches shall be adjudged in the Wife For the purchase of the Writ shall be adjudged the Act of the Husband only and not the Act of the Wife But it is good to be advised of that for peradventure she shall be estopped by the Record Bromefields Case IT was agreed by all the Iustices That if Tenant in tayl by Indenture upon consideration of mariage covenant with an other that certain persons should be seised to his use for term of his life and after his decease to the use of his Son and Heir apparent That by that Covenant there is not any use changed unless only during the life of Tenant in tayl Nortons Case before FInch Recorder said de comuni jure for Estovers burnt in an house tithes ought not to be paid by the Common law there was not any tithes paid for wood And although the Statute of 25 E. 3. gives a prohibition for timber yet Underwoods were discharged of tithes See Doctor and Student 171. It is express that Estovers are not tithable because they are not renewing every year and it is parcel of the Inheritance for to destroy all the underwoods is waste And there is another case put where tithes of wood had not by the custom been paid neither ought they to be paid in law or conscience But that is not to be intended the conscience of every particular man Dawleys Case was resolved for the Wilde of Sussex and Michaelmas 13 Iac. Banc. Roy. in the case of Porter and Dike for the Wilde of Kent of the same prescription resolved to he good And so is the common experience that a whole County may prescribe so And the reason is for that that by the Common Law it was not due but by the consideration of Winchelsey Linwood 104. It was ordained to be paid For then the prelates imputed a great pestilence that then was for the negligence of paying tithes and appointed tithes of wood And the Commons were desirous to have the Statute of silva c. otherwise explained than the Clergy declares it For they say that they ought not to pay tithes of any wood that is of the growth of 10 years Hutton Wood is tithable in their nature and then there may be a custom to discharge them And the case of Harthpenny cannot be answered for if he sues for the penny a prohibition shall not be granted quod concessum fuit Crook and Yelverton But of things not tithable tithes of them cannot be sued without alleging a custom Crooke It is known that Harthpenny is good by prescription This Case is when there is not land belonging to the house so that the Parson is not answered for his tithes another way But when there are ten servants kept for the maintaining it Then by the Law of the land it appears that tithe ought not to be paid although custom had been alleged it is nothing to the purpose as if a custom is alleged to pay 4 d. for every acre in discharge of tithes and the verdict finds 3 d. no consultation shall be granted And so for wood to fence the ground or dry cattel to manure the ground Although custom be alleged there in discharge of it and found against the party yet no consultation shall be granted Hutton the herbage of barren Cattel is tithable because there is a custom which discharges those which are for the Cart. And he said that the Custom only makes that legem terrae And he cited Doctor Graunts Case He libels for tithe of an house and the party brought a prohibition and alleged modus decimandi c. And it was alleged in arrest of Iudgement as houses were not tithable de communi jure and yet a consultation was granted And there Cook put this case which I do not remember in the printed book that one libelled for tithes of trees and custom alleged and there was found no such custom in discharge yet it was ruled that no custom was granted Browne against Hancocke BRowne brought an action upon the case upon an assumpsit against Hancocke and declares that whereas the 10. of May 16 Iac. there were some controversies between Charls Nichols and the Brother of the Defendant concerning arrerages of rent and it was desired that Nichols would part with his term And 19 l. and a cloak and a gelding were offered to the lessee for his term which he refused Afterwards the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would labour with Charles Nichols to take the offer and make an end between them Assumed that whatsoever the Plaintiff undertook for the Defendant he would perform and also save him harmlesse for any thing that he should doe in that businesse and then he said that he procured Charles Nichols to assign his term and to accept the cloak and gelding which the Defendant did not perform and allso that the Plaintiff covenanted with Charles Nichols to perform the agreement and obliged himself to that in 50 l. And that afterwards Charles Nichols filed a bill of debt for the money whereupon he compelled him to pay it and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and
case against Iohn Culpepper and Anne his wife for an Assumpsit made by Anne dum sola fuit And afterwards the Assumpsion is found by verdict And Davenport moved in arrest of Iudgement for that that there was not a sufficient consideration for whereas the wife was Administratrix to Goddard her first husband who was indebted to the Plaintiff for so the Plaintiff declared and that he intended to sue the wife as Administratrix and that the wife requested him that two might surveigh the account between her husband and the Plaintiff to which the Plaintiff assented and that two surveighed it accordingly when it appeared that the debt was due and that then the fore-acknowledgement of her husband to be so indebted In consideration of the premises assumed to pay the debt part at Michaelmas and the other part at a convenient time after But there is noe consideration to make her chargeable de bonis propriis as their purpose is to make her by their Declaration against her and not as Administratrix For it is not mentioned that in consideration that she had assetts or that the Plaintiff would forbear to sue her or otherwise c. So that the debt of her husband by the Assumpsit cannot be changed to her own debt And it is not like Banes case Co. Re. 9. 94. For there the Plaintiff was to forbear to sue him and for that assets is not requisite The like is Beeches case 15 Eliz. in that Court reported New Entries fol. 2. Richardson of the same opinion because there is not any consideration nought but the assent of the wise to the accompt which will hardly charge her de bonis propriis See Co. lib. 6 41. Pasch 3. Car. Com Banc. Thomas Ux. against Thomas Newark THomas and his wife brought Trespass against Tho. Newark for beating of the wife and taking of the goods of the husband only ad damnum ipsorum and afterwards the matter was found by verdict and it was moved that the Declaration was nought for the wife cannot joyn for a Trespass done to the husband alone but in a trespass done to the wife alone the husband ought to joyn and for that the Court awarded quod quereâ—… nil capiat per bill But it was said by Crook and Yelverton if baâ—…on and feme bring trespass for the beating the wife the husband may declare for a trespass done to him ad damnum ipsius c. But it was said by Hutton if two joyn in trespass for taking goods whereof they were joyntly possest one of them in an action cannot declare for taking of the goods of him alone Which was agreed by Crook c. Blackhall against Thursby ONe Blackhall petitions in the Court of Requests to compel Thursby Lord of the Mannor to admit him to a Copyhold surrendred to his use which he refused before to doe And also forbad one to whom the Copyhold was demised by Blackhall to pay him any rent Vpon which it was decreed that Thursby should admit him to a Messuage and 17 acres whereas the Copy was of a Messuage and 3 acres and also that Thursby should set forth the bounds of the Copyhold which he had defaced and removed and that he pay the rent Hitcham moved for a prohibition for he said it was more just for a Court of Equity to compel a Lord to admit his Copyholder for before admittance he cannot have an action and he has no remedy at the Common-law And so if a Copyholder removes or defaces the bounds of the Copyhold it is proper for such a Court to design them To which the Court agréed but they would not compell him to admit him to the Messuage and 17 acres where the Copy is but of thrée acres which would be unjust unless that the 3 would comprehend the other 14. But parcel or not parcel of Copyhold belongs to the Common-law to try But the Court denied the prohibition for that cause for the Iustices said that that admittance to 14 acres does not bind the title but it sets at liberty as to that But if they had decreed that he should be admitted and also enjoy it to him and his heirs then the Decree had been unjust and a prohibition for that But for part of the Decree which touch'd the rent It was agreed by the Court if Thursby receive the rents the decree was just that he should pay it but if he did not receive the rents nor take the profits but only forbad the Tenant to pay the rent and he would save him harmless Then if it was decreed that he should pay the rent a prohibition to that part should be granted And Harvey Iustice in that case said That he knew it to be adjudg'd that a surrender with the appurtenances would pass land And of a Messuage and 3 acres would pass more acres if divers Copies successively have been so And upon questioning of Blackhall by the Chief Iustice for saying that after there was a Decree in the Court of Equity an Order of the Common-bench could not supersede the Execution of it And Iustice Yelverton declared That when he was in the circuit at York a poor man who sued before him in forma pauperis was arrested by process from the Council of York And that upon notice of it he commanded a writ of privilege to be made for him but the Officer of the Council would not obey it upon which he claps in a Habeas Corpus returnable at a certain hour and the Officer came without the body and refused to deliver the prisoner and said that he had not power to controll the process of the Council And upon that he set a fine upon him of 40 l. and his Act was approv'd on by the whole Court. For every one that sues before the Assize ought to have free egress and regress and staying while his business was ended And afterwards the Lord President said to Yelverton that he would complain to the King and Privy Council of him for that he had transgressed his authority and power And the Court said that they would justifie it c. Smith against Doctor Clay HEnden moved for Doctor Clay Viccar of Hallifax that a prohibition might be granted to the High Commissioners of York For that that these Articles by one Smith were preferred against him c. First that he read the holy Bible in an irreverent and undecent manner to the scandal of the whole Congregation Secondly that he did not doe his duty in preaching but against his Oath and the Ecclesiastical Canon had neglected for sundry mornings to preach Thirdly that he took the Cups and other Vessels of the Church consecrated to holy use and employed them in his own house and put barm in the Cups that they were so polluted that the communicants of the Parish were loath to drink out of them Fourthly that he did not observe the last fast proclaimed upon the Wednesday but on the Thursday because it was an Holyday
to make it actually void For if the words are pursued strictly then it shall be void immediately against the Bishop himself Then the Successor in lieu of a benefit shall take an advantage of the Statute For he cannot make Leases but of things usually demised 32 Eliz. Sale and Sale against the Bishop of Coventry in a Quare impedit It was adjudged That a Quare impedit well lies by an Executor for disturbance made to the Testator And also that a Lease for years is good notwithstanding the Statute The Statute does not intend the benefit of the Lessee but of the Successor himself And the Successor had his Election to accept the Rent or the Land And if it should be voyd his Election is gone Tallengers and Dentons Case 4. Jac. A Lease is made by the Bishop of Carlisle of the Tithes which is out of the Statute And there it is void against the Successor For that that he hath no remedy for the Rent reserved upon it And that point is so adjudged upon the Statute of the 13 Eliz. Walters Case before resolved that a Lease made by Dean and Chapter not warranted by the Statute is but voydable against the Successor Pas 6 Iac. rot 1041. Wheeler and Danbies Case Robert Bishop of Glocester 30 Eliz. makes a Lease to Iasper habendum a die datus to him for life the remainder to William rendring the ancient Rent The first Lessee dies the Successor having notice of it and that divers Rents were behinde commanded his Bayliff that he should receive the Rents The Bayliff enters them and receives Rent of that Lessee the Bishop having notice of it And these points were resolved First the Iury finding a Lease a die datus might be intended good for that the Entry was made after the day yet the Iury finding a thing impossible does not conclude the Iudges Secondly that a Lease in remainder is not warranted by the Statute 1 Eliz. Thirdly that the Lease was but voydable by the Successor for the Statute was made for the benefit of the Successor but the grand Question was of the manner of acceptance and resolved Fourthly that the acceptance binds the Bishop and the Authority given to the Bayliff and also his receipt For it differs where the Bayliff of his own accord receives Rent Dyer And they also say that that was to perfect an estate setled And it differs from an Attournment which is to perfect an estate setled For there notice is requisite c. Gammons Case again HEndon said that a Scire facias does not lie upon that record because an action of debt well lies For no president can be shewn that a Iudgement given in an inferiour Court may be executed so For first that Court shall not make an Instrument to execute Iudgement given in another Court It is seen that an Attaint lies of false Iudgement given in an inferiour Court Take the Case in 14 H. 4.4 And so if issue be joyned in an inferiour Court without custom It shall not be removed to be tryed so And so it is our Case c. Secondly the Statutes do not give them power viz. 26 H. 8. 34 H. 8. makes the matter clear that it cannot be Error in an Assize before the Iustices of Assize will not lye in this Court. For Iudges Itinerant are superior And those Iudges are appointed by Act of Parliament and so the Iudges also in Wales are by Act of Parliament And having power a Oyer et terminer It is not found that after Iudgement a Certiorari had been received to remove the Record out of an Inferiour Court And the mischief would be if Iudgement should be given for 20. l. it should be executory through all the Realm where they have but a special Iurisdiction And also the tenor of the Record is only removed and execution cannot be out of the tenor of the Record Dyer 369. Plow 52. Richardson The question is whether when the Record is so removed whether it shall be idle If Iudgement be given in an Inferiour Court which holds Plea by prescription or by grant and removed by Writ of Error if the Iudgement be affirmed we may award Execution 16 Iac. There is an express president of a Iudgement in an Inferiour Court and a Scire facias is granted so And also a Scire facias is granted in lieu of an action of debt For by the Common Law he might not have a Scire facias after the year but an action of debt And by the Common Law debt lies in that Case Harvey and Crook Iustices said that Court shall not be an Instrument to execute Iudgement in an inferiour Court which they cannot And also the Land of the Defendant shall be lyable to an execution in any place in England where before only the Land within the place was lyable And also the purchaser could never finde out what executions might be upon the Land Richardson said that the mischief would be great on both sides For otherwise what Iudgement was given The Defendant would remove his goods out of the Iurisdiction of the Court and then the Plaintiff had no remedy but by new original And Crook Iustice If a man brings an action in a Court he ought to examine what the end of that will be For it is a president a man ought to respect things in their end For it is his own folly to commence an action where he cannot have execution For that he may commence his action and have execution in any place in England And although that a forrain Plea in an Inferiour Court may be tryed so yet it is by Act of Parliament viz. 6 E. 1. 12. which proves by the Common Law there was no remedy Tithes of Pidgeons and Acorns A Parson Libels in the Spiritual Court for Tithes of Pidgeons and Acorns And the Defendant prayed a prohibition Because the Pidgeons were spent in his own house and the Acorns dropt from the Tree and his Hogs eat them And it was said by the Court Acorns are Tithable 11 Rep. 49. But then they ought to be gathered and also sold And a prohibition was clearly granted Thomas Wilcocks Case MOre of the Case of the Vniversity of Oxford Thomas Wilcocks Mr. of Arts in St. Mary Hall in Oxford was sued in the Chancellors Court there by Anne wife of Ralph Bradwell and Christian her daughter For calling the wife Bawd and old Bawd and the daughter Whor. and scurvey pockey-faced whore And they procured two Sentences against Wilcocks and upon them he had two prohibitions And Davenport moved for a Procedendo for that that by their Charter which was confirmed by Parliament The Chancellor or his Deputy shall have Conusans of all causes personal where one of the parties is a Scholar And the Charter was shewed in Court which was to this purpose That they shall hold Pleas c. or Secundum morem Universitatis or Secundum legem terre And the custom was to proceed according to
stollen from him and that was sold in a Scriveners Shop Resolved that there was no change of the property For by intendment if a man had Drapery stollen from him he would not seck it there So if a man fells stollen Plate and sells it in the High street under his Cloak It does not change property And if a man sells a thing in a Silkmans Shop in London the Curtain being drawn That does not change the property And now to the principal Case Although he said that he was a Goldsmith and that that was his Shop It is not necessary to be intended that he used the Trade of a Goldsmith in it And that ought to be averred For every Shop is a Market overt for these Causes only which appertain to the same trade Williams against Bickerton VVIlliams brought an action upon the Case against Bickerton for saying He hath forsworn himself and I le teach him the price of an Oath for I will have his Ears cropt And it séemed that it lay For although it was not said at the beginning where it was that he forswore himself Yet by the circumstance it shews that he was in such a place for which it was punishable And M. 29 30 Eliz. Dantsleys Case Thou art a Pillary Knave remember that thou hast deserved the Pillary and the Action maintainable And the Plaintiff paid the Box for his Iudgement Bradyes against Johnson BRadye brought an Eject firm against Johnson and declared upon a Lease of Land habend a die dat Indentur praedict And does not speak of any Indenture before And for that the Declaration adjudged naught And so it was betwéen Bell and March. And this same term between Spark Where it was shewed quod concessit per eandem Indent Where he had not spoke of any Indenture before Lowen against Cocks IN Debt by Lowen against Cocks the Case was thus A man seised of an house in St. Edmonds Parish in Lumbard-street in London devises it to his wife for life the remainder to his Son George and if he dye without Issue then to Iohn and Thomas his Sons equally and to their Heirs The wife dyes George dyes without Issue l. and T. make a Lease for years rendring 5. l. to the one and 5. l. to the other l. devises the reversion to his wife and dyes and for that Rent the Action was brought by the Wife And the Question was if they shall be Ioynt or Tenants in Common For if joynt the devise of the Reversion is void And Secondly If by any Act which makes partition viz. the several Limitations of the rent to them If séemed to Hutton that they are Tenents in Common By reason of that word equally which in it self makes a Division In 33 Eliz. in Boucher against Marsh It was held that where a man devises Lands to three Children equally to be divided they are Tenents in Common And so it was 14 lac in case of Goods And it is clear as it is said If a Man devise 100 l. to two equally the Executors shall pay 50 l. to the one and 50 l. to the other For if that word equally does not make tenancy in Common it shall be all otherwise void And every word of a Will ought to be of some force And in these Cases the word divided was not the force of the matter but only equally And it was the Case of a Shepheard in the Courts of Wards Where a man devises that after the death of his Son all my woods shall remain equally to his Daughters and their Heirs of their bodies And it was there held by Dyer and Manwood that they were Tenents in Common If Parceners agrée to hold by That is sufficient partition And if the one Ioyntenant confirms to the other that does not give any thing but severs the Ioynture Harvey to the contrary First They are Ioint For Ioynture is the greatest equality for every one is seised by himself and the one hath as much of the profits as the other And so equal interest and equal benefit to the Survivor 6 E. 6. in Dyer A difference was taken between a Demise to two when it is said equally divided That they shall be Tenents in Common If equally to be divided they shall be joynt But it was never adjudged 17 Eliz. A man having 3 Sons devises Lands to them equally to be divided The Question was what estate they had For if the younger had not a fee they could not have an Estate equal with the eldest for he had a fee. Resolved that they shall have a fee-simple and also that they shall be Tenents in Common And held that to be divided and divided was all one And it was held also that the word divided makes the Tenancy in Common and not equally 2. As to that reserve of 50 l. to the one and 50 l. to the other clearly being a joynt Lease and a joynt reversion And the Rent as accessary to the reversion and shall not change the nature of it Yelverton They are Tenents in Common A Will shall be construed according to the intent of the Testator And exposition shall be made of the words to supply his intent Tomlins's Case IT was agreed by all That if one sojourn in the House of another and the House is broken in the night and the Stranger robbed in the House without being put in fear of his life In law He that robbed shall have his Clergy notwithstanding the Burglary For it is out of the Statute of 5 6 of E. 6. cap. 9. Dicksons Case AT Sergeants Inne in Chancery lane this Question was debated If a man steal Goods and the very Owner makes fresh sute to take the felon So that he waives the Goods and flies And before the Owner comes the Goods are seised as Goods waived and af-the Owner comes and challenges them Now if he shall have them or they shall be forfeited was the Question And it was held by Harvey and Crook That they are not at all forfeited for that the Owner had done his endeavour and pursued from village And that the Goods shall not be said to be waived but where it cannot be known to whom the property is Hutton Chief Iustice and Yellerton said That Goods waived shall be said those which are stollen and that the Felon being pursued for danger of apprehension waives and flies Now if they are seised before that the Owner comes the property is presently altered out of the Owner in the Lord although that he made fresh sute If that Sute was not within the view of the Felon allwaies But they all agreed if the Felon do as not flye but is apprehended with the Goods That then the Owner shall have his Goods without Question Or if the Owner comes and challenges the Goods before seisure and after the flight of the Felon Harvey said The Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. does not remedy any thing as to the restitution of the Goods stollen But upon
of the Demand cannot be made parcel of the Issue 31 Eliz. rot 1137. Com. Banc. Dennis Varneys Case There the Book was agreed If it be to be demanded generally it may be at any time if it be tunc petit otherwise For otherwise it would be a Rent-charge at one time and a Rent-seck at another And the Distress it self is the Demand As it is in Lucas Case If one be obliged to pay mony upon Demand The Action brought is a sufficient demand And Barkley Sergeant He shews in the Avowry that such a one was seised of 20 acres and grants a Rent out of them and others by the name of all his Lands in Rustock and Ollerton For that he said that Ollerton is not charged Because that it is not pleaded that he was seised of that But the whole Court on the contrary And that it is an usual manner of pleading And that it shall be intended that he was seised of Ollerton First the words are per scriptum c. he granted a Rent and then he pleads that per scriptum suum he gave a power to distreyn And then it shall be taken that it was not made by any other Deed and the Distress given by the second Deed shall not make the Rent a Rent-charge And he cited Buts Case Then if it be a Rent-seck and the Distress gives a nomine paenoe There ought to be an actual Demand and that upon the day as it appears by Maunds Case And Pilkintons Case 5 Rep. 5 Eliz. Dyer If it was a Rent-charge the Distress it self serves for a Demand As it was many times adjudged Secondly The words are If the Rent be in arrear any day of payment or 14 daies after The last instant of the 14th day is the legal time for demand of it And the words existent legitime petit ought to refer to the daies expressed immediately before As 39 H. 6. A man obliges that his Feoffees shall do such an Act si quisuerunt Those words shall have reference to the Feoffées And Dockwrays Case If a Man be obliged that his Children which he now hath so also existent Being words of the Present tence refer to the days now mentioned and otherwise there would be a great inconvenience For it cannot be intended the same tenant to be alwaies upon the Land Barrows Case 20 Eliz. A Feoffment upon Condition to re-enfeoff upon demand at such a place It cannot be demanded without notice to the Feossée For that that he shall not be compelled to be there alwaies expecting And the same inconvenience alwaies would follow If the demand should not be upon the day of payment by which c. Richardson If the Rent had béen granted out of 20 acres in Rustock and then he had granted by another Déed that he should destreyn in other Lands being in the same County or not and is the same That that is but a Rent-seck 10 Assise 21 Ass And the Distress is not but a penalty And if that Rent is granted by one Deed and the distress upon the Land by another Deed If it be not delivered at the same time then there shall be a Rent-charge and there shall be also a Rent-seck And when also it is said that ulterius he grants per scriptum suum and does not say praedict It shall be intended another Deed then without averment that it was delivered at the same time It shall be intended at another time But admit that it be a Rent-charge and that it issue out of Ollerton where the demand of it was Yet he ought to maintain that actually In Maunds Case The distress is a sufficient demand For it is not but to inable him to destreyn and that is where the demand is limitted generally But if a Rent be granted and if it be demanded of the person of the Gruntor he may destreyn Then there may be an actual demand that was adjudged As in the Court 15 Jac. Com. Banc. Iackson and Langfords Case and in one Armerys Case And in another upon the same point So if you will grant a Rent-charge demandable at a special and particular place If it was at another place than the Land charged Without doubt there ought to be an actual demand So if it be upon a special place from the Land charged or demanded for the distress ought to be pursued as the Grant is And that is upon such a demand But where it is restrained by the words of the Grant And the same Law is where you will limit the time of the demand If the Rent be granted payable at such a day and grants over that ad tunc being demanded there a legal and general demand will not serve But there ought to be an actual demand And also it is as much although not in express words for the sence and meaning carries it If it be arrear at such a day existent petit The demand ought to be at the day mentioned before If I be bound in Obligation the Condition to pay mony at such a day being demanded There ought to be a demand at the day of payment or there shall not be a forfeiture And now then there is not a demand at the time so no cause of distress And although the Verdict be found if it be collateral matter yet it will not help For when it appears upon the whole matter that there is not any Title to distreyn the Tryall will not help it And so Iudgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Hutton Harvy and Yelverton agreed That if it was a Rent-seck and the distress a penalty there ought to be an actuall demand at the time limited But in case of a Rent-charge although the demand is limited to be made upon parcell Yet they all held that a generall demand will serve And that shall be at any place at any time For Harvey said There is no oddes whether it is limited to be demanded generally or to be demanded upon Dale If it be material it ought to be observed in the one Case as well as in the other Stanleys Case IN one Stanleys Case in an Action of Battery Sir Thomas Crew moved for mitigating the dammages Where the Iudgement was given upon a non sum informatus and afterwards a Writ of enquiry of dammages But the Court said That in such Cases they never will alter the dammages And Crook said that he was once of Councel in an Action of Trespass pedibus ambulando in the Kings Bench in such a Case upon a Writ of enquiry of dammages 10 l. was given That he could never have a mitigation by the Court c. Outlary NOte it was said That an Outlary in the same term for error may be reversed in the Common Bench Or in any term if it be void upon any Statute As for want of Proclamations c. And an Outlary was reversed for that the Writ was praecipimus tibi where it should have been vobis to the Sheriffs of London
Gammons Case before IT was now moved again And the Court was of the same opinion For take the sale for a reasonable price and the Conclusion alike and by that the price appears And although he said 19 l. he might have found less Secondly the Request shewen in the end shall be referred to all the particular sums reservando singula singulis And Harvey said He was of Councel in the Kings Bench Where the Writ was pro diversis barrellis of Bear And in his Declaration he shews that at one day he delivered one and at an other day another And it was ruled that the Declaration well maintained the Writ Thornills Case A Parson libels for the tithes of young Cattel preserved for the Cart. And the Question was as before Whether in such Cases a Custome ought to be surmised And Crook Fitz-Herberts nat brev is That of right Tithes shall not be paid for such things Richardson In all such Cases the Parson ought not to have Tithes if there be not a Custome alleged by which the Parson had any thing or recompence or by which his other Tithe is better And he said that he had searched the Books and the Book of Entries And there is not any such Case but some surmise is made as for that that he had tithe of Corn in specie where the Land is inclosed And so the Corn better Hutton It ought to be tryed if the thing in his nature be tithable or if there be any usage to discharge it or not as the Cattel are in their nature titheable then you cannot prohibit it But the usage ought to be surmised so And it may be Law as the Parson had better tithes Harvey If a Libell be for tithes of Hedgeing and Fenceing there a surmise ought to be made to discharge that But when it is for tithes of Heyfars which in apparency ought to be spared by the Law of the Land Otherwise it is c. Richardson For the herbage of those Heyfars tithe is due by the Ecclesiasticall law And we never can take tithe of them without express custome or other recompence Harvey There was a Case 16 Jac. Com. Banc. A Parson sues for the herbage of Horses and the other alleged that he kept them for the carrying of Coals There he ought to surmise something to be discharged And if he allege that he kept them in his house for serving of Husbandry the other may allege that he kept them to carry Coals and the allegation is traversable Richardson There was a case where the question was A Husbandman keeps an Horse to ride up and down about his business whether he shall pay for the herbage of him And a prohibition in that case was granted But a surmise ought to be made Crook said that in the Kings Bench he had 20 times seen a prohibition granted in such cases without any surmise And a libel is for dry Cattel If it be alleged that they are kept for the Plough the other may allege that he keeps them to sell without that that he keeps them for the plough And before there is any profit of them it is not reason they should be tithable and the Parson shall have the benefit for them after And for hedging it is lex terrae that he shall pay no tithes Richardson It is lex terrae ne consuetudo loci facit legem terrae And if he had used to pay tithes for the Cattel or for hedging he ought not to pay that still If an ignorant man will pay tithes for those things and after upon a livell a prohibition is granted if the other does not allege a custom the prohibition shall stand or if they allege a custom which is found against him no consultation shall be granted And for a Garden penny the reason of that is apparent for otherwise tithes shall be paid in specie And so for Harth-penny if he had always paid it it ought to be paid Hutton If a man had an antient garden for which he paid a penny and that is inlarged of that inlargement tithes ought to be paid in specie Rowe and Dewbancks Case IN a prohibition for slanderous words Brampston shewed cause why a prohibition should not issue The words were That one Harvey and Rowe should report that Mary Marrian should say that Dewbanck and one Anne Rowe were together in such a ones house in an upper Room and that the bed there was tumbled And reported that she said a pox of all Whores and Bawds And that the Husband of Anne Rowe came to demand his wife at the house and they denyed her to be there And that after they were both seen to goe out of a Broomy field and that one should wish he had been in a tree to have seen what they did And he said that a prohibition shall not be granted for that these words may have dubious interpretations for they may be spoken in mirth or in heat as well as to defame But when other words are joyned with them they shall not be granted And these words so cannot be taken but that they were advisedly spoken to slander As in Ayliffs case before when it is added that he lay with such a woman a prohibition shall not be granted Richardson These things are requisite in every action forwords First That the parties of whom the words are spoken be certain Secondly that the words tend to slander By imputing a direct offence that should not be punishable there now there may be a great familiarity and no hurt done And he is not directly charged with any offence as it was in Ayliffes case wherefore it was ruled that a prohibition should issue Eaton against Ayliffe EAton libells against Ayliffe pretending that a seat that the other claimed always belonged to his house and sentence in the spiritual Court was given against Eaton and costs pro falso clamore And he appealed to the Arches and there when they were ready to affirm the sentence he prayed a prohibition And it was moved by Davenport that it might be granted and he cited one Treshams case 33 Eliz. Where in such a case a prohibition was granted after an appeal Richardson There is no cause for any prohibition but in respect of the costs Hutton said it was a double vexation and the party shall not have costs for that Hitcham said they came too late to have a prohibition for the costs Richardson That is not like to the probate of a Will where a thing may fall out tryable at the Common Law But there the principal was tryable at the Common Law for they had it as in right Hutton Seats in the generalty is in the power of the Ordinary to dispose It is the prescription which makes that not tryable at the Common Law And if prescription be made there and it is found that he shall pay costs Richardson All disturbances appertain also to them If it be not upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. But if
upon twenty matters Crook Admitting that all the offence was committed after the pardon yet you may suggest it to be before Henden and Bramston That so it was Pas 50 Eliz. In one Prat and Husseys Ease One that had a benefice took another but was not inducted Yet that was the irregularity upon which he was deprived and a prohibition was prayed upon the general pardon And it was concluded That if the libel contained that the irregularity was before any pardon and it appears also that it continued after yet a prohibition shall be granted Crook the offence is layed 1621 1622 1623 c. in one or every of them Now for a prohibition there are two clauses in our case Although it be that the offence was before and part after pardon yet we ought to grant a prohibition for that which was before is involved 5 Iac. Conveys case He and his wife after the death of Sir Blunt were sued before the high Commissioners for that that his wife committed Adultery with Sir Richard Blunt and he himself was the Pander And a prohibition was granted for two causes The one for that Adultery was not inquirable there the other because it was pardoned And although the word Adultery be in their Commission yet that does not give them Iurisdiction They cannot meddle with Alimony was one Condiths case upon the Canons in 1 Iac. Which gives to the Parson jurisdiction to appoint the Clark of the Church There was a custom there that the Parish should appoint it and several Clarks being appointed they set several Psalmes in the Church to the disturbance of it And a prohibition was granted to the high Commissioners for medling with it Richardson objected divers things with much earnestness but so apparently contrary to Law that I have omitted it Yelverton said she ought not to put in security to obey the sentence For if it be averred that all was before the pardon then there was no cause of sentence and if no sentence then the prohibition ought to be for all Crook The sentence is to pay a fine and to make submission and to be imprisoned until she found security to obey the sentence That is void Richardson said That they had not any means to make the party to pay the fine and if she would pay it presently she might be discharged But by the other Iustices the High Commissioners cannot demand the sine But they may Estreat it into the Exchequer At another day it was said Sir Wil. Chamcer before the high Commissioners was by sentence fined and imprisoned and by the opinion of all the Iudges of England They may proceed by fine and imprisonment and his case was for Adultery Hutton 44 Eliz. It was resolved that they cannot impose a fine but for Heresies Schisms and Errours c. Richardson The words of the Statute are that the high Commissioners may proceed according to the tenour and effect of the Letters Patents of the King Yelverton The sentence is the fine and the penance and there is the end of the sentence and when it is said she shall be imprisoned until c. That is no part of the sentence If it was that she should pay a fine do pennance and should be imprisoned three months Then all should be the Sentence Richardson said that they may procéed against other things than Heresies and Schismes upon that Statute de primo For there are the words Abuses Contempts Offences and Enormities Hutton The words in that Statute shall have exposition according to the meaning of the first intent It was that they had Authority to punish the Bishops and Prelates for Errors and Schisms and the change of Religion For that that they did not regard the power of the Ordinary But they had incroached many other things And if those words include any thing they might punish anything whereof the Gcclesiastical Court had Authority As working upon Saints daies But there was a Case of one that was sentenced there for such a Cause And the Fine estreated And upon Argument in the Exchequer their proceedings adjudged void Richardson The word Enormity contains a thing of lesser nature For quicquid est contra regulam et normam Juris is Enormity And therefore in Trespass quare clausum fregit et alia enormia ei intulit But Yelverton The word ought to be intended of a grand offence For so in common acceptance it imports Harvey The Fine being pardoned all is pardoned Richardson said that they should procéed by excommunication and not by fine and imprisonment No more at this time was said in this Case Humlocks Case A Man makes a Lease for 21 years reserving 20 l. rent per annum payable at two daies and if he fayl of payment that it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to enter At the day of payment the Lessor came and demanded the Rent by these words I demand my half years rent And it was moved by Atthowe If that demand was sufficient for the Lessor Hutton and Yelverton seemed that it was sufficient For the thing that he demanded is enough certain and known Crook on the contrary For although it appears by the circumstances how much of the Rent he demanded Yet the words are not so plain as they ought to be For if a man makes a Lease for years reserving such a Rent as the antient Farmor was wont to pay from time to time to this day When the Lessor comes upon the Land and says to the Lessee Pay me my Rent that is not sufficient or good because it is not certain in Terms And yet it appears by the circumstances And when a man pleads a demand He shall shew the Lease and the Rent reserved and shall say That he demanded redditum praedictum And as I remember it was adjudged very lately That such a Demand shall be certain Hutton I hold a difference between such things which lye in notice of the person to whom the demand is made and where not For in a praecipe quod reddat if there be a recovery by default and the Tenant brings a desceit and by examination of the Summoners it appears That they came to the Land and summoned him in the Land but they do not shew to him at what day he ought to appear So the Lessee knows well enough that the Rent ought to be paid for it is certain by the Lease to which he is party and privy But Crook said in the Case that Hutton put If the Summoners had read the Writ upon the Land and had summoned him to appear at a day comprised in the Writ It had been certain enough And so in this Case if he had read the Indenture upon the Land and after demanded the Rent as afore it had been Without question it appears to me it should be good enough And so in our Case also Leech against Watkins IN Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was that if the Obligor and his Heirs did or suffered
three things were moved in arrest of Iudgement which Serjeant Barkely answered There was a covenant to enter into an obligation at Michaelmas and the Plaintiff shews that he entred before So he does not perform the consideration which he conceived to be a good performance For if a man be bound to doe an act or pay money at Michaelmas a payment before is good H. 7. 17. 2. pasc It is shewn that an action of Covenant was brought after And they say that upon his shewing covenant does not lie but debt but he said that the Plaintiff had his election here to have debt or covenant As in the Lord Cromwels case the words covenanted provided and agreed give advantage of a condition or covenant If a covenant had been sor 30 l. then debt only lyes But here it is to perform an agreement Thirdly that it appears within the declaration that the action of the case was 6 years before the action brought And so by the Statute of 21. Jac. the action does not lye I agree if the cause was 6 years before yet the breach was within the 6 years and that is the cause of action 6. rep 43. In a covenant there is the deed and the breach of the covenant and that is the cause of the action And therefore being matter in Deed an accord with satisfaction is a good plea to it 13. E. 4. Attaint is grounded upon matter of record but the false oath is the cause of it For that there also accord is a good plea So in our case the non performance by default was not at the time limitted which was before the 6 years but no action was brought against the Plaintiff untill within the six years And then he is not damnifyed untill within the six years 5 Rep. 24. Richardson For the two first exceptions he agreed with Barkley as to the third he said that there can be no action before the breach of the promise or covenant But the breach here is before the six years for the non performance of the agreement is a breach and a breach is a damnificationn In one Boughtons case the non payment is a damnification But all the question here was whether that ought to be pleaded but I conceive that it need not for by the Statute-law the action is taken away And it being a general law the court ought ex officio to taken notice of it For in that after verdict if it appears that there is no cause of action although the verdict be found for the Plaintiff he shall never have Iudgement And upon the matter that latches in time amounts to a release in law the proviso cannot ayd you For every man shall be intended without those disabilities for that that he would shew that he would have advantage of it And Crook of the same opinion for the reasons given before and said that although the Statute took away the Common law yet it is good law and done for the ease of the subject and for that shall be favoured as the Statute of limitations in all cases But he said the non performance was not a damnification before the action brought As if I be bound as for surety for A. who is bound to save me harmlesse Although he does not pay it at the day There is not a breach before the arrest or Iudgement For by the Iudgement the lands and goods are liable But for the arrest his body is troubled for that now the Scriveners put in such obligations that they save harmlesse the party and pay the money at the day But for the other matters in all he agreed and cited Richardson and Burroughs Case Where a payment before the day was adjudged a payment at the day Yelverton That is not found that there is any sufficient notice given to the Defendant by the Plaintiff of the agreement made which he ought to have And he agréed in omnibus with Richardson and said that Scriveners use things ex abundanti Richardson It is said habuit notitiam in the Declaration but does not say by whom Yet after verdict it shall be intended a good notice And although that Nichols had given the notice it is sufficient If there be a Lease for years upon condition that he doe not assign the other accepts the rent of the Afsignee before notice He shall not be bound by that acceptance before notice But if notice may be proved either by the Plaintiff or by any although it be by a meer stranger It is sufficient Yelverton denied that for he said That none but privies can give the notice of it as the case is Et adjournatur Denne and Sparks Case before RIchardson If a will be of lands and goods and that was the occasion of this will the revocation is only tryable at the Common Law But when the will is of goods only the occasion of it shall be tryed only in the Spiritual Court For it is incident to the probate of the will quod fuit concessum And he said that in the case before if the will be not revoked the devise is good at the time and the administration shall be granted as of his goods for the Law will not change the property of the residue after debts and legacies paid Crooke The case here is that the Testator makes his will of his lands and goods and devises the residue of his goods ut supra to his wise his Executrix who dies before probate Denne sues to be administrator as the goods of the first Testator and alleges revocation which because that his Proctor did not goe and swear that in fide Magistri sentence was given against him Vpon that he appeals in which there was the same Obligation and affirmed by the Oath of his Proctor Yet sentence was given against him And a prohibition ought to be granted for three reasons First For that the Will is of Lands and Goods and the occasion of that tryable here Secondly they offer injustice in giving the allegation Thirdly The Wife here dying before the probate the administration ought to be granted as of the goods of the Testator and not as of the wife And also they here would inforce Denne if he had the administration to take it cum testamento annex Which shall be an admittance by him that there was not any revocation Richardson for the first reason he agréed that the revocation shall be tryed by the common law But the goods here are only in question and all the usage and practice is that a prohibition shall be granted with a quoad the lands For the second That they will not allow the allegation If they will not pursue their rules and order of Iustice That is not a cause of a Prohibition but appeal for the third It is fit that there shall be an election if debts and Legacies are owing But it doth not appear here that there are any debts or Legacies to be paid but after Harvey agréed with Crook
Hill 4 Car. Com. Banc. that is a good Grant and charges the Heir although it first commenced upon him Yelverton said he charges himself And the Grant is for him and his heirs And warranty which is so granted to commence 40 years after although the Father dye before the commencement of it yet it binds the Heir And so it is of an Obligation to be paid 40 years after Quod concessum fuit Beckrows Case IN one Beckrows Case in evidence to the Iury c. Beckrows intending to a mary a Widdow makes a conveyance by Deed of Feoffment of his Land to several uses by which he setled his Land upon the issue of the Feme having issue by a former wife But after the mariage he by much importunity procured the Déed of conveyance into his hands out of the custody of the Wife and also an Obligation which makes mention of it and it was for performance of Covenants and then he cancelled the Deed and the Obligation and took off the seal from them And afterwards settles his Land upon his former Children and dies having Issue by his last wife And in actions under these conveyances It was permitted by the Court that the cancelled Deed should be read in evidence But first there should be Testimony given of the truth of that practice before it should be read c. A Copiholders Case IT was said by Richardson to Harvey privately That there is almost no Copyhold in England but the Fine in truth is uncertain For if the Rolls make it appear that some time a lesser and sometime a greater sum had been paid for a Fine that is an uncertain Fine And he said that he was of Councel in a Case where the Iury found that the Fine was certain And afterwards by Bill in Chancery It was decreed upon search of the Rolls to be a Fine incertain And that is now the ordinary course scil by decree in Chancery Francis Bill against Sir Arthur Lake FRancis Bill was Plaintiff in an Assumpsit against Sir Arthur Lake who assumed to the Plaintiff that in consideration that he would make for his wife certain apparel and prepare stuff and lace for it That he would pay for the stuff and making as much as should be required And he shews that he provided Sattin and Gold-lace and made the Apparel and shews of what value the Stuff was and what he deserved for his labour which amounted to the value of 39 l. and that he required the Defendant such a day to pay him which was within six years before the action brought but the promise was laid to be 7 years before The Defendant pleads the Statute of Limitations and that the Plaintiff did not bring his Action within the six years after the promise made nor within the 3 years after the Parliament ended But he does not shew when it ended Vpon which there was a Demurrer And by the Court the ending of the Parliament néeds not to be shewn here For the Question is not upon the 3 years after the ending of the Parliament but upon the matter in Law whether an Action ought to be brought within six years after the promise or after the request Richardson said That it ought to be within six years after the promise Here are two causes of Action for the words of the Statute are within six yenrs afcer the cause of Action the promise and the request and the promise is the principal Trin. 5 Car. Com. Banc. and the Action took its denomination from that scil an action of the Case upon an Assumpsit And if there be a demand which is the case of Action Here it will be answered the promise for a Request without promise is no cause of Action And the mischief that the Statute intended to remedy was that a man was should not be put to the proof of the matter de facto so long time after And if the request is said to be the cause of Action the promise may be laid 20 years before and although that may be proved But the other 3 Iustices were against him and said That the intention of the Statute is within 6 years after the cause of the Sute given which is not untill after request As if one promised to another so much when he should mary his Daughter The 6 years there shall be after the mariage Or if one promise such a sum to one at his return from Rome or such a place from whence it is not impossible to return within six years The payment shall be after the return and there is not a cause of Action before and also the promise and the Request are intire For the request is part of the promise and the promise is not intire untill the request They agréed if a man makes a request and suffer the 6th year to pass before an action brought and then makes a new request And this Case was more strong because the consideration was future Heidley said there was a difference where the request is necessary and where it is alleged but for form As if I sell a Horse for 10 l. generally and after the 6 years brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit against the Vendee and shews in his Declaration that he was to be paid when he would require it licet saepius requisit c. within the six years Here the Plaintiff is barred For it was due by the contract and the request is but formal If a man brings an Action within the 6 years and afterwards is non-suted for want of request shewen where it was necessary and makes a new request after the 6 years and brings his Action It is good Which was granted by the Court. And in this Case the Court taxed Henden for advising the Defendant to plead the Statute and hazard it upon Demurrer When he might have tryed first the matter in fact But Henden said it was dangerous not to plead the Statute For the opinion of the Kings Bench and Exchequer seemed to be that it ought to be pleaded By the Court when it is apparent within the Record that the Action is brought after the 6 years certainly they doubted not but the Statute ought to be shewn in arrest of Iudgement But the doubt is when a general issue is pleaded in an Assumpsit or Trespass and it does not appear in the Trespass or Assumpsit that it was above the six years the Statute now may be given evidence Trin. 5 Car. Com. Banc. Starkey against Taylor STarkey an Attorny of the Common Bench brought an Action against Taylor for slanderous words and declares that he being an Attorney of the Common Bench of honest fame c. and that he gained much by that profession which was his Livelihood the Defendant maliciously and to hinder him in his profession spoke these words of him Thou art a Common Barrettor thou art a Iudas and a Promoter and a Destroyer and a Viper and a Villain and
both If a man hinder the Sheriff to make execution and assault him will not a Rescous lye in such a Case Richardson Hutton and Henden that it will not That no Rescous can be upon a Fieri facias but the party shall have an Action upon the Case And Rescous lies only upon a Capias which lies against the Person himself Iohnsons Case IF a Prohibition be granted upon matter at Common law as upon a personal agreement between Parson and Parishioner for his Tithes and not upon matter within the Statute of 2 E. 6. 13. the suggestion shall not be proved within the 6 months as the Statute limites and as it is agreed by the whole Court Termino Mich. 5 Car. Com. Banc. Common Recovery A Common Recovery was suffered and a writ of Entry was not filed and for that a writ of Error was brought And Hitcham moved that it might be examined whether any writ was filed or no. But the Court denyed that But if it might appear upon Record That there was a writ filed Mich. 5 Car. Com. Banc. then they would consider whether a new one should be filed or or not And they said that the Recovery should be exemplified by the Statute of 23. Knight against Symonds THe Plaintiff being cast put this exception in to avoid costs that the Venue was mis-writen and it was allowed by the Court. And because the Defendant might have Iudgement for that he cannot have costs And Richardson said that in the Kings Bench one Grimston brought an Action upon the Case against one Hostler and it was found against him and the Plaintiff alleged that the Declaration was not sufficient for the prevention of costs and allowed But if the Plaintiff be non-sute he shall not have benefit of the Exception to prevent costs by reason of the unjust vexation Harris against Lea. HArris Warden of the Fleet is Plaintiff against Iohn Lea in Debt upon an Obligation where the Condition was That one Lea should be his true Prisoner and pay every month for his diet and the fees due to the Plaintiff by reason of his Office The Defendant pleads the Statute of 23 H. 8. and that this Obligation was made for the ease and favour of the prisoner by colour of his office And the Plaintiff replyed that the Fleet is an antient Prison and that time out of mind c. they used to take such Obligations absque hoc that this Obligation was made for the ease and favour contrary to the Statute That the Warden of the Fleet and Westm never may take Obligations for Dyer c. upon which the Defendant demurred generally But Atthowe prayed Iudgement for that that the traverse waives the matter before which was but an inducement and in 23 H. 6. There is an Exception of the Warden of the Fleet and the Warden of the Palace of Westminster That they might take such Obligations which they used to which the Court agreed And for that that the Traverse ever destroys the Bar the Defendant ought to have joyned in that upon which Iudement was given for the Plaintiff If c. Wardens Case Ejâ—ctments not he of a Mannor IT was said by the Court Although an Eject firm lies of a Mannor or of the moyety of a Mannor if Attournment of the Tenants may be proved yet it is not safe to bring an Ejectione firmae of a Mannor c. Hides Case IN one Hides Case the Defendant was out-lawed before Iudgement and procures a Charter of pardon and the Question was whether he should put in bayl And it was agreed by the Court that he should put in bayl For although the Statute of 5 E. 3. cap. 12. goes only to a Charter of pardon not to the reversal Yet by the Equity of that Statute he must put in bayl for it is that he stand right in Court which is that he appear and put in bayl And although the use of the Court hath been otherwise yet perhaps in some Cases the Plaintiff never required bayl New Entries title Pardon pl. 1. So if an Out-lawry be reversed by 31 Eliz. for want of Proclamation The Defendant puts in bayl at the Common law Manucaptors were only fined for the Defendants default But now the use is for the bayl to enter into a Recognisance c. And if at Common law upon a scire fac he revive the sute he shall find Manucaptors by the same reason he now found bayl Wood and Carverner against Symons THe Defendant here in the Prohibition libels for tithes of Hay in the Spiritual Court Intrat Hil. 3 Car. Pas 4. Car. rot 454. The Plaintiff suggests that the Hay was growing upon Greenskips Deales and Headlands and that within the same Parish there is a Custom that Parishioners in a meadow there used to make the tithe Hay for the Parson and in Consideration of that to be discharged of all tithes of Hay growing ut supra and also that for the Hay of the land no tithe ought to be paid of such Hay but does not aver that the Hay was growing upon Greenskips c. And an exception was taken by Henden First That the exception is double The Custom and Common law But by Yelverton that is not material For you may have 20 suggestions to maintain the suggestion of the Court But Richardson was against that that a suggestion might be double here for the suggestion of the Common law is a surplusage As in Farmer and Norwiches Case here lately One prescribes to be discharged of tithes where the law discharged him and so was discharged by the Common law Second exception is that he does not apply the Custom to himself in the suggestion For he does not shew that the Hay grew upon the skips upon which a Plow might turn it self That had laid the Custom And for this cause by the whole Court the suggestion is naught And here Richardson moved how that two should joyn in a Prohibition Yelverton if they are joined in the libel they may joyn in the prohibition and that is the common practice of the Kings Bench. Richardson the wrong to one by the sute in the Spiritual Court cannot be a wrong to the other Hutton they may joyn in the writ but they ought to sever in the Declaration to which Harvey agreed Yelverton the Prohibition is the sute of the King and he joyn tanâ— as in a writ Richardson But it is as the sute of the party is and if any joyn here I think good cause of consultation Richardson It is against the profit of the Court to suffer many to joyn And it is usual in the case of Customs of a Parish in debate to order procéedings in the 2 Prohibitions and that to bind all the Parish and Parson And it was said by them all That the consideration of making Hay is a good discharge because it is more than they are bound to do Rises Case IN evidence to the Iury it was
Case 164 Male against Ket 172 N NOrtherns Case 57 Norbery against Watkins ibid. Norris against Isham 81 Norton Joyce et al. against Harmer 88 Newton against Sutton 105 Nortons Case 110 The same 117 Napper against Steward 133 Nurse against Pounford 161 O OWen Dorothy against Owen Price 22 Owen against Price 29 Overalls Case 157 Overalls Case 158 P PAston against William Manne 5 Provender against Wood. 32 Peto Sir Edward against Pemberton 52 Perriman against Bowden 59 Palmers Case 62 Panton against Hassell ibid. Pease against Thompson 66 Peitoe's Case 71 Plowmans Case 73 Peters against Field 75 Perkins against Butterfield ibid. Mrs. Peels Case 107 Port against Yates 114 Page against Taylor ibid. Pinsons Case 125 Plummers Case 130 Countess of Purbecks Case 131 R REadings Case 18 Rowes Case 32 Margery Rivers Case 35 Rivets Case 60 Roberts and others 61 Rothwells Case 91 Rowe and Dewbancks Case 94 Rolls against How 117 Read against Eaglefield 122 Rises Case 147 Rawlings's Case 161 Rawling against Rawling 163 Raveys Case 175 S SMith against Dr. Clay 3 Smith against Secheverill 51 Score and Randalls Case 57 Score against Randall 66 Symons against Symons 66 Stamford and Coopers Case 72 Spark against Spark 73 Saulkells Case 78 Swintons Case 84 Stanleys Case 93 Dame Sherleys Case 95 Sacheverills Case 105 Strange against Atthowe 116 Spencer Sir John against Scroggs 121 Stone against Walsingham 123 The same 128 Smith al. against Pannel 132 Scot against Wall 133 Starkey against Taylor 139 Simcocks against Hussey 142 Starkeys Case 143 Sheriff Surrey against Alderton 145 Springhall against Tuttersbury 157 Stone against Tiddersly 177 T THomas et Ux. against Newark 2 Taylor against Phillips 10 Thomas's Case 38 Thomsons Case 53 Tomkins's Case 57 Traver against the Lord Bridgewater et Ux. 62 Tomlins's Case 64 Thomas against Morgan 67 Tomlinsons Case 75 Executors of Tomlinsons Case 76 Thornells Case 93 Thomas and Kennis's Case 97 Thompson against Thompson 110 Turner against Hodges 126 Taylors Case 136 Turner against Disbury 149 Tomlins's Case 163 Tomlinsons Case 168 Tomkins's Case 171 V VIner et Ux. against Lawson 14 Viner against Eaton 86 W VVIlcocks Case 27 Wood against Simons 34 Wilkin against Thomas 52 Wildshires Case 54 Wentworth against Abraham 55 Warberleys Case 57 Winchester Bishop against Markham ibid. Wilkinsons Case 56 Waterton against Loadman ibid. Winchesters Mayor and Commonalties Case 57 Wolfes Case 59 Wilkinsons Case 59 Waddingtons Case 59 Williams against Bickerton 63 Wilkins against Thomas 65 Watson against Vanderlash 69 Wakeman against Hawkins 72 Williams against Thirkill 73 Wilkinsons Case 76 Wimberley against Taylor et al. ib. Whiddons Case 77 Wakemans Case 78 Wiggons against Darcey 79 Woolmerstons Case 85 Warmer against Barret 87 Walsingham and Stones Case 107 Wroth against Harvey 119 Winchcombe against Shepard ib. Marquess of Winchesters Case 120 Wilson against Peck 129 Wats against Conisby 132 Dr. Wood and Greenwoods Case 135 Sir Francis Worthly against Savill 142 Wardens Case 146 Wood against Carverner 147 Williams against Floyd 168 Waters against Thomson 171 Y YOungs Case 54 A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL MATTER IN THIS BOOK A THe assumpsion of the Husband shall in an Account charge the Wife fo 1. Action upon a libellous Letter 10 Action for perjury and what makes it 12 Where a demand intitles to an Action 13 16 Whether a Tenant in Quid juris clamat may attourn without being sworn to do fealty to the Lord. 16 Action for words brought by a Maid 18. An arrest on Christmas day going to Church in the Church-yard may be censured 19 Attourney fined for arresting in Actions of Debt without original 29 Assumption upon mariage 30 Action for saying one forged Deeds 31 Action on the Case for stopping a River 34 An Action for words brought by a Counstable 36 Consideration upon an Assumpsit is not traversable but he ought to plead the general Issue 50 Action upon the Statute de Scandalis magnatum 55 Those who sue at the Assise have protection 33 Action for words 63 Action for words against a Chirurgeon 69 70 71 Warrant of Attorney may be entred after the Record removed 59 Action for words he hath forged a Deed c. 114 Action for saying he is falsly forsworn before c. 119 Whether in an Account there ought to be a certainty for what 85 106 113 122 Alimony is not within the High Commission Court 95 High Commissioners have no conusans of Adultery 108 Administrator has the same power as an Executor 116 Appearance by Attorney saves an Obligation given to the Sheriff to appear 117 Action for calling one a Daffidowndilly 123 Action the Case for words against Attorney 139 Convicted Barretor spoken to a common person is actionahle 143 A man having Land in right of his Wife in trust they cannot both join in the Action but the Hushand only ib. Action for words Thou hast stollen my corn out of my Barn 172 An Action for Welsh words 175 B VVHere a Bayliff shall be charged for money levied by him without warrant 12 Iustification as Bayliff upon a Distress ib. Recovery in Battery had against one the other in another Action for the same Battery may plead the First 20 33 49 Garton against Mellows in Battery 50 In Battery against Baron and Feme the wife ought to plead as wel as the Baron 10 C VVHat amounts to a forfeiture of a Copihold 6 7 In consideration the Testator was indebted and you l forbear good consideration 8. 62 A Chanceller cannot alter a Iudgement at Common see how he may proceed against him 20 One may distreyn for amerciament in a Court Leet 21 62 Iudgement given in an Inferiour Court shall not be executed by Writ of a Superiour Court 26 Officer of Common Pleas ought to be answered in any Action de die in diem 29 They may examine in Chancery before Tryal 30 Appearance of Clarks in Court ought to be in proper person 36 Writ of Covenant brought upon a Lease of a Parsonage 54 Cestui que use in tayl what remedy 57 Where Habeas Corpus on occasion may be returnable immediate 2 Custom the life of a Copihold 6 Leet is the Kings Court 62 If a Chattel personal be suspended by sute it is gone for ever 71 The breach of the Covenant is the cause of Action 212 If Copiholder make a Lease for years to commence at Michaclmas 't is a forfeiture presently 122 Where Custome ought to be shewed and where not 159 A Writ of Enquiry may be granted after Verdict when the Jury omit the dammages 161 Upon Contracts the party shall have the Action to whom the Interest belongs 176 D NO discontinuance after Verdict 3 To deny the Rent is a Disseisin 6 Demand of Rent ought to be according to the reservation in the Deed. 59 Declaration or Replication ought to be certain to all intents 60 Debt by Paroll discharged by Paroll 73 Beasts distrained for Dammage fesant not put in the
open Pound if they dye the Distreyn is chargeable 75 A demand before a Distress if the Demand is out of the Land if not then see 86 Where Damages shall not be mitigated 93 Where a Demand ought to be certain and where not 109 On a Devastavit a Writ de bonis propriis issues 110 If a Debtee mary Debtor what becomes of the Debt see 120 In what Cases A must declare tam pro domino rege quam pro seipso 122 Double delay not allowed 126 E DElay in arrear of Error not hinder Execution 17 If a Sheriff remove his Prosoner out of the County without command It is Escape 34 Where he permits him to go for his pleasure Escapes lies ibid. Ne unque Executor found against him upon a Scire fac shall be only de bonis testat 48 Eject firm lies against Tenant at Will if he leases for years 73 If the Conisee permits the Conisor being in execution to go at large be an Escape 79 Excommunication to strike in the Church 86 If an Executor dies before probate the Goods belong to the Administrator of the first Testator 105 A Rent upon Condition reserved to the Executors goes to the Administrator 115 If a devise be void if no Executor be made 118 Ejectments do not lie of a Mannor 146 In Ejectment he ought to shew the certain quantity of Land 176 Antient Demesn is a good Plea in Ejectments 177 F A Franktenement cannot pass from a day to come 29 Feoffment to the use of a Stranger ought to be tendered to him 56 Denyal of the Rent a Forfeiture 6 A Subject may have a Forest but not a Justice Seat 60 No Clergy for Felony committed upon the high way otherwise upon the foot way 75 In a Formedon he ought to make himself heir to him who died seised last of the E-Estate tayl 78 Felony to take Pidgeons out of a Dove-coat 149 Fieri Facias no Bar to the Capias although part of the debt be satisfied 159 I INdictment quassavit for incertainty 35 Upon a Judgement if the Money be paid to the Attorney it is good but otherwise of a Scrivener 48 Inne-Keeper ought to say in his Action transiens hospitavit 49 If Land be descended to an Infant the Sheriff shall surcease his extent 54 59 Iudgement had against an Infant may be reversed 65 Judgement reversed for want of Pledge 59 Imparlance roll may be amended 143 Infans habeat eandem actionem possessoriam qualiter antecessor 160 An issue mistaken cannot be amended 164 K IF the King enters upon any Tenant a Petition of right lies 29 The King cannot take a man in execution out of Prison to his wars causa vid. 57. L VVHether a Lease to two be determined by the death of one 85 Whether a Grant of Estovers out of another place than was the Lease be good 78 Libell for the Seat in a Church 94 Where upon a Lease the Heir shall be estopped and where not 91 Libell for Tithes of two pecks of Apples 100 M VVHat things go to the making of a Feme sole Merchant 9 Where inter-mariage is but a suspension of a promise 12 An action brought in consideration of a mariage 50 How a Lord shall recover in a Writ de valore maritagii 55 O FOr what Causes an Outlawry may be reversed 93 P IN Partition no dammages are to be recovered 34 Prescription for Sallery of a Vicar is tryable at Common law 33 Prohibition where the thing might be tryed and proved at Common law 15 Where Prohibitions shall be granted and where not 19 27 28 49 50 51 60 68 69. Parson cannot discontinue 88 Prohibition upon words 94 A Protestando is no Answer 104 Symony a good suggestion for a Prohibition 116 Whether a Prohibition may be without alleging a Custom 117 Per minas pleaded 121 R VVHether the word Successive so makes a Limitation of a Remainder good matter and Cases thereupon 22 23 24 25 26 If a Feme sole Executrix of a Term mary him in reversion and dies the Term is not drowned 36 Release of Actions and Sutes substantive bars Debt 15 Nul tiel Record replyed where Recusancy convict is pleaded by the Defendant the Record must be shewn 18 Where a Reversion passes without Attornment 73 Where one Request may serve for several Debts 84 Whether on a Rescous the Action shall be brought by the Plaintiff against the Rescousor or against the Sheriff 95 Where no averment against a Record 107 Where a Feme shall be remitted and what makes a Remitter 110 No Rescous can be of Goods 145 Arrerages for rent upon an Estate for life cannot be forfeit for Outlawry 164 S TO grant a Supersedias there must be execution erronice emanavit alleged 30 Surrender determines the Interest of all parties but a Stranger 51 In Case of Symony the Statute makes the Church void 51 No fee due to the Sheriff for the executing of a cap. utlagat 52 That he might arrest the Kings Servant upon this Writ ibid. Quicquid plantatur solo cedit solo 57 T TRover and conversion brought for a load of wheat 22 A discharge of Tithes by the Parson for years runs with the Land and not with the person 31 Where toll ought to be pleaded in Trover and conversion 49 Trespass against Baron et feme dum sola fuit both shall be taken 53 If Part and Portion a like make joint tenancy or tenancy in Common 55 Trespass brought by Baron and Feme they must not say ad damnum ipsorum otherwise of Jointenants 2 Tithes of Fish due meerly by Custom 13 Tithes where due by the Common law of the Land no Prohibition ibid. Tithes of Limekills 14 The word Equally makes Tenancy in Common 64 No Trespass lies against a Disseisors Lessee 66 Where Tithes of young Cattel 85 93 Tithes for hedging Wood. 18 A Term evicted on Elegit is grantable upon a Statute Merchant or Staple not tithes for milk of Calves 100 No Composition for tithes for life without Deed. 107 No tithes for Estovers burnt in an House 110 V A Special Verdict may be amended according to the notes given to the Clark 52 A Verdict finding matter repugnant or which cannot come in question binds not the Court. 4 If a Scrivener not the party reserve more than just interest no Usury 11 Where the Visne and the return differ it is not good 83 If Defendant dies between Verdict and Iudgement Iudgement will be stayed 90 Whether Beer Brewers are within the Statute and intent of Victuallers 101 W VVAste committed by a Stranger the Lessee dies no remedy against the Seranger 97 Tenant for life and he in remainder may join in Waste 105 The Warden of the Fleet nor Westminster never may take Obligations for Dyet 146 REPORTS AND CASES TAKEN In the third fourth fifth sixth and seventh years of the Reign of the late King Charles c. Ralph Marsh against John Culpepper RAlph Marsh brought an action upon the
by the Court that where a Servant of a Bayliff of a Franchise was sworn to serve a Process and by deputation from the Bayliff he ought not to have served a Process but to such a sum And he serves a Process of a greater sum without any warrant and after levies the money and parts with it That the Bayliff shall be chargeable Quod nota Beare against Hodge BEare was Plaintiff against Hodge for taking of his Cattel The Defendent was known as Bayliff to Thomas Wise who was seised of twenty acres c. whereof the Land in question was parcel in Fee And that it was Leased to Harris for 99. years if he and his two sons should so long live and rendring a Rent at the four usual Terms in the year and the best beast at the death of every one of the three in the name of an Herriot or 5. l. at the election of the Lessor And now for Rent arrear at Michaelmas and for an Heriot after the death of Harris he avowed c. The Plaintiff confesses the Lease and reservation and as to the Heriot he demurred But for the Rent he said that he tendered the Rent upon the Land toward the latter time of Michaelmas day and that none was there to receive it And that afterwards he tendered it to the Lessor himself out of the Land and he refused it And that after that time no demand was made but that he after the tender alwaies was and yet is Tenent c. and brings the mony into Court And upon that he demurred Henden said The Avowant may distrein without any new demand and that Case had been adjudged in this Court before For although that the Rent be tendered yet it remains due notwithstanding and then he is able to distrain 15 Iac. in this Court rot 710. Crowley brought a Replevin against Kingsmill who avowed For that the Plaintiff held of him by Fealty and 10 s. rent And for the Rent he distreyned the Plaintiff And that at the day he tendered the rent upon the land none was there to receive it as it is said c. And upon debate it was adjudged that he may distrein without demand 7 rep 29. Maunds case you may see that a Rent-seek shall not be distreined after tender without demand For if by his demand he is intituled to his Action then there ought to be a new Demand 21 E 4. 17. 7 E 4. 40. 20 H. 6.1 cited in Pilkintons Case If you will be excus'd of the Distress there ought to be a tender of the Arrerages at the time of the Distress Richardson Hutton and Harvey all agree That the Distress is good to have the Rent but not to recover Dammages because he does not all he might do And Richardson said That 2 H. 6. 10 H. 6. 20 E. 4. 10 E. 4. and the Case in the Assise and the whole current of Books was to the same purpose Harvey Iustice said that if a tender be upon an Obligation at the day he saves the penalty but if another Demand be afterwards and he refuses to pay he cannot plead unque prist And Iustice Crook cited a Case in the Kings Bench 16 Eliz. betwéen Cropp and Hambleton where a Rent upon a Lease was reserved to be paid at Michaelmas And if by forty daies after c. And in the mean time after the first and before the last the Lessee tenders to the Lessor himself And adjudged that it saves the Forfeiture For it is for his ease that he ought to tender upon the Land And by the same reason also when he hath tendered it to the Person himself and said that it is uncore prist and will demur upon that and not take advantage of his non-tender at the Distress the Dammages are saved But Yelverton was against that For it is agréed that a Distress is locall so then we cannot sever Dammages when the Law hath coupled them and made incident to the Distress Sed adjournatur c. Tithes ONe libells for Tithes of Fish which is due meerly by Custome And the Defendant pleads that time out of mind c. they have paid no Tithes of that And Henden Sergeant moved for a Prohibition And Richardson replyed and said it is méerly a Customary Tithe as Rabbits c. Whereof no Tithes are due by the law of the Land and a Prohibition shall not be granted But all the other Iustices affirmed that there shall be a Prohibition granted because that the Custome ought to be tryed by the Common law and they make a difference betwéen modus decimandi which is also Customary and where there is a Tithe precedent due and that modus converts it into another Duty There no Prohibition shall be granted But it shall be tryed in the spiritual Court whether there be such a modus decimandi or not And that Case in the Custome makes the Duty it self But he alleged the modus to be for two pence and the Parson for thrée pence shall be tryed by the Common law And they said that so was the opinion in the grand Case of lead ore And Hutton said that so it was determined in the Case of one Berry for tithes of Limekills which are as Minerals and are not tithable by the Commmon law But when the Custome is tryed then they in the Ecclasiastical Court may proceed upon it Hartop and Tucke against Dalby HArtop and Tucke brought a Quare impedit against Dalby as Incumbent and the Issue betwéen them was Whether the Church of Essenden was appendent to the Mannor of Essenden or in gross And the Plaintiff to prove the Appendancy gave in evidence that H. 6. seised of the Mannor and Advowson grants to Margaret his Wife the said Mannor habendum una cum advocatione for her Ioynture c. It was said that if the advowson was in gross it could not pass so not named in the Premises But of an advowson appendent otherwise it is As it was agréed in 38 H. 6. 36. Abbess of Syons Case which was granted by the whole Court. Henden to disprove that evidence alleged That the Advowson being made any time in gross It can never be appendent again And he shewed also how H. 3. was seised of that Mannor with the Advowson and that he granted the Mannor to I. S. for life excepta advocatione By which Grant it seem'd to him that it became in gross And said that the Iudgement of the Case in 38 H. 8. 38. was for that cause and that they did not ever find it contradicted And so totis viribus be maintained that to be in gross But all the Iustices were against him And that that is not but a disappendency pro quodam tempore And so was the better opinions in 38 H. 6. as the Case is in Dyer 33 H. 8. 48. 6. of a Villain If the King grants the Demesus of a Mannor for life After the death of the Lessée it is a Mannor again And if
an advowson appendent be granted for life After the Lessee it becomes an Appendent again And so if a Mannor with the Advowson descend to two Copartners And the Advowson is allotted to one and the Mannor to the other If there the Sister who hath the Advowson die without Issue it is then appendant and yet there was a severance in perpetuity And Yelverton went to the Iustices of the Kings Bench to have their opinions And they all agreed that it was but a temporal disappendency during the life without doubt Bramston said the Mannor is granted and the Advowson by E. 6. to the Lord Saint Iohn to be held by several tenures The Mannor in Chivalry and the Advowson in soccage which is a strong presumpsion that the Advowson was in gross But the Iustices agreed that there may be several Services and yet the Mannor and the Advowson nor severed And a Mannor may be granted parcel to be held by one Tenure and parcel to be held by an other Tenure and yet remain intire And afterwards verdict was given for the Plaintiff c. Viner and his Wife against Lawson VIner and his Wife libells against Lawson in the Councell of York for a promise to pay 600 l. to the Wife for her Mariage And suggested that they could not precisely prove it by one witness that they might have remedy at the Common Law But Lawson denyed the promise upon his Oath and yet they proceeded and Lawson prayed a prohibition and it was granted For if it may be proved by some witnesses then it is tryable by an Action of the Case c. And so the Iurisdiction of the Common Law is ousted Abrees Case MOre of the Case which you saw before c. Henden argued that that release is but special and that it extends only to errors And first for that the intention of the parties is principally to be regarded And ex praecedentibus consequentibus optima fit interpretatio The precedent clause is only a release of errors and then the consequent suits And in the last clause release all Actions and suits of error before Secondly a release is particular and may be by inference of other words have a general sense yet particular construction shall be made Nisi impediatur sententia or intentio partium For that also Suits in the middle of the clause shall have relation to the other words And to that purpose is 28 H. 8. Dyer 19. A Grant to the Lessee that he shall have the Rues for hedges by the assignment of the Bayliff of the Lessor and for necessary fuel to burn And the opinion of the Court was that he should have the fewel also by assignment 9 E. 4. 43. 6. A man submits himself to the Arbitrament of I.S. de omnibus actionibus personalibus sectis querelis And it was ruled that that word personal refers to all And the Case in question is the very Case as that in reason 10 H. 7. 8. A man grants the Custody of his Park and all the Windfalls c. And it seemed there that the grant of Windfalls is absolute for that that the intent cannot be otherwise Pasc 36 Eliz. banc Roy. Betwéen Pidgeon and Gibson Norff. The Case upon the special verdict was in Trespass and Pidgeon the Father makes a feoffment to his younger son by which he grants thus Omnia illa messuagia mea tenementa in East Bockham that late were Patris mei and since in the Tenure of N. D. and C. And it was adjudged that that land did not pass by that Feoffment For where particular words are in the end the middle shall never be taken general And so also 8. rep 150. Althams Case There it was resolved that where it had particular words there all shall be of the same nature c. Thirdly expende circumstantias intentio nihil intelligetur which may be intended also in Suits more than in actibus For will you have Action particular and Suits general And so the intention appears in the first word Errors and the subsequent are but declaratory And although that Suits is lastly put in the second Clause yet there it is not but a surplusage And that which is not released by the first Suit cannot be by the second For it is not but a repetition of that which was before Richardson the words are All Writs Actions and Suits by error Without question it shall be intended but errors Or if it be so And all Actions and Suits of error It cannot extend but to errors Hutton In that release there is not any word of debt and therefore it seemed that the intention was not to release other actions but errors And it was adjudged in this Court in a Writ of Annuity A release was pleaded that the Plaintiff acquitted him of one payment for half of the year and released to him all Actions Suits and Demands And adjudged that that release does not bar him but of the arrearages of a year A Quid juris clamat IN a Quid juris clamat The Tenant was adjudged to Attourne And the question was whether he might Attourne without being sworn in Court to do fealty to his Lessor And Brownlow chief Prothonotary said That all the Presidents are that he shall Attourne and do fealty by which the Tenant was sworn to do fealty and the fealty was taken for an Authority Beare and Hodges Case MOre of Beare and Hodges Case you may see before Davenport said that a man cannot distrein upon an actual demand which ought to be to the person upon the Land And for that the distress is tortious and damages by the Common Law are given to him who made the Replevin But to the Avowant damages are only given by the statute of 7. H. 8. cap. 4. 21 H. 8. 19. Now the Rent is not in question for it was taken to pay it but the dammages and the Tenant had done all that he can and it is not reason that he pay any damages And the diversity between a Replevin and debt for Rent after such a tender That a local tender excuses the damages appears H. 4.4 Tidthorps Case 38. E. 3. 13. Debt An Obligation is indorsed to pay the money at Easter and he tenders it at the day to the Obligee who refuses it because he lives at another place And now because that no place was named for the payment the tender was good and shall excuse him without any other demand of the damages Littleton said that a tender of Homage excuses until a new demand 21 E. 4.4 And there a difference seemed to some between fealty and homage But Bryan said that a tender of fealty also until a new request to his person excuses damages because that fealty may be done by Attourney 22 H. 6.31 7 E. 4.4 puts the case of Rent to the same intent Cook Littleton 7. 28. Maunds Case The third resolution is a ground for our Case There it is said if Terre-tenant
tender a Rent seck upon the Land The Grantee cannot demand it upon the Land in the absence of the tenant that it ought to be to the person upon the land For what can the tenant do more than he hath done already And the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 9. gives ease to the Tenant When the Lord distreins immoderately and unnecessarily For an immoderate distress may be the ruine of a tenant And therefore the Statute says Nec habeat Capitalis dominus potestatem distringendi tenentes in dominico suo dum praedict Tenens offerat ei servitia debita consueta 30. Ass Fitzher N. B. 69. G. If Cattel be distreined damage feasant and tender of sufficient amends is made The Distreiner is liable to damages for the detinue although not for the distress And to the same purpose is Cook lib. 8. 140. Carpenters Case 5. rep 76. Pilkintons Case c. The second question is whether a Bayliff without command of the Lessor when he had refused to take the Rent upon a Lawfull tender may distrein And it seemed that he cannot And the second resolution in Pilkintons Case came to that question That a tender of amends to a Bayliff amounts to nothing And the question upon a Herriot is Whether the Lessor may distrein without declaring his election and it seemed that he cannot For that is no Heriot which may be seized As the Case in one Woodland and Mantles Case there it is certain And because the Law vests it in him immediatly after the death of the tenant But so it is arbitrable and cannot vest before Election and also the Tenant does not know which he ought to provide before and declares his election And it was demanded for that it is not reasonable that he shall be lyable to a distress and cannot by any possibility prevent it 2 Rep. 36. Sir Rowland Howards Case I cannot finde any president where an Avowry is made upon a disjunctive reservation without allegation that he had declared his Election Although that the Lessor in that Case may distrein without declaring his election yet the Bayliff cannot for he cannot justifie as Bayliff for an Arbitrable thing without express command Acceptance of Rent by a Bayliff cannot alter the Tenancy For although that he had power in Law to receive the Rent yet he cannot by Law alter the Tenency by his acceptance without the Lords Command Dyer 222. A Bayliff may demand Rent but cannot enter for non-payment without express command And when he avows he cannot avow any thing which doth not appertain to his office And for that that it is an arbitrable thing which cannot be transferred from the person of the Lessor his Heirs or Assigns that distress is well taken c. If a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and the day of the return is long to delay the party as if it be more than the next Term the Court may award Execution quod nota c. Gammons Case ONe was obliged in the Ecclesiastical Court not to accompany with such a woman unless to Church or a Market overt And afterwards he was summoned to the Ecclesiastical Court to say whether he had broken his Obligation or not And Ayliffe moved for a prohibition which was granted For that that the forfeiture is a temporal thing And it does not become them in the Ecclesiastical Court to draw a man in examination for breaking of Obligations or for offences against Statutes Dame Chichley against Bishop of Ely DAme Dorothy Chichley brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Ely and Marmaduke Thomson And declared that Thomas Chichley was seized of the Advowson of the Church of Whiple in Cambridgeshire And presented Marshall and died seized and the Advowson descended to Thomas his son who by Indenture granted it to East and Angel and to their use and the use of the Plaintiff for life And he being seized of the Church it became void c. But Thompson pleads that he is Parson imparsonee ex praesentatione of the King And confessed that he was seized as aforesaid but that he was seized also of other Lands in Capite and dyed and that his son Thomas was and now is within age which is found by Office And so the King by his Letters Patents after avoydance presents Thompson who was instituted and inducted Absque hoc that Thomas Chichley granted by his Indenture to the use of his wife c. And the Plaintiff replies null teil record Vpon which the Defendant demurs Atthowe for the Defendant Although the Plaintiff may have a Writ to the Bishop when his Title is traversed And admit there be no Inquisition Yet the King may present before Office found 20 E. 4. 11. An Advowson being void is not but a Chattel and for that it is vested in the King without any Office And you may see many Cases to that purpose Richardson said If it be not by the Statute 32 H 8. The King may grant Wardship of Land before Office Atthowe Also there is Traverse upon Traverse which should not be Hendon argued for the Plaintiff And he says he is Parsona imparsonata and does not say before the purchase of the Writ For the Incumbent by the Statute of 25 E 3. cap. 7. cannot plead unless he be Incumbent ante diem impetratitrationis brevis unlesse he be Incumbent pendente lite he cannot plead c. Hutton If one be presented instituted and admitted before the Writ and inducted after and before his Pleader He may plead well And it was resolved by the whole Court That the pleading of the Parson was good without the words Ante diem impetrationis brevis And that all the Presidents are according to that But more afterwards c. Alice Readngs Case ALice Reading brought an Action upon the Case against I.S. And de-declared whereas she was a Maiden and had many Suitors the said I. S. said That Alice Reading was with childe and did take Physick to kill the Child Vpon which words divers men refused her And upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff Finch Recorder moved that those words were not actionable For that that it is not said precisely that she took Physick to kill the childe and that the Physick might have such an operation without her desire or purpose and also there is not any Suitor in special named And as it is in Anne Davyes Case 4 Rep. 16. 6. where it ought to be proved precisely to the Iury that such a one was Suitor and refused her But here there was no such proof And he alleged in the Case of Sell which was adjudged Where one declares that he endeavoured to mary a Woman and that she refused him upon slanderous words And it was adjudged against him For that that a Conatus is not sufficient but yet Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff without any reason alleged Cook lib. 4. 16. 6. The Lady Cockins Case The Case of a Recusant
the Civil Law And it was resolved First that the King by his Charter deprives the subject of his Liberty and Priviledge of Tryal As he cannot by his Letters Patents alter the nature of Gavelkinde Land but by prescription he may alter it in particular places As 9 H. 6. 44. In corpus cum causa to the Chancellor of Oxford was certified that the prisoner Pro extensione detentus fuit convictus And an exception was taken for that that he should have been indicted and convicted and it was answered that it was Mos Universitatis And by Hutton Iustice That custom was to be intended to be by prescription But so the Charter is confirmed by Act of Parliament it is as good Secondly that there is a good cause of action in the Chancellors Court. For Wilcocks who is one of the parties is a Scholar and the Charter was only made for the ease of Scholars that their Studies might not be interrupted by Sutes in other Courts But then he ought to be a Scholar resident in the Vniversity at the time of the Sute commenced there And he ought to be only one of the parties And for that if another be joyned with him he shall not have the priviledge or benefit of the Charter as it is 14 H. 4. 21. and by Richardson chief Iustice that is not a priviledge which may be waved for every person may Recusare jura introducta pro se But that it was an exempt Iurisdiction and differs where the priviledge goes to the person As if a Clerk in his Court will sue in another Court or suffer himself to be sued that is a Waver of the Priviledge Thirdly that a Proeedendo shall not be granted for that the Charter is not pleaded for the Iudges give Iudgement of the Record and the cause of their Iudgement ought to appear by pleading of the Record And also a prohibition is granted where by Demurrer or by Pleading and not by verbal surmise there ought to be a discharge And in the case of a prohibition It is not like the Case of 35 H. 6. 24. Where Conusans is one time allowed by Charter shewn and another Record there should be allowed without demand without other shewing But Yelverton Iustice to the contrary That it might be remanded upon pleading of the Charter And he said that there was a difference where the suggestion was upon matter of Fact as prescription c. Where an issue may be taken there it ought to be pleaded in writing which appears fully by the mean of the Court and not by suggestion Fourthly it was resolved that a prohibition may be granted in case where the Court cannot give other remedy for the ease of the Subject who is the party as it was adjudged in the Court of Requests Vpon the custom of London concerning Orphans a prohibition was granted and yet no remedy at Common Law was afterwards to be expected Trin 5. Car. Fawkner against Bellingham FAwkner against Bellingham in a Replevin The Avowry was for that that the Defendant was Lord of a Mannor and of Lands which were Chauntry Lands and held of him by Rent and other Services And after coming to the Crown by the Statute of 10 E. 6. cap. 14. Who granted it then over by Letters Patents c. And now the Lord distreins for Rent and avows that he had not seisin within fourty years And whether seisin was requisite for him who made the Conusans was the sole question in the Argument First for that that it is a new Rent created by the Statute of 1 E. 6. For when that Land is granted to the King by Parliament yet the King hath operation upon it and may dispose of it Secondly that the Land passed from the Priest and others by their assent confirming it And it is a Grant of the Seigniory by the Lord himself unless the saving hinder it But so by the Grant the Rent is extinguished And the saving is so a creation of a new Rent 1. rep 47. Altomeoods Case And there is diversity between a Rent-service viz. where the Tenant grants Land to the King and he grants that over He cannot distrein upon the Patentee for it is distinct from a Rent charge Stamford prerogat 75. Mich. 20. E. 3. 17. And so it is ordered by the Statute de Religione when he enters by Mortmain that he ought to revive the Services Stam. 27. If the King enters upon my Tenant there a Petition of Right lies Dyer 313. 10. rep 47. By the saving in the Statute of Wills c. A primer Seisin is given to the King de novo where he ought to have it before And then being a new Rent no Seisin is requisite Secondly the second reason is for that there is a new remedy and then no matter whether it be old Rent or new Rent Finchden A Rent granted out of White-acre and a distress out of Black-acre the Rent yet remains and there is one thing part of the Rent another of the remedy Because the Rent is only altered in quality Dyer 31. There our Case directly Now the Statute of Limitations is a Statute for the good of the Common wealth to settle inheritances and possessions And it should be expounded liberally Then if a scruple be of the Act it ought to be expounded benignly And so it is of all other Statutes which settle possessions Always shall be expounded favourably for the ease and benefit of the Tenant and Lord. And for that adjudged That a Copy-hold and Leases for years are within that Statute And the Statute of 32 H. 8. 11. rep 71. binds both King and Realm because it is for the publick good Owen against Price before BRamston argued for the Defendant I agree that Lease to be a Lease in remainder and I admit also that that Lease is warranted by the Statute 10 Eliz. For that that he is not punishable of waste And the case admits two questions whether it be a void Lease at Common Law And First In respect of the limitation Secondly there is not any Livery in the Case Wherefore first of all it had been said a Frank Tenement cannot pass from a day to come in case of a Grant 38 H. 6. 34. 8 H 7. Claytons Case 5. rep It had been agreed that a Livery made the first day by himself or by his Attorney should not be good And moreover if by his Attourney after the day if his Grant may be granted the same day it is not good And then I hold that the date of the Grant of Attourney is not material Trin. 43 Eliz. rot 402. Conibar It was resolved in such a Case as that is That the Livery is not good And the reason was that the Livery had not relation to the Deed which was void in Law Bucklers and Binsluns Case The release was made 1 May as this and executed by Attourney and by Attourney authorised the same day the second of May. And it was adjudged
to be void by the same reason Greenwood and Tilers Case He had much insisted upon that yet in the enlargement of the Case this point was resolved That if the Livery was by Attourney it should be void and the reason there was That although that the deed was void yet the Livery made in person ought to be good But the Deed can never by Livery be made good which was void to that purpose And it had been said and objected that it might be done in person and therefore by Attourney I agree that by that Livery an Estate passes but not by the Deed. But the Livery makes it pass out of the Interest that the Lessor had But by that reason that such a Lease shall be good where Livery is by the Lessor himself will not stand with our Case And divers Cases declare this difference 23 E. 3. 31 32. A Deed of Feoffment is made by Mawbry where he had nothing in the Land and after purchases and makes Livery Secundum formam Chart. That estate passes but not by the Deed. But if Livery had been there made by Attourney it had not been good If a Feme Covert or a Monk makes such a Charter of Feoffment and after Coverture or deraignment Makes livery then by Attorny such livery then cannot be good For he cannot exceed his authority which was to make good his first Deed. 22 H. 6 32. A feoffment of a Mannor by Deed of two acres all pass not by deed but by livery but if by Attorny otherwise it is Livery according to deed where there is not any by Attorny is void Kelway 64. A lease made by Baron and Feme may be pleaded without Deed. Coparceners agregate cannot make a Lease without Deed But a Bishop or a single Corporation may and it shall be good against him but not against his Successor Dyer 19. 17 E. 4. 17. Littleton said Where an Estate passes by Deed then the Livery is but a Ceremony And in the Chapter of Conditions he in the remainder shall be bound by Condition in the Deed. Because that he took by that So that by your reasons you would make that acknowledgement and inrollment by the Grantor himself to be a Ceremony and yet nothing pass And the rule in Magdalen College Cases If you will have a thing by Deed to be nought no subsequent Act can make it good And then the lease is made to three and the Grant of Attorny to deliver seisin to 3. and he delivers seisin but to one although that the others take in remainder Yet he ought not to take upon him the cognisance of law but pursue his authority A lease is made for years the remainder in fée and a Warrant of Attorney to deliver seisin to him in the remainder And the Attorny delivers seisin to the Tenent for years It is not good And yet in Law it ought to be made to him 11 H. 7. 13. A feoffment and a letter of Attorny to deliver seisin to two and he does it but to one That is a disseisin and absolutely void by the Statute Dyer 177. Hill 39. Eliz com banc rot 941. Iohnson against Morris and Edmunds IOhnson brought a Trespass against Morris and Edmunds quare clausum fregit et herbam suis depastus est c. The Defendant said that all the time of the Trespass he was seised of the Mannor of Amner And that they and all their Predecessors had a Sheep-walk in the place assigned c. and for all the year but when it was sowed for all the sheep leavant and couchant upon the Mannor c. The Plaintiff replies that the Defendant such a day put 200 sheep within that Land and that those sheep were levant and couchaut upon the Chauntry fold Whereupon the Defendant demurred Crowley Iustice The Declarations are general of sheep without expressing the number and for that the Iustification is good in the generalty and now when the replication is of 200 sheep and does not say alias it is naught Hutton It is not directly put that the Chauntry land is parcel of the Mannor and then we cannot so intend it and yet by the Demurrer it is confessed Richarson It is not sufficient to say that they were levant and couchant upon the Chauntry fold without saying absque hoc that they were parcel of the Mannor And it is incertain whether there were other sheep and we by Imagination cannot intend it c. Harvey and Hutton The Replication is good For that that in the Replication he now declares of what sheep he complain'd before And he does not agree the sheep which the Defendant hath justified but he mistakes his Iustification For he brings his action for another thing As the Trespass is made quare clausum fregit The Defendant justifies for a way and the Plaintiff says that he went out of the way It is a good replication And a new Assignment of the Sheep is contained in the Replication the Declaration being general And although that he did not say directly that the sheep are other Yet put all the parts of the Replication together and it will appear that they are other But Richardson and Crook on the contrary The Replication is not a confession and avoidance nor traverse of the bar if it had been said Ducent alias oves But then the Declaration had been avoided and the Defendant might plead not guilty to them And although it was said levant and couchant upon the Chauntry fold yet it is but an argument and express allegation in bar cannot be answered by arguments For a prescription is for Ewes and the Trespass quare oves c. generally The Defendant alleges his prescription and avows that they were oves matrices And the Plaintiff replies that they were oves verveces That is not good without a traverse absque hoc that they were oves matrices And the Case put before of Iustification by way was agreed For there it was confessed and avoided by Replication And also that Case alleged by Hutton to be adjudged A Battery is alleged to be done the first of May. The Defendant justifies deson assault dem the same day The Plaintiff replies that that Battery was four hours after the other Battery And it was traversed and well which was ordered by the Court that an alias should be added in the Replication c. Fawnes Case FAwne an Attorney in this Court had arrested divers persons by Process without original in Actions of debt And where the King ought to have for every hundred pounds in the Obligation 10 s. for a Fine if the sum exceeded 50 l. And when the original is sued the said Fawne took the mony to himself of the Clyents And the Cursiter complains to the Chancellor and be informs the Court. And it was said by Richardson because he had taken his oath which every Attorny ought to take That he shall do no falsity And also we by our Oath bound to punish such
was found for the Plaintiff And Atthowe moved in arrest of Iudgement First for that That in the Record it was entred that the Issue was inter praedict Robertum where it should have been Radulphum And secondly that the words were not actionable Richardson said as to the mistake it was helped by the word aforesaid And although that it was inter praedict Andrews it should have been well For it cannot be intended but the same Andrews And Crook Iustice cited Dyer 260. Cook and Watsons Case to be the same Case and 11 H. 7. Penningtons Case That the words were actionable For the Statute punishes forgery and the procurers of forgery And it is all one although he did not say falsly procured as the precise words of the Statute are Yet it shall be intended that that is implyed in the word Forge But if it had been said the Deed given in evidence was forged that was not actionable Wood against Symons VVOod against Symons in a Prohibition in which Symons libels for Tithes of Hay And Wood suggests for the Prohibition That he used to pay tithe of Hay in specie in consideration whereof he used to be discharged for all Doles Green-skips and Headlands not exceeding the breadth that a Plough or a Teame might turn about the Lands And Henden moved for a Consultation For that it is said about c. that is circa terras arabiles When the truth is there are Skips at the side of Lands as broad as the Lands themselves and then he would be discharged of them also Whereas it ought to be at the end of the Head-lands only Richardson said that in arable lands inclosed Pasture is at the end and at the sides which is mowed and yet discharged of tithes But the Court in respect there was a Prohibition granted said That he ought to joyn Issue or demurre upon the Declaration Summons IN a Writ of partition after the Summons an Estrepment was granted and generally against the Parties and their servants For in partition no dammages are to be recovered Quod nota Escape IF a Sheriff remove his Prisoners out of the County without being commanded it is an escape But if he remove them from one place to another in his County as he changes his Gaol it is not an Escape But if he remove prisoners for their ease and delight in the same County it is a Escape As the Case was cited by Harvy That one went with his Prisoner to a Bear-bating in the same County And it was adiudged an Escape And Hutton Iustice said So that if a Sheriff permit his Prisoners to go to work for their benefit it is an Escape And the Question was if in an Audita Querela for a voluntary Escape of one in Execution there should be bayl and the opinion of the Court was That if it appears That the Cause upon which the Audita Querela is grounded is called a good proof by the Record and that he should not be bayled unless good and special bayl Duncombe against Sir Edward Randall IN an action upon the Case betwéen Duncombe and Sir Edward Randall for diversion and stopping of a River It was agreed by the Court That if one had antiently Ponds which are replenisht by Chanels out of a River He cannot change the Chanels if any prejudice accrew to another by that And yet the effect by prefluxions is to have the Ponds fed out of the River But sic utere tuo ut ne laedas alieno The Vicar of Hallifaxes Case A Chaplain that was under the Vicar of Hallifax libells against him for his Sallary And he prescribes that the Vicar ought to pay the Chaplains four pounds a year And the Vicar prays a Prohibition First for that he alleges That the Chaplains were eligible by himself And because that Chaplain was not elected by him He is not Chaplain But he is in of his own wrong c. Secondly That prescription for Sallery was tryable at the Common law Yelverton the Sallery is spiritual as the Cure it self is spiritual for which it is to be payed As the Case in Dyer 58. Pl. 4. But a Prohibition was granted untill it was determined to whom the election appertained And that now depends by Prohibition in this Court Assault and Battery TRespass of Assault and Battery was brought against two and the one of them appeared and a Verdict was found against him The other was in the insimul cum And dammages were taxed against him who appeared But the Court by view of the Plaintiff increase the dammages from 30 l. to 40 l. And afterwards a verdict was given against the other Defendant and dammages also were taxed And Thime moved that the other Defendant had murdered the Officer who came to serve the Execution upon him for the 40 l. And so they by possibility might recover nothing against him that the Court would increase the dammages against this Defendant upon another view of the wound But the Court denied that For they can have but view one time in this Action But if they had brought several Actions then it had béen otherwise But he directed him to stay all untill the first Defendant was hanged And then they may make a view and increase the dammages Margery Rivets Case A Iudgement in Debt was brought against Margery Rivets Administratrix durante minori aetate of her Son And in a Scire facias against her she pleaded in Bar that she was Administratrix c. and that such a day her Son came to full age scilicet 17 years and that after she refused before the Ordinary And that the Administration was granted to a Stranger And that she had delivered all the Goods in her hands at the time of the Writ brought or after c. The Plaintiff replies and confesses all the Bar But that before the delivery of the Goods and Administration granted by the Ordinary devastivit and does not say that praedicta Margery devastavit The Defendant joyns Issue Quod praedict Margery non devastavit Which was found for the Defendant And Hitcham the Kings Sergeant moved in arrest of Iudgement For that that there was no Issue For every Issue ought to be returned certain and the Issue grows upon the affirmative Then the word of the Defendant quod praedict does nothing for the affirmative makes the Issue Coo. Countess of Salops Case A Bar may be taken upon Common intent But a Replication ought to be precise and certain In the Exchequer Chamber Tho. Harris's case One pleads that he was seised of White acre and Infeoffac .. And adjudged naught for it ought to have been feofavit inde For he may be seised of White acre and enfeofft of another acre And also it may be said that another devastavit although that the wife was Administratrix Atthowe observed all the course of the Reeord there is not a word of Margery in the Replication but only in the recital But says ante diem quo devastivit And
the Replication cannot be taken by intendment and it cannot be amended For it is not vitium scriptoris nor is it so much as ipsa devastavit But if it had béen said that praedict Margery had Goods in her hands sexto Decembris et devastavit then it should have béen good Crook She said that she delivered Goods to another Administrator and then he replies that before that time devastavit It cannot be intended that any other Devastavit but the Wife And Hutton said that that séemed to him to be good But Yelverton replyed that it did not séem to him to be good and it cannot be intended Margery The Replication is the Title of the Plaintiff As upon a scire facias without a precedent Iudgement For the Duty of the Plaintiff is when the Defendant had confessed himself to be subject to his Charge one time As in debt upon Arbitrement and the other pleads no arbitrament made And in point of arbitrement to pay mony It is not sufficient for the Plaintiff to say That the mony was not paid at the day But he ought to affirm that the Defendant had paid it c. And so there also Margery is not named affirmatively in all the Replication For if her name had begun any sentence then she might be intended And although it be now after verdict yet the verdict will not help So it was adjourn'd for the present Robert Barret against Margaret Barret his Mother RObert Barret brought an action of debt against his Mother for an Obligation made to him the Condition whereof was thus That she shall perform all that part of her Husbands Will that of her part is to be performed and observed concerning the Goods c. And that she shall use occupy and enjoy all the Lands and Tenements to her demised according to the true intent and meaning of the Will The Defendant recites the Will which was that her Husband gave her one Messuage and Land for her life Excepting all the Timber Trees and Wood. And further will'd That she make no waste nor estrepment in the Houses Lands or Timber-trees nor her Assigns nor any other for her And further will'd That if she shall happen to do any such waste That then she shall pay to Robert Barret the double value of that to which the waste shall come or amount unto Being indifferently valued by two chosen by themselves And furthermore he willed That there ought to be forty load of Wood per annum taken for fewel upon the Land demised of such Trées which have been used to be lopped for 30 years before And so she pleaded that she performed the Covenant in all c. And the Plaintiff replies that the Defendant had decouped a Grove of Wood containing by estimation one moyety of an acre and 6 Elmes and 20 Beeches and Sallows and Maples and Thorns being of the age of 33 years Whereupon the Defendant demurred But Atthow argued for the Defendant and he said That there is not any breach of the Obligation alleged all Timber-trees are excepted And because when she cuts them there is no waste but a trespass to Robert And the Will is That she shall not do waste For if she had entred into other Lands and cut Trees out of the Lands of the demise that had not been a Forfeiture of the Obligation But it shall be objected That then that clause had been void if his intention shall not be construed of waste to be done in the Trees Then the second breach is not well assigned For the words are If she does waste that she pay the double value And then although that waste be done You ought to allege that she did not pay the double value for if she had paid it her Obligation is saved But Hitcham the Kings Sergeant on the contrary The breach is well assigned The Case rests upon the words of the Obligation and the intention of the Will and then the Intention will appear That she cannot commit waste in the Trees although it be excepted And I conceive it is within the words for it is that she occupy and enjoy the Lands demised as aforesaid Now if I grant my Land I ought to demise my Trees also And if I be obliged not to commit Estrepment in my Land If I pull down a House it is a forfeiture of the Obligation For if Tenent at will pulls down no waste lies against him But he shall be punisht by an action of the Case for it is destruction and waste at the Common law In any of the Houses Lands or Timber trees And what Timber trees may be meant But those are excepted when all are excepted Dyer 323. Pl. 29. After the Statute of 23 H. 8. Nothing was left in the Feoffees al use One would stand seised with his Feoffees to the use of I. S. And adjudged that that is a good demise of the Land Ed. 6. conveys the Manor of Framingham in fee farm and afterwards grants the Fee farm and the Grantee demises his Mannor of Framingham the Fée farm passed for that that it was usually called by that name And Thorntons Case 3 El. He gives all his Land that he purchased of I. S. And he did not purchase any of I. S. but I. S had conveyed it to I. D. of whom he had purchased And adjudged good Sir Edward Cleeres Case Co. lib. 6. 17. So there it ought to be of such waste as he in his apprehension esteemed to be waste But it may be objected that she did not pay the double value But I conceive That if you will that that be paid yet the Will is broken For if you will by one clause that she commits not waste and by another if she do that she pays the double value and she does not pay it she breaks two clauses That ought to be pleaded by you If the Statute prohibit a thing and if he offend against it that he shall pay c. I say that he may be indicted upon the very Prohibition So that you would shew this in excuse of Waste But I conceive that it is not excused upon the Statute of H 6. Richardson chief Iustice All the Obligation goes to the intention of the Will which may be collected by circumstances out of the Will And then the sir Elmes are meerly the others not the Sallows Maples Beeches and Thorns by which the intention is broken Now the Law will not allow that to be waste which is not any ways prejudicial to the Inheritance So when the Husband said she shall not commit waste It was not his intention to restrain her from that which the Law allows Thorns in some Counties are adjudged waste where Trees are scant But a Grove ordinarily is Vnder-wood And then if she committed waste the Husband took upon him to impose the penalty And although that she enter into an Obligation yet it is that she is restrained by the Will of her Husband and he intended it for a
seisin Et si vous alleadger ceo uncore nest traversable mes avowry do et ee sur le matter Et Incroachment ne avoyer issuit lou measnalty nest conveigh forsque al surplusage seisin nest traverseable Incroachment ne noier Et pur ceo est hors de 32 H. 8. Et ceo ne scavoy Cases lou de rent seck est distrainable de commrn droit seisin Poet ee traverse si foret alleadge Et si ascun puist ee monstre jeo ne doubt mes ceo voet ee alleadge per ascuns des freres come rent sur partition attend sur le terte c. issuit cest rent seck que est sane per cest Stattute ala one le mannor et est parcel de ceo come 21 As 23. rent seck est parcell est mannor ou auterment le defendant ad Title al ceo c. Objection est que est cy veiel que le comencement de ceo ne Poet ee conus et est nul fait de cest rent Et coment ne doies alleadge seisin de ceo in Avowry uncore jeo poy monstre que navera seisin deins 40 anns c. Respons est que cest rent comence dee rent seck per primo Ed. 6. cest Stattunte avoit mesme le force a preserver cest rent hors de 32 H. 8. come un fait ou record ad e'e Et le Stattute al rent est sicome le prophette que raise de mort le fitts dl widdow done vie al lui de fitts fait in vie devant mes uncore bien Poet ee dit que le prophet done vie al lui issuit cest rent fuit occide per les premises del Stattute per 1 E. 6. le saueing sa it ceo un in vie que est le al me de cest rent Et pur ceo ceit saluo do et ee monstre in avowry pur cest donque 7 E. 4. 27 29. E. 44. St le comencement del Suory Poet ee monstre ne do et ee alleadger seisin issuit de rent et coment que jeo doye in mon Avowry monstre que la fait ou rent service devant cest Stattute uncore ceo doye rely sur le saueing de cest Stattute 35 H. 6. 3 4. 22 H. 6.3 Avowry 73. Si Suor confirme a tener per meinder services si soiet recite in Avowry est sufficient sans seisin nul inchroachment pius tiel Confirmation noyer donque est un fait original ou un confirmation sur in case dee hors de ceo Stattute de 32 H. 8 issuit voile le Stattute de primo E. 6. Crook ad agree si le saueing ad ee particular de 18 al Suor Windsor que est que cest case nest deins 32. donque averment fait ceo cy certain Et si le saueiug est ee al le Suor Windsor All rents by which the Land is held of him donque avoit est bone et hors de 32 H. 8. Objection est icy est generall que nihil certi implicat c. mes certum est quod certum reddi potest come les cases mise cite per Hutton quel jeo conceave auxi sur le matter al primes le Roy graunt easdem Libertates que S. avoit Poet ee fait certain per averment que S. ad tiels Liberties c. Objection 32 H. 8. do et ee prise liberallmentâ—… Voier que all Avowries Conusances mes le Stattute est de petit faire car si replevin soiet convert al trespasse est hors de de cest Stattute 10 H. 6. 1. Long 5 E. 4. 87. Et in trespass poier traverse le tenure non solement le seisin hors dl Avowry in que le Avowant est Actor c. Objection 32 H. 8. suit sait pur le repose quiet des homes c. Respons solement in Actions deins cest Stattute in eux le Stattute avera liberall Construction que urors ne serra inveigle quel daunger cest icy pur ceo que le Stattute fait Title ee Accounter est nul mischief car poies traverse le tenure ou seisin devant le Stattute de primo E. 6. c. Mes adee dit que Stewards books Courts Rolls ou Bailiffs accounts poieat ee monstre port eins pur Title al rents extinct per leases ou c. uncore jeo die que ceux matters doient ee laise al Iury tiels choses in eux mesmes sout bone Evidences nous veiennus 7 Rep. Farmors Case que le stattute de Fines est avoid per fraud agreement des parties ad ee confesse poiet toller Le Case hors de 32 H. 8. come release Executrix of Henry Hassel IOne Hassel makes a Lease to H. Rassel of 3 Closes for 20 years if he should so long live Henry Hassel dies and debt is brought against his Executor for rent reserved upon that Lease who pleads that before the day of payment he assigned two of the Closes to a Stranger And upon demurrer Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff For if there had been an assignment of Henry If he did not give notice to the Lessor in acceptance of the rent he shall be charged Quod nota Iudgement in Debt IF Iudgement be given in debt and a Scire facias brought against the Executor who pleads ne unque Executor ne unque Administrator c. And it was found against him yet it was agreed by the Court that the Execution shall be de bonis Testatoris tantum For that that the Execution shall have relation to the Iudgement And the Scire facias is to make known that they had not Execution upon the first Iudgment which extends to the goods only of the Testator And so it was said by Moyle Prothonotary that it was rul'd in 5 lac in this Court If a Iudgement be given in Debt and the mony is paid to the Attorney of the Plaintiff Although that the mony miscarry with the Attorny yet the payment is good But if a Scrivener is imployed generally to put mony to use for a year and the mony is paid to the Scribener who breaks or does not pay the mony The payment does not excuse the party But if he receives it by special Command c. that is a good cause of Equity In Avowry IN an Avowry for Dammages feasant the verdict is found for the Avowant And a Returno habend granted for the Cattell and a Capias ad satisfaciendum for the Costs and Dammages are payed The Sheriff cannot execute the Returno habendo But if it be executed and Costs afterwards paid upon the Returno habendo A Writ De si constare poterit shall issue to the Sheriff for delivering the Cattel upon a surmise and payment of the costs c. A Prohibition DAvenport moved for a Prohibition for that that an Executor who resided within the Tower which is a peculiar Iurisdiction as it was surmised was sued in the Prerogative Court
found for the Plaintiff and Finch Recorder moved in arrest of Iudgement first for that they assigne the wast in a Park where the wast is in Land c. Secondly Because that that Action did not lye for them both alike for if the Grandfather and he in the remainder in tayle had joyned in a Lease yet they could not joyne in wast The Books are If Tenant for life and he in the remainder joyn in a Lease they may also joyn with wast 21 H. 8 14. Although 19 H. 7. be put otherwise And 2 H. 5. Sir William Langfords Case Two joynt Tenants to the Heirs of one of them and they make a Lease for life And it was adjudged that they might joyn in wast for the Tenant for life had a reversion for life and had not made any Forfeiture If the Grandfather and he in remainder had joyned in a Lease and afterwards in wast it had been naught for the lease came out of the first root And it was resolved Tr. 2 Jac. Kings Bench Poole and Browses Case That one in remainder cannot have wast where there is an intermediate Estate for life Yelverton and Hutton did not believe the Case of 2 Jac. Crook If there be Tenant for life with such a power c. of Lands held in capite he may make Leases for life without Licence of Alienation and well proves this cause Yelverton and Hutton For the wast being assigned in a Park it is good for a Park is Land Sed adjournatur Hodges against Franklin TRover and Conversion is brought by Hodges against Franklin The Defendant pleads sale of the Goods in Marlborough which is a Market overt and the Bar was well pleaded and an Exception was taken For that that it is not said that Toll was payed It was said by Hutton That there are divers places where no Toll is to be paid upon sale in Market And yet the property is changed and Iudgement accordingly Grimston against an Inn-keeper IN an Action upon the Case it was said at the Bar and not gain-sayed That they ought to say in the Declaration Trasiens hospitavit for if he board or sojourn for a certain space in an Inne and his Goods are stollen the Action upon that is not maintainable And for omission although the Verdict was given for the Plaintiff Iudgement was given Quod nihil capiat per billam upon fault of the Declaration and he paid no Costs Wilkins against Thomas IT was said by the whole Court That a consideration is not traversable upon an Assumpsit but they ought to plead the generall issue and the Consideration ought to be given in Evidence Ireland against Higgins IReland brought an Action upon the Case against Higgins for a Greyhound and counts that he was possessed ut de bonis suis propriis and by Trover came to the Defendant and in consideration thereof promised to re-deliver him It seemed to Yelverton that the Action would not lye and the force of his Argument was that a Grey-hound was de fera natura in which there is no property sed ratione fundi live Deer and Coneys and vouchd 3 H. 6. 56. 18 E. 4. 24. 10 H. 7. 19. for a Hawk for Hares are but for pleasure but Hawks are Merchandable This difference in 12 H. 8. is allowed so long as a Dogge is in the possession of a man an Action of Trespasse lyes detinue or replevin But no Action if he was out of his possession and so had not a property then there is no consideration which is the foundation of an Action Hutton to the contrary and said the whole argument consisted upon false grounds as that a Dogge is ferae naturae Which if it were so he agreed the difference in 12 H. 8. But he intended that a Dogge is not ferae naturae for at first all Beasts were ferae naturae but now by the industry of man they are corrected and their savagenesse abated and they are now domesticae and familiar with a man as Horses and a tame Deer if it be taken an Action lyes Rogers of Norwich recovered Damages pro molosso suo interfecto And 12 H. 8. So of a Hound called a Blood-hound And a Dogge is for profit as well as for pleasure For a Dogge preserves the substance of a man in killing the Vermine as Foxes And now is not an Horse for the pleasure of a man for a man may goe on foot if he will and an Horse is meat for a man no more than a Dogge Therefore an Action may lye for the one as for the other And for a Hawk he ought to shew that it was reclaimed for they are intended ferae naturae One justifies in 24 Eliz 30. for a Battery because he would have taken away his Dogge from him A Repleavin was brought for a Ferret and Nets and a Ferret is more ferae nat than a Dogge Seale brought 25 Eliz. Trespass for taking away his Blood-hound and there it was said to be well laid And then now if he has a property the consideration is good enough to ground an Assumpsit It is adjudged that a feme dowable The heir promises to endow her before such a day and the Action is maintainable upon that by the Court Intraturudic pro quer if no other matter were shewed by such a day Jenkins Case HE brought an Action upon a promise to the Plaintiff That if he marryed her with the assent of her Father she would give him 20. l. Adjudged a good consideration by the Court. 3 Car. rot 414 Sir Edward Peito against Pemberton SIr Edward Peito is Plaintiff against Pemberton in a Replevin and the Defendant was known as Bayliff to H. Peito and said that H. Peito the Grandfather had granted a Rent for life to H. Peito the Son to commence after his death The Plaintiff confesses the grant but sayes that after the death of Peito the Grandfather these Lands out of which the Rent issued descended to Peito the father who made a Lease for a thousand years to the Grantee and dyes The Avowant confesses the Lease but sayes that before the last day of payment he surrendred to the Plaintiff Vpon which there was a Demurer and the question was whether the surrender of the Lease would revive the rent Harvey If he had assigned the Lease to a stranger the rent had been suspended 5 H. 5. One grants a rent charge who had a reversion upon a Lease for life to commence immediately there the question was when the Lease was surrendred whether the rent now became in esse because that the Lease which privileged the Land from distresse is now determined in the hands of the Grantor himself Crook If the Grantor had granted reversion to a stranger and the surrender had been to him It was clear that the suspension had been for the term Hutton If a man seised of a rent in Fee takes a Lease of Lands out of which c. for years and dyes the
Executor shall have the Land and yet the heir cannot have the rent Harvey In this Court it was the case of one Asham who had a purpose to enclose a Common and one Tenant was refractory wherefore Asham made him a Lease of the soil in which he had Common and afterwards he surrenders it again And it was agreed that the Common was suspended during the term Crook A Lease for years is by the contract of both parties and the surrender may revive the rent but by the surrender the arrearages shall not be revived And suppose that the surrender was by Indenture and a recitall of the grant that is a grant and then it is expresse that by the surrender their intent was that the rent should be revived 3 H. 6. A surrender determines the interest of all parties but of a stranger But it is determined to themselves to all intents and purposes Crook It was one Cooks Case against Bullick intrat 45 Eliz. rot 845. Com. ban It was there adjudged and this diversity was taken If one devise Lands in Fee and after makes a Lease for years of the same Lands to the Devisee to commence after his death it is a countermand of his will if the Lease was to commence presently it is no countermand and the reason is In the first case both cannot stand in Fee the Devise and the Lease But when the Lease commences immediately he may outlive the Lease And this Case is put upon the intents of the parties But Henden This Case is also adjudged If two Tenants in Common are and one grants a Rent charge the Beasts of the other are not distreinable But if a Tenant in Common takes a Lease for years of another his Cattel are discharged again But Yelverton and Hutton doubted that Case and so it was adjourned to be argued c. Thomsons Case THompson libells for delapidations against the Executors of his predecessor and Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that Thompson is not incumbent for his presentment was by the King ratione minoritatis of one Chichley and the King had not any such Title to present for where the King mistakes his Title his Presentment is voyd and he is no Incumbent 6 Rep. 26. Greens Case And Sir Thomas Gawdys Case where the King presented jure praerogat when he had another Title and the present Action was adjudged voyd and whether he is incumbent or not that shall be tryed But by the Court a Prohibition was denyed because that he was now incumbent And the Iudges would not take notice of the ill Presentment of the King But in case of Symony the Statute makes the Church voyd and then the Iudges may take notice of that and grant a Prohibition if the Parson sues for Tythes But if a quare impedit be brought and appears that the King had not cause of Presentment then a Prohibition may be granted which also was granted by all the other Iustices Richard Youngs Case RIchard Young was Demandant in a Formedon and admitted by Prochein amy and the Warrant was allowed by a Iudge and it was certified and entred in Gulstons Office in the Roll of Remembrance but it was not entred in the Roll as the course in the Common Bench is and after Iudgement is given for the Plaintiff And for that Formeden the Defendant brought a Writ of Errour and removed the Record and assigned it for Errour And before in nullo est erratum pleaded And Davenport moved that it might be mended for he said that there was a difference between that Court and the Kings Bench as it is in the 4 Rep. 43. Rawlins Case for the Entry of the Roll was Richard Young came et obtulit se per atturnat suum where it should have been proximum amicum And the Entry in the Remembrance Roll was That he was admitted per Gardianum Richardson said that all the Books are That an infant ought to sue by Prochein amy and defend by his Guardian and so is a Demandant But the Court agreed That that should be amended according to the Certificate As a speciall Verdict should be amended according to the Notes given to the Clerk And Davenport said that he would venture it although it was by Guardian for he held it all one if it were by Guardian or by Prochein Amy. See afterwards more of this The Vicar of Cheshams Case THe Earl of Devonshire had a Mannor in the Parish of Chesham in Buckinghamshire which extended to Latmos where there is a Chapell of Ease and the Vicar of Chesham Libells for Tithes against one of the Tenants of the Mannor And Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that the Earl prescribed that he and all his Tenants should be acquitted of all the Tythes of Land within Latmos paying 10. s. per. ann to the Chaplin of Latmos And he said that such a Prescription is good as it was adjudged in Bowles Case And a Prohibition was granted Wildshieres Case IT was agreed by the whole Court That for Executing of a Capias utlagatum or for a Warrant to Execute it or for a return of it no Fee is due to the Sheriff c. It was afterwards agreed upon an Habeas corpus sued by Wiltshiere who was imprisoned being under-Sheriff by the Lord Chamberlain for arresting Sir George Hastings Servant to the King upon a Cap. utlagat That he may well doe it upon the Servant of the King for it is the Sute of the King himself and he is sworn to serve it and there is no cause of the Commitment returned but only a recitall of the Commitment unless he was released by the Lord. And the Iudges took exception to that and said that it ought to be unless he can be released by the Law and said if no cause be returned they ought to dismisse the Prisoner And they ordered the Keeper to inform the Lord Chamberleiâ— and that their Opinion was and so was the Opinion of all the Iudges of England That he who procured the Commitment of the under Sheriff ought to pay all the Charges and Expences Quod nota Wentworth against Abraham THe Lord Wentworth brought an Action upon the Case against Abraham upon an Assumpsit and declares that the Defendant 1 die Maii Anno Dom. 1625. in consideration that the Plaintiff would permit the Defendant to re-enter in a Messuage and Croft in which the Defendant had dwelt before promised that he would pay to him 30. s. yearly during the time that he should enjoy it And that he permisit ipsum reentrare and that he should enjoy it a year and an half which ended at Michaelmas 1626. And for that he would not pay 45. s. he c. And upon non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Davenport in Arrest of Iudgement for that that the Assize is to pay 30. s. Annuatim then before the Action be determined nothing is due and the Plaintiff cannot divide the
Rent 5 R. 2. Annuity 21. Debitum Judex non leperat Then when it does not appear that the Action lyes for the 15. s. for the half year and the Iury assessed Damages intirely it is voyd as 10 Rep. 130. Osborns Case And it appears that by his computation of time it is not a year and an half from the time of the Assumpsit made Richardson said That it is not secundum ratum for then he might divide the Rent and no day is limited for the payment of it for if a Lease be made for two years or at will paying annually at Michaelmas 30. s. and the Lease is determined after half of the year although that it be by the Lessee himself he cannot make any Rent But Yelverton said that that is not a Rent but a collaterall sum And debt does not lye for that And in the Declaration it is said Quod permisit ipsum reentrare and does not say what time which was nought by all but Hutton And it ought to be also that he did de facto re-enter Hutton said There being it is said So long as you shall occupy the Land you shall pay annually c. That he may demand half of the year But the whole Court against him and so Pro hoc tempore judgement was stayed Grange and his Wife against Dixon A Lease was made by Baron and Feme and another Feme and the Lessee Covenants by the same Indenture to find sufficient mans meat and horse meat to the Baron and Feme and to the other Feme or to their Servants at their coming to London at his house in Southwark The Baron and Feme dye and the other Feme takes an husband The Opinion of the Iustices was that he was not bound to find sustenance for the husband but only for the wife or for her servants and not for both at one and the same time because the Covenant was in the disjunctive But it was doubted if he shall find them Victualls for one meal only at their coming or for all the time of their staying there Johnson against Williams and Uxor IT wad said If an Obligation be made by a Feme sole and afterwards she takes an husband and an Action of debt be brought upon that Obligation against the Baron and Feme and they deny the Deed the Baron shall be taken for the Fine as well as the wife for the wife had nothing whereof to pay the Fine And so in Trespasse against Baron and Feme dum sola fuit and they are both found guilty both shall be taken for the Fine which the Prothonotaryes agreed Jeakill against Linne IN a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiff counts upon an Indenture of Lease of the Parsonage of Dale by which the Defendant Covenanted to pay him the Rent the which he had not payed And the Defendant said that before any day of payment of the said Rent incurred one A. Ordinary of the same place sequestred the said Parsonage for non payment of the first fruits Iudgement If an Action c. And by the Court that is not a Plea for he does not shew that any Act was done by the Plaintiff himself in his default Nor he does not confesse and avoid the interest of the Lessor as to say that the Lessor was a disseisor and made a Lease to him after that the disseisee re-entred and so he might confesse and avoid the Lease notwithstanding the Deed indented But he cannot say that the Lessor had nothing at the time of the Lease made And if the Defendant had been bound in an Obligation for the payment of the said Rent in debt brought upon that that should not have been a Plea for he had bound himself to pay the said Rent And the occupation is not materiall where the Lease is for years or for life But otherwise of a Lease at will Davies against Fortescue IF a man it was said be seised of a Mannor whereof there are divers Copy-holders admittable for life or for years and he Leases the Mannor to another for term of life the Lessor may make a Demise by Copy in reversion to commence after the death of the first Copy-holders and that is good enough But the custome of some Mannors is to the contrary and that is allowed Doyly an Infants Case A Man seised of Lands makes a Feoffment in Fee by Deed indented rendring a Rent with a clause of Distresse and afterwards he is bound in a Statute and the day is incurred Vpon which an Execution is awarded to the Conusee and upon the Extent the Sheriff returns that the party was dead and that he had extended the said Rent And the heir of the Conusor being within age because the Rent was extended during his nonage brought an Audita querela and Hutton said That it is maintainable enough because there is an Exception in the Writ of Extent That if Land be descended to any Infant that the Sheriff shall surcease to extend And although that Writ issued against the party himself who made the Conisance yet when it appears by the return of the Sheriff that he is dead the Infant shall be aided by an Audita querela or otherwise the Extent shall be void which is made upon the possession of the Infant Jeffryes Case IN a Formedon the Plaintiff counts of a gift to his Father and to his heirs of his body ingendred during the life of I. S. and makes the descent to him during the life of I. S. And Yelverton seemed that the Writ is good enough for a Tayle may be made so determinable as well as a Fee simple And if a man Warrant Lands to the Feoffee and his heirs against him and his heirs during the life of I. S. That he had a Fee simple in the Warranty determinable upon the life of I. S. So here Warberlyes Case IN a Writ De valore maritagii it was moved by Henden If the Lord shall recover his Damages according to the value of the Land held of him only or according to all his Lands held also of others And Hutton and Crook said that the value of the Marriage shall be accounted as well in respect of the lands held of him as of other lands held of other Lords by Posteriority or in Soccage for there the woman by the Marriage to him shall be more advanced And the better the advancement is the better is the Marriage of the heir and the person more to be esteemed Norbery against Watkins ONe Devises the Mannor of S. to two and their heirs betwéen them to be equally divided so that they shall have part and portion alike If by that they have a Ioynt-tenancy or a Tenancy in common was the Question because there was an Act to be done for making the division And if the words had béen equally to be divided by I. S. it had béen clear that they had béen Ioynt-Tenants But Harvey said That upon such a gift made to them if the
one of them dyed before partition yet their heirs should hold severally according to the intent of the Will for otherwise the Surviver should hold place which against the will of the Devisor Northens Case A Man seised of a Mannor having all the Goods of Felons de se within the same Mannor and makes a Lease for years of parcell of the same Mannor to a man and afterwards makes another Lease of the same Lands to commence after the determination surrender or forfeiture of the first Lease The first Lessée was a Felo de se the Lord Lessor of the Mannor enters into the lands Leased as forfeit and the second Lessée ousts him and it séemed to Crook that the Entry was lawfull enough Harvey said That the Lessor to whom the Frank-Tenement belonged entring into the land the Frank-Tenement drowned the lesser Estate and the Lease for years is extinct in the Frank-Tenement And it was said That therefore the first Lease extinguisht But if before that the Lord had aliened the Mannor saving to him the liberty and after had entred for the Forfeiture the second Lessée could not enter for it is not any determination of the first Lease Crook said That if the Lessor infeoffed the first Lessée of the Mannor that is a determination of the first Lease and the second Lessée may enter The Bishop of Winchester against Markham THomas Bishop of Winchester brought an Action upon the Statute of West 1 cap. 4. de scandalis magnatum against Markham for that he preferred a slanderous Bill against him before the President of the Councel surmising that he was a covetous and malicious Bishop And the Opinion of the Court was That the words were sufficient to maintain the Action A man seised of a Mannor held in Chivalry devises two parts of it to two men in severalty and all the Remnant he devises to his heirs in Tayle the remainder over in Fée Hutton said It seems to me that the devise is voyd for the third part to the heir for he might devise the two parts by his Testament and he had done all that he could doe by the Statute and then the devise of the third part is out of the warranty of the Statute for it is not reason that by the limitation of the third part the which he could not doe that the devise of the residue which was one time good shall be defeated which Harvey granted but Crook to the contrary for although the two parts were devised by the premisses of the Testament and the third part in the end of it yet in operation of Law the one part is not before the other but the will is intire and took effect in all its parts at one and the same time by the death of the Devisor By which it seemed for the benefit of him in the remainder that he shall take the third part devised to him for if a man seised of three Acres of land held in Chivalry and devises them severally to three severall persons in Fee the heir shall have the third part of every of the three Acres and not the Acre last devised which Hutton granted So also for the benefit of a third person he ought to be judged in the third part as a Purchaser and not of an Estate by descent and so is the better Opinion in 3 H. 6. But if he had devised the Tenements to his Son in Taile without limitation over of the remainder there he might choose to be in of the Estate limited by the Devise or as heir Hutton I doubt of that for the Book is not agreed 3 H. 6. Wilkinsons Case THe Baron seised of lands makes a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff him and his wife for life the remainder over to a stranger in Fee Atthow demanded if the Feoffee shall be bound to make the Feoffment before request made by the Baron Hutton and Crook thought that a request ought to be made by the husband And because the particular Estate which is the foundation of the remainder limited to the stranger ought to be made to the husband who is party to the condition and it is his will to take the Estate for life or refuse it and the Feme is at his will But if the Baron dyes then it behooves him to make the Feoffment to the wife without request because she is a stranger to the condition by Act in Law And so where she dyes also before the Feoffment the Estate ought to be made to him to whom the remainder is limited without any request Yelverton But if the condition was to re-enfeoffe the Feoffor and a stranger there it behoves the Feoffee to tender the Feoffment to the stranger for he had not notice of the condition and he ought to be party to all the Estate And by the Livery made to him the Feoffor shall take well enough Waterton against Loadman VVaterton makes a Feoffee to the use of Loadman in Fee to the use of another in Tayle the remainder to his right heirs in Fee Cestui que use in Tayle dyes the first Feoffees enter for to recontinue the use Crook said That when Tenant in Tayle in use makes a Feoffment nothing passes but for his own life For it had been agreed where cestui que use pur vie makes a Feoffment in Fee for it was not a Forfeiture of his Estate because nothing passed but for his life then when the Feoffee dyes during the life of cestui que use in Tayle that cannot be any descent of the Fee but as an Estate for life the which determines by the death of cestui que use in Tayle And all the Iustices were of the same Opinion for the descent was when he had not any Title of entry for by the Feoffment he had a Title during the life of cestui que use in Tayle Wherefore during his life they could not enter nor make continuall claim But if the descent had been after the death of cestui que use in Tayl then otherwise it shall be for they had a Title to enter before the descent and by their laches they are told of that Hutton seemed That the Feoffees cannot enter in that case for they cannot have the same Estate that they had before the alienation of cestui que use in Tayl for by the Feoffment the Estate of the Fee simple which was to their right heirs passes clearly and it is lawfully in the Feoffee Wherefore if they enter to re-continue the use in Tayl where they shall he seised of another Estate where they shall be seised of a Fee simple also and so there shall be two Estate of Fee simple of the same land which is inconvenient But the Iustices said That cestui que use in Tayl had no other remedy unless by the Entry of the Feoffees Harris against Marre A Man seised of certain lands in Fee makes a Feoffment in Fee to his use and afterwards makes his will by which he devises That
the evidence of the party or by others by his procurement in the same manner As it was in an appeal upon a fresh sute at the Common-law It was said by all That although the custome was of Burgage lands in soccage Yet if the Lands came by gift or otherwise to tenure in Chief or service of Chivalry That that now changes not the Custome which alwaies goes with the Land and not with the tenure As the Lands in Gavelkind by the Custome are soccage tenure Yet if they are changed to service of Chivalry the Custome is not altered But that all the heirs shall inherit It was agreed by all That if sir persons compass and imagine to levy war against the King And there is an agreement betwéen them that two shall do such an act in such a Country and the other two another act in such a County And so divers acts by divers in several Counties for to assemble the people against the King And after two do the Act according to their purpose and assemble the people and the other do nothing Yet the Act done by two upon the agreement is Treason in all But otherwise it is if there had been only a compassing c. and not any agreement and afterwards one of them does the act unknowing to the others there it is not Treason but in those that doe the fact and not in the others As it happened in the Case betwéen the King and an other Wilkins against Thomas IT was adjudged upon good advise That if an Infant he impleaded by any precipe of his Lands And loses by defending Now he shall have a Writ of Error And because that he was within age at the time of the Iudgement it shall be reversed And the Infant shall be restored to all that he lost As it happened in the Case of John Ware against Anderson and others in the County of York lost while they were infra aetatem Where it appeared that they appeared by their Guardian admitted to them by the Court to the Grand cape and that they were within age But there was an inspection by Nurses and Friends and they were found not to be within age John Symons against Thomas Symons NOte it was said by all the Iustices That if the Disseisee enter upon the Feoffee or Lessee of the Disseisor That he shall not have an Action of the Trespass for the same Trespass against the Feoffee or Lessee Because that they come in by a Title And at Common law before the Statute of Gloc. No dammages for mean occupation against the Feoffee or Lessee Bromleys Case IF a man steal goods and be arraigned upon an Indictment of felony and the goods are valued to 6 s. and the Iury upon their verdict say That he is guilty of the said goods but that the value was but 6 d. That is a good verdict And the Iustices shall vanish him as for patty Larcenny In the same manner it is If a man be arraigned for willfull murther and the Iury find it but Manslaughter That is a good verdict by all the Iustices Pease against Thompson A Man seised of Lands in see makes a feoffment from that day to divers to the use of his Wife for her life and after to the use of the heirs of the body of the Feoffor The Feme dies and the Feoffor makes a Lease for years and dies Now her Issue shall not avoid that Lease because a man cannot have Heirs in his life So that at the time of the death of the Feme there was none to take by the remainder And for that the Feoffor had the fee the Lease is good and shall bind the Heir As if a Lease be made for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. and I. S. dies in the life of the Lessee then the remainder is good otherwise not but it shall revert But otherwise it shall be peradventure in such a Case in a demise Hillary 3 Car. Com. Banc. Skore against Randall SKore brought Debt against Randall and recovered and had execution by Elegit and it was found by the Inquisition that the Defendant was seised of the moyety of a Messuage and Lands for life and other Lands in right of his Wife And the Sheriff returns that virtute brevis et deliberat feci meditatem omnium praemissorum cum pertinentiis c. Nec non duo pomaria nec non unum clausum vocat c. And that he had delivered the moyety of the Lands in right of his Wife and his Chattells and recites them and that Elegit was filed And the Question was whether he might have a new Elegit Because that the Sheriff ought to have delivered to him the moyety of the moyetic of the Lands held in Ioint-tenancy So that the Tenent by Elegit might be Tenant in Common for a fourth part with the Ioynt tenants as it was agreed But also by that Delivery he had but in effect the eighth part For the other Ioynt-tenants may occupy the Land delivered with him in Common Richardson said For part of the Lands and goods in right of his Wife the return is good And being filed he cannot have a new Election For if part shall be evicted you cannot have a new Extent upon the Estate But if it had been in the Genitive Case Duorum pomorariorum c. it had been good But it was granted by the Court That the Plaintiff makes a surmise that the Sheriff male se gessit in the Execution of that Elegit and then he may have a new Elegit at his peril c. Edward Thomas against John Morgan et al. EDward Thomas brought an Ejectione firmae against Morgan Kemmis and others and upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was given to this effect for Morgan and Kemmis for the other some were dead before issue and the other not guilty and they found a Iudgement dated 12 Sept. 23 Eliz. and deliver'd the 15 Iunii next ensuing Which was between the then Bishop of St. Davids of the one part and Richard Thomas of the other part And it was in consideration of a Marriage to be had between him and the Daughter of the Bishop That before the end of Hillary Term next ensuing he would levy a Fine of all those Lands and all the other lands in Mountmouth and that should be to Thomas Morgan and Roger Sise of Lincoln-Inne And that he suffered a recovery with double voucher to the uses in the Indenture But the words are that the Conusees should stand seised to the use And by Atthowe the Recovery is idle for the uses shall be executed and then there shall be no Tenant to the Precipe viz. That of all the Lands mentioned in the Indenture Morgain and Sise shall stand seised to the only uses hereafter c. that is to say They shall be seised of in part of the Lands and Tenements that is so much thereof as shall amount to the clear value of
said Goe not to such a one c. it is actionable without question Slander of one in his Trade will bear an action And so all being connexed alike it ought to be intended that he killed him in respect of his skill In Cases of Defamation Sir George Hasting's Case Thou didst lye in wait to kill me with a Pistoll were actionable So if one touch another in respect of his skill in that that he professes it will maintain an action c. And Yelverton to the same purpose for there is a difference between a Profession and a particular Calling As if words are spoken of one that is a Iustice of Peace he ought to shew that he was then a Iustice of Peace for he is removable and may be changed every Quarter Sessions But as to a Calling the Calling of every man is his Free hold 43 E. 3. Grant of an Annuity to one pro consilio and he professes Divinity Physick and Law there the grant is pro consilio generally for Physick if that be his usuall Profession And it is intended that a man alwayes dyes in his Calling If he said to I. S. Thou art a murtherer it shall not be intended of Hares for the Iudges are not to search so far for construction Loquendum ut vulgus intelligendum et sapiens If one sayes of a Merchant Put not your Son to him for hee 'l starve him to death These words are actionable for that that it comes within the compasse of the disgrace of his Profession And so of a School-master Put not your Son to him for hee 'l come away as very a dunce as he went Harvey If one sayes of a Iudge He is a corrupt Iudge it cannot be meant of his body to be corrupt but it shall be intended of his Profession Peitoes Case before HEnden for the Defendant the Case is thus A Rent is granted for life out of Lands which descend to the Heir and he makes a Lease of parcell of the Land to the Grantee for years who surrenders the term Whether the Rent shall revive or suspend during the term And it was said by him it shall revive First For that that it is the act of him who is lyable to the Rent to accept the surrender And there is a difference where there is a determination barely by the act of the party there it shall not be revived For the first 21 H. 7. 9. Tenant in Tayl of a Rent is infeoffed of Land and he makes a Feoffment of Land with a warranty to B. with Voucher as of land discharged of that Rent And so it is 19 H. 6. 55. Ascue put this Case Grantee of a rent in Fee and Donee in Tayl of Land infeoffs the Grantee who grants that over and afterwards the issue in Tayl recovers in a Formedon yet the rent shall not be revived But if it had been the joynt act of the parties as so by surrender it should have been revived First It is clear that if a Chattell personall be suspended by Sute it shall be gone for ever As if a Feme marries the Obligor 11 H. 7. 25. unless suspension be in anothers right if it be by the act of the party there it shall be revived As if a Feme Executrix marry with the Obligor and he dyes the suspension is determined and they are revived against the Executors 7 H. 6. 2. In one Gascoines Case Lessee surrenders to the Lessor upon condition the rent be suspended but if the Lessor enter for conditions broken the Rent is revived Which in effect is our case A rent is granted to the Daughter and the land descends to her and her other Sister who make partition The Rent is revived for it is the joynt act of both parties Plow 15. If a man had a Rent and disseises the Tenant of the land and after the Disseisee re-enters Where there is a revivor of the land there is a revivor of the Rent for the disseisin was the cause of the suspension and that now is gone Secondly Because that when the Lessee for years surrenders the term is determined to all purposes and the Lessor is in of his Estate is Fee and there is a diversity of surrender in respect of a stranger for to a stranger it may have Essence after surrender But as to himself it is otherwise extinct And he cannot say that it had any Essence 5 H. 5. 12. But in respect of a stranger it ha's continuance as if an Executor surrenders yet it shall be assets And all acts done upon Lessee for ltfe before surrender shall have a continuance after And so he prayed Iudgement for the Avowant But more after Wakeman against Hawkins IT was said That if an Executor was sued in this Court by Originall he shall not put in Bayl. But if he be arrested in an inferiour Court and removed by Habeas corpus he ought to put in Bayl. Stamford and Coopers Case STamford and Coopers Case was thus I. S. acknowledges a Statute to Cooper the 22 January and afterwards he confesses a Iudgement to Stamford the 23 of January next ensuing the Statute And it is extended And Stamford brought a Scire fac against Cooper to wit now because he ought not to have the land by Elegit And the Question was whether the Iudgement by relation shall defeat the Statute And it was resolved That the Iudgement shall have relation to the Essoin day which is the 20 day of Ianuary for that is the first day of the term legally and the fourth day after is the first day of the Term open Dyer 361. Pla. 10. A Release was pleaded after the last continuance and it bore date the 21 of Ianuary which was after the day of Essoin de Octab. Hil. And for that nought because that it came late for it ought to have been after the last continuance and before the last day c. 33 H 6. 45. Nisi prius was taken after the day of the return and before the fourth day after and adjudged nought because that the day of the return which is the Utas is the first day of the term and the fourth day after but a day of Grace and that is the difference If a man be obliged to pay money the first day of the Term he shall not pay it but upon the fourth day after for that is the first day in all common acceptance But in all legall proceedings the first day is the Essoin day And so it was adjudged 16 Eliz. And in the Kings Bench it was in one Williams Case A Iudgement was given the 20 of Ianuary and a Release of all Errours the 21 Ianuary and adjudged that that bars the Iudgement given the 20 Ianuary although it was not entred the fourth day after A Iustice in the Kings Bench examined an Infant upon inspection the Essoin day and found him to be under age and would not permit him to confess a Iudgement although that he would
have come to full age the fourth day after The Court agreed that one may be non-suited the Essoyn day and if he confess an Action that day it shall be good And thereupon Iudgement was given that by the relation the Statute should be avoided c. Crookes Case A Feme sole leases at the will of the Lessor and after the Feme takes an husband If by the taking of the Baron the will of the Feme be determined and it was thought not Fenne against Thomas Hil. 3 Car. Com. Banc. A Man inhabiting in the most remote part of England was arrosted eight times by Latitat and no Declaration is put in Banco Reg. And the Counsell prayed Costs for the Defendant The Prothonotary said that he shall not have Costs unless he come in person But Richardson said on the contrary and he shall have Costs for it appears that he had been put to travell and a day given to shew cause why the Costs shall not be given Spark against Spark SPark brought an Ejectione firmae against Spark for lands in Hawkschurch in the County of Dorset The Case was a Copy was leased for a year except one day and that was found in the Verdict to be warranted by the Custome The sole Question is if an Ejectione firmae lyes And by Hutton If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years an Ejectione firma lyes but if it be a Copy-hold for years an Ejectione firmae will not be maintained Deakins's Case IT was said at the Bar and not gain-sayed If a man perjure himself against two the one by himself cannot have an Action upon the Statute but they ought to joyn for he is not the only party grieved Bentons Case A Man Leases for life and afterwards Leases for years to commence after the death of the Lessee for life rendring Rent the Reversion is granted Tenant for life dyes Lessee for years does not attourn And it seemed That the reversion passes without Attournment And he shall have Debt or shall Avow Williams against Thirkill AN â—…ion of Debt was brought by Williams against Thirkill Executor of I. S. who pleads a Receipt against him of 300. l. over and above which non c. The Plaintiff replies that the receipt was by Covin And so they are at issue and it was found for the Plaintiff and judgement was entred de bonis Testatoris And it was said by the by in this Case That Debt by Paroll may be forgiven or discharged by Paroll Ploughman a Constables Case PLoughman a Constable suffers one who was arrested pro quadam felonia antea fact to Escape And because it is not shewed what Felony it was and when it was done for it may be it was done before the Generall Pardon the party was discharged Hobsons Case VPon an Indictment of Forcible Entry Quod ingress est unum Messuag inde existens liberum Tenement I. S. And because he does not say Adtunc existens and without that it cannot refer to the present time scilicet of the Indictment He was discharged Sir Thomas Holt against Sir Thomas Sandbach SIr Thomas Holt brought Trespass against Sir Thomas Sandbach quare vi armis Because whereas the Plaintiff had used time out of mind c. to have a Water-course by the Land of the Defendant So that the water run through the Land of the Defendant to the Land of the Plaintiff The Defendant he said had vi armis made a certain Bank in his own Land so that the water could not have his direct course as it was wont to have Harvey It séems to me that the Action does not lye For a man cannot have an action of Trespass against me vi armis for doing of a thing in my own Soyl. But Trespass vi armis lyes against a Stranger who comes upon the Land and takes away my Cattell And such like things but not in this Case But he may have an Assise of Nusance As in Case where one makes an House joyning to my House So that it darkens my House by the erection of a new House I may have an Assise of Nusance against him who does it But Crook was on the contrary But it séemed to Richardson that he shall have Trespass on his Case but not vi armis And to that which hath been said That if one build a House to the nusance of another upon his own Land That he to whom the nusance is done may have an Assise of Nusance that is true And also if he will he may pull and beat down such an House so built to his Nusance if he can do if upon his own Land But he cannot come upon the Land of the other where the Nusance is done to beat it down per que c. Hutton of the same opinion By which it was awarded that the Writ shall abate And he put to his Action upon the Case Hitcham moved a Case to the Iustices One I. by Indenture covenants with an other that he should pay him annually during his life 20 l. at the Feast of St. Michael or within 20 daies after 10 l. and at the Feast of our Lady or within 20 daies after 10 l. The Grantée before the 20 daies passe and after the Feast of our Lady dies If the Executors of the Grantee shall have the Rent or not And the Iustices Hutton being absent said That it was a good Case And said that the Executors shall not have it Because it is not at all due untill the 20th day be past Fawkners Case A Lease was made to one for 40 years the Lessee makes his Testament and by that devises it the term to I. S. for term of his life if he shall live untill the said term be expired And if he dies before the years expire then the remainder of the years to F. for term of his life and if he die before the term be expired the remainder of the years to the Churchwardens of S. I. If the remainder to the said Church shall be good or not was the Question Because that the Wardens of the Church are not coporate so that they may take by that Grant Hutton and Harvy said that the Remainder was not good to them And said that the first Remainder was not good Peters against Field A Bill obligatory was shewed to the Court in Debt brought upon it And in the end of the Bill were these words In witnesse whereof I have hereunto set my hand and he had writ his name and put to his Seal also And because no mention was made in the Bill of no Seal to be put to the Bill It was moved to the Iustices If the Bill be good or not And it was agreed by the whole Court that the Bill was good enough Tomlinsons Case A Parson makes a Lease for 21 years The Patron and Ordinary confirm his Estate for 7 years the Parson dies The Question is Whether that confirmation made the Lease good for 21
years or but for 7 years And it seemed to Hutton that the Lease was confirmed but for 7 years But Richardson was of the contrary opinion and took a difference where they confirm the Estate and where they confirm the Land for 7 years That Confirmation confirms all his Estate But where they confirm the Land for 7 years That Confirmation shall not enure but according to the Confirmation And that difference was agreed by Crook and all the Sergeants at the Bar. And afterwards Hutton said That that was a good Case to be considered and to be moved again Jacobs's Case A Man was indicted at Newgate For that he feloniously vi armis had robbed a man in a certain Kings foot-way leading to London from Highgate And upon that he was arraigned found guilty And having his judgment he prayed his Clergy for that he was a Clark And the Iustices of Gaol delivery doubted if he should have his Clergy or not Because the Statute if any man be taken upon Felony committed on the High way he shall not have his Clergy But the Indictment was in this case that the Felony was done in alta via reg pedestri So that the words are not alta via regia nec in magna via regia nec in via regia For if that word pedestri had been put out of the Indictment he should not have had his Clergy clearly Some of the Iustices were of opinion that that word added in the Indictment made that he should not have his Clergy The Lord chief Baron of the contrary opinion Perkins against Butterfield HItcham moved to the Iustices If one takes Beasts Dammage feasant and impounds them in an House and leaves the Door open So that the Owner may sée them and give them sustenance And afterwards for default of Sustenance they dye in the Pound Whether he who distreyned them shall be charged or not Hutton when one takes Beasts Dammage feasant in his Land It is at his Election if he will impound them in an open place where the Pound is or in some place in his own Land And if he impound them in the common Pound and the Beasts dye the Owner has no remedy But if they be impounded upon the Soyl where they did the Dammage or in the Houses of him who distreyned them and they dye for want of Food In this he who took them shall be charged For the Common Pound is common to all Persons so that they may come to give them food Otherwise in this case For there the Owner cannot have notice where he hath made his Pound Richardson of the same opinion And I believe that the Owner shall have an action upon his Case against the Owner for the recovery of the value of his Cattell For trespass does not lye For the taking of them and the impounding was lawfull And it is reason that he should recover the value of them by an Action For if the Owner had come to have given them food the Terre-tenant would have an action against him Hitcham The taking of them is made a Trespass ab initio when the Beasts dyed in Pound Wimberly against Taylor et alios VVImberly had entred a Plaint in a Court Baron against two jointly for taking of his Goods And the Plaintiff had removed the Plaint by a Recordare joyntly as the Plaint is And now at this time the Plaintiff counts of taking of Goods severally So that it varies from the Plaint and the Recordare also And Ward moved that the Writ might abate And so it was adjudged by Hutton and the Iustices Wilkinsons Case IT was moved at the Bar If a Man makes a Lease for years to I. S. I. N. and I. D. If the aforesaid I. S. c. should so long live And now one of the Lessées is dead If the whole Lease should be determined or not was the Question And Hutton and Harvey said That it was without doubt that the Lease was determined by the death of one of them But if the words had been generally If the Lessées should so long live and had not named them Then perchance it should have béen more doubtfull The Executors of Tomlins's Case ATthowe demanded this Question of the Iustices A Lease is made for years the Lessée grants over his Estate and reserves to him and his Heirs during the term a certain Rent If the Executors or the Heir of the heir shall have that Rent And it séems to me that it shall enure to the heir well enough As a Grant made by the Grantee of the estate of the same Rent So the Heir shall take by the Grant Harvy May the Heir take Chattel as Heir to his Father And this Rent is but a Chattel And in the Book of Assise there is a Case where Lands are given to I. S. et uni haeredi suo et uni haeredi ipsius haeredis tantum And that was taken to be no Fee-simple Nor no such Estate that the Heir might claim as Heir to his Father But I am in doubt of your Case truly For which I will advise Hitcham Vpon that I have seen a Diversity Where Lands are given to I. S. et haeredi suo et haeredi haeredis I. S. In that Case he shall have a Fée-simple Otherwise it is where Lands are given to I. S. et haeredi suo There no Fee-simple passes Richardson There no Fee-simple passes in any of the Cases And it was said in the Argument That Lessee shall not have Trespass vi et armis against his Lessor Whiddon's Case A Man devises by his Testament to his Daughrer Jane all his Land in D. habendum sibi et haered de corpore suo legitime proc And by the same Testament he devises to his Daughter Anne all his Land in the tenure of I. S. in the County of Hertford Whereas in truth D. was in the County of Hertford and parcel of the Lands were in the tenure of I. S. Whether Jane shall have the Lands in D. in the tenure of I. S. by the first words Or Anne shall have them by the last words Harvey The Testator had given them by his first words to Jane Wherefore he cannot revoke his Gift and give it afterwards to another Daughter But all the Iustices were of the contrary opinion A Case of Executors IF Executors come to the Ordinary for to prove the Will He ought to prove it ex communi jure And that he may do without great examination of the Witnesses But if other Executors come afterwards to prove a later Will Then the Ordinary ought to be circumspect in the probation of that Will and to do it by proofs For that is de mero Jure And it is the better and of more effect by Atthowe Challoner against Ware A Man makes a Lease for years reserving a certain rent payable at the Feast of St. Michael And for default of payment at the said day and by the space of 40 daies after That
it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to reenter without any demand of the Rent The Rent is in arrear by 40 daies after the Feast of Saint Michael and no demand of the Rent made by the Lessor Whereupon the Lessor entred If that Entry were lawfull was the Question And by Hutton it is not For a demand of the Rent is given by the Common law between Lessor and Lessée And notwithstanding the words without any demand it remains as it was before And is not altered by them But if the Rent had béen reserved payable at another place than upon the Land There the Lessor may enter without any demand But where no place is limitted but upon the Land otherwise it is Richardson to the contrary For when he had covenanted that he might enter without any demand The Lessée had dispensed with the Common law by his own Covenant As the Lessor might by his Covenant when he makes a Lease Sans impeachment dl waste He had dispenced with the Common law which gives the Action of Waste Harvey of the same opinion If a Man leases Lands for years with a Clause That if the Rent be in Arrear by forty daies after the day of payment That the term shall cease If the Rent be in arrear by the said forty daies after the day of payment The Lessor may enter without request Conyers's Case ONe Thompson makes a Lease for forty years to Conyers by Indenture and in the same Indenture covenants and grants to the Lessee That he shall take convenient House-boot Fire-boot and Cart-boot in toto bosco suo vocato S. wood within the Parish of S. And those Woods are not parcel of the Land leased but other Lands Atthow I would fain know your opinion if that Grant of Estovers out of an other place than was the Lease be good Also what Estate the Grantée of House-boot and Fire-boot shall have by that For the words are from time to time and hath limited no time in certain And lastly If the Lessée be excluded to have House-boot and Fire-boot in the Land leased or if he shall have in both places Also if the Executors by that Grant to the Lessee shall have House-boot and Fire boot And it was agreed by Hutton and Harvey That that Grant was good and that the Grantee shall have it during the Term. And that that grant does not restrain him But that he shall have house-boot and fire-boot in the land leased also Atthowe If there be no great Timber upon the land leased and the houses are in decay if the Lessor ought to find and allow to the Lessée sufficient Timber for the making the reparations or if the Lessée at his own costs ought to find the Timber for the reparations of the house Hutton said That the great Timber shall be at the costs of the Lessor if no Timber be upon the land leased nor no default be in the Lessee in suffering the great timber to go to decay or to putrifie And it was agréed if the Lessor cut a tree and carry it out of the Land That the Lessee may have an Action of Trespass And if Stranger cut a tree the lessee shall have an action of Trespass and recover treble dammages As the lessor should recover against him in an action of waste Wakemans Case A Man seised of a Mannor parcell demesn and parcell in service devises by his Testament to his wife during her life all the demesn lands also by the same Testament he devises to her all the services of chief Rents for 15 years And moreover by the same Testament he devises the same Mannor to another after the death of his wife And it was agreed by all the Iustices That the devise shall not take effect for no part of the Mannor as to the stranger untill after the death of the wife And that the heir after the 15 years passed during the life of the wife shall have the services and chief Rents Jenkins against Dawson IN a Formedon the Demandant makes his Conveyance in the Writ by the gift of I. S. who gave it to ◠D. er haeredibus de corp suo legitime procreat And shewes in the Writ that he was heir to the Son and heir of I. D. Son and heir of W. D. the Donee And Hitcham demanded Iudgement of the Writ for this Cause And the Court said that the Writ was not good for he ought not to make mention in the Writ of every heir as he does here But he ought to make himself heir to him who dyed last seised of the Estate Tayl as his Father or other Ancestor Also that word procreat ought not to be in the Writ but Exeuntibus But the Court thought that it might be amended And Harvey said If false Latin be in the Writ it shall be amended as if in a Formedon the Writ be Consanguineus where it should have béen Consanguineo Hutton and all the other Iustices said that that might be amended by the Statute Saulkells Case IN an Attaint the grand Iury appeared and the petit Iury and the parties also and one Rudstone Master of the Servant in the Attaint came to the Bar and there spoke in the matter as if he had been of counsell with his Servant Crawley said to him Are you a party to this Suteor for what cause do you speak at the Bar And he answered that he had done this for his Servant And if he had done any thing against the Law he knew not so much before Hutton You may if you did owe any mony to your Servant for his wages give to his Counsel so much as is behind of it and that is not maintenance Or you may go with your Servant to retein Counsel for him So that your Servant pay for his Counsel But that that you have done is apparent maintenance And the Kings Sergeant prayed That he may be awarded to the Fleet and pay a Fine And Hutton upon advise sent him to the Fleet. Wiggons against Darcy DArcy was in Execution upon a Statute Merchant and his Body and Goods were taken And the Conisee agreed that the Conisor should go at large and he went at large Atthowe moved If that were a discharge of the Execution or not And Richardson said it was For his imprisonment is for his Execution And if he release his imprisonment he releases his Execution And so if two men be in Execution for one Debt and the Plaintiff releases to one of them That is a release to both And so if one had two acres in Execution and the Plaintiff release the Execution of one of them It enures to both Harvey on the contrary opinion Yet I will agree That if a man be one time in Execution The Plaintiff shall not another time have an Execution For after a cap. ad satisfac an Elegit does not lye But in the Case where the Conisee does release the imprisonment only and not the Execution for it is
arrear that the Remainder shall be to a Stranger that Remainder is not good Hutton said that in my opinion my Brother Atthow spoke well and so it was affirmed Bateman against Ford. AN action of the Case was brought against Ford who had called the Plaintiff Thief and that he had stollen from him a yard of Velvet and a yard of Damask The Defendant said that he said that the Plaintiff had taken and bribed from him as much mony as he had for a yard of Velvet and Damask and justifies Hitcham said that the Iustification is not good For the words that he justifies do not amount to so much as to affirm a Felony in the Plaintiff where the Plaintiff counts that the Defendant slandered him of a Felony Hutton said What difference is there when you say that I have bribed your Horse and when you say that I have robbed you of your Horse Henden one may take Goods and yet it is not felony Termino Pasc Anno 4. Car. Regis Com. Banc. Norris against Isham IN an Eject firm by Norris against Isham These things happened in Evidence to the Iury. First it was cited by Richardson and Hutton to be Hurtltons Case That an Eject firm cannot be of a Mannor Because that there cannot be an Ejectment of the Services But if they do express further a quantity of acres it is sufficient It was said by Crook Iustice and not denyed That if a Lease is made of 5 acres to try a Title in an â—…eject firm And of the 3 acres he will make a lease But in the other a he will not If the livery be in the 3 acres the other 2 does not pass Part of the Evidence was That the Countess of Salisbury being seised of the Lands in Question makes a Lease of them by words of Demise Bargain and Sale to Iudge Crook for a Month to begin the 29 September habendum a datu and it was deliveted the 3 of September And the same day he bargains and sells the Reversion Davenport Because that no Entry appears by the Lessees by vertue of the Demise he submitted to the Court If there was any such Reversion in the Grantor he bring in possession And this difference was a greed That if one demises Lands for years and Grants the Reversion before Entry of the Lessée The Grant is void As it is in Saffins Case Cook 5. 12. 46. But if a man bargain and sell for years and grants the Reversion before Entry of the Lessee it is good For the Statute transfers the Possession to the use As if a man bargain and sells in fee or for life and the Deed is inrolled The Bargainee is in possession of the Frank-tenement And so it is of a Lease for years which is a Chattell And by Crook In the Court of Wards that very point was resolved Davenport Also there are words of Demise and Bargain and Sale before which the Lessee had his Election to take by which he would As Sir Rowland Heyards Case is But by Hutton and it was not denyed He should be in by the Bargain and Sale before Election For that is more for his advantage Further the Evidence was That George Earl of Salisbury made a Lease of those Lands which were a Mannor And makes a Conveyance from himself for life with divers Remainders and then to the use of the Daughter or Daughters of the said George And the heirs males of thrir bodies the remainder to the heirs of the body of the said George c. and had 3 Daughters to whom the Remainder The first dyed without Issue the 2 d. dyed having Issue male the 3 d. bargains sells all her half part and pur part to Edw. Earl of Salisbury Who now being seised of a third part of the Estate of Inheritance and of the other two parts for his life and the lives of the 3 Daughters suffers a common recovery by the name of the moyety of the Mannor And the doubt was what passed Richardson By that there is not passed but the moyety of the third part Hutton Crook and Yeiverton were on the contrary opinion and said that by that All the third part passed also Yelverton If a man be seised of the mannor of Dale and buys half for life of another in fee and makes a Feoffment of the half of the Mannor The moyety which he had in Fee shall pass And there shall be a forfeiture for no part Which was agreed by the Court. If a man be seised of the third part and grants the moyety perhaps the moyety of the third part only passes But he is seised of all Richardson There are several Estates and moyety goes to that Estate which he had in the Mannor For when I grant more than I can grant that which passes passes Crook I had the third part of a Mannor and grant the moyety of the Mannor all my third part passes But in the Bargain and Sale the words were part et pur part Which as it was passed all And also the Covenant to the Lessor The Recovery was of the half part pur part And by Hutton Crook Yelverton All was intended to be recovered And then the word Moyety carries that tresbien Richardson That Indentures of Covenant much mends the Case Another Question upon the Evidence was Whether when a Bargain and sale is made of Lands And the Bargainee before inrollment makes a Lease for years and afterwards it is enrolled If the Lease now be good Richardson and Yelverton It shall be that although it be after acknowledgement and before inrollment yet it is naught And by Yelverton and Crook it was so adjudged in Bellingham and Hortons Case That if one sells in fee and before inrollment the Bargainee bargains and sells to another And afterwards comes an Inrollment That second Bargain and sale is void And an other Question was Pasc 4. Car. Com. Banc. If one makes a Lease for years by Indenture of Lands which he had not If the Iury be estopped to find that no Lease And by Richardson If the finding that no Lease be subject to an attaint But they should find the special matter And then the Iudges would judge that a good Lease And Sergeant Barkley cited Rawlins's Case Coo. 4. 43. to that purpose Crook and Hutton against him And Crook said That it was adjudged in London in Samms case That that is not an Estoppel to the Iury. Which was affirmed by Hutton And that they may find the special matter And then the Iudges ought to find that it is not a good Lease And Hutton said That there is a difference between a special Verdict and pleading in that case For in speciall pleading and Verdict is confost by all parties That he had not any thing in the Lease And then the Iudges gave Iudgment accordingly The King against Clough IN the case of a Quare impedit by the King against Clough before Richardson shewed how the Quare
If I grant to a man that if he mary my Daughter he shall have my Mannor of Dale for years the mariage ought to be before he shall have any thing in the Mannor But if it had been that he should have had my Mannor for 7 years if he mary my Daughter Then the mariage is conditional subsequent that if he does not mary I shall have my Mannor again 10 E. 3. 44. The Abbot of Bosneys The difference is there put by Brerewood Trin. 4 Car. Com. Banc. 36. H. 6. An Annuity granted untill he was promoted to a benefice That is conditional from the Defeasance But if it was that the Grantée did such an Act that he should have an Annuity And ex vi termini there is a perfect Estate before the if and the former if is well explained by the last That if there be not issue male then the Estate shall cease 10 Rep. 41. A Condition in its nature is not to precede an Estate As if the Lands be given to a woman for years si tam diu vixerit 35 Assise plo 14. The Case in point of a Remainder which comes to our Case and conteyns both the parts of that difference As it is in Colthursts and Binshams Case The Prior and Covent of Bath leases Land for life the Remainder to W. Si ipse inhabitare et residens esse velit infra praedict terram And if it shall happen that the said W. should mary before H. Then the Remainder to P. And the Question is whether it is a Condition precedent or subsequent Resolved that the second is precedent For that that the Si precedes and for that makes the Estate contingent But for the other Si after the Estate limited Si ipse inhabitare vellet They were the very words of Mountague Chief Iustice It cannot be denyed but that it is subsequent and then goes in Defeasance and the other ought to shew the non-performance of it And that Case is more strong than our Case is For that Estate is by way of Livery not by use For in Case of Livery there he ought to have a time to do the thing And our Case then he should have for life determinable upon the Si c. And that construction of Vses shall be clear by the intent which appears that there ought to be a present Estate Where uses are by Indenture if by one construction the Intent is frustrate and if by another upheld That ought to be taken ut res magis valeat c. The Lord Sturtons Case Where a Lease was made of a Mannor to two Hubbards to have to them and to two others for their lives the first two dye And it was ruled that it was good but to the first two for their lives and not for the lives of the four Because they shall take but in point of Estate See more after Termino Trin. 4 Car. Com. Banc. The King against the Bishop of Canterbury THe King brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Canterbury Sir John Hall and Richard Clark for the Church of Marleborough in Northamptonshire And declares that Richard White was seised of the Mannor to which the Advowson belonged And the 6 Iac. by Indenture he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his wife for their lives and to the Heirs of Richard White And after White presents one Boynton and dies and his wife maries with Sir Iohn Hall The first of Iune 6th Iacob by Deed grants proximam advocationem to two to this intent that he might receive of such a Parson that he presented all mony as should be agréed betwéen Grantor and Grantee And that this was done Boynton lying in extremis And then the 26 Ian. 16 Iacob there was a corrupt agreement between Sir Iohn Hall and one of the Grantees That for 200 l. to be paid by the Clark Blundell That the other Grantee should present him And the first of February Blundell pays Sir Richard the mony and the second day he was presented instituted and inducted accordingly And that upon this it appertained to the King to present The Bishop pleads but as Ordinary Sir Iohn Hall makes a Title and traverses the corrupt agreement The Incumbent pleads by Protestation that there was not any corrupt agreement as it was alleged and not answers whether the mony was paid or not But that he is Parson imparsonee of the presentment of But 16 Iacob after such an agreement scil 17 Feb. he was presented by the Letters Patents of the King to this Church and never answers to the Symony And it was held by the Court to be naught and only pleaded to hinder the Execution before the Iustices of Assise If the Tryal went against the Patron Upon a Prohibition ONe libells against another in the Spiritual Court for the tithe of two pecks of Apples and for feeding the Cattel upon the Ground And the Defendant for the Apples answered That there were two Pecks only growing in his Orchard and that they were stollen and never came to his use and for the Cattel that they were antient Milch-beasts and that they growing old were dry And that for a month they depastured with other Heyfars and that after they put them in a Meadow out of which the Hay was carried And afterwards he fed them with hay in his House Atthowe Because that the Answers were not admitted prayed a Prohibition Hutton If Appples are upon the Trees and taken by a Stranger shall the Parson be hindred of his tithe Yelverton If I suffer one to pull my Apples the Parson shall have tithes But if they be taken by Persons not known the Parson shall not have tithes of them Which was granted For they are not tithable before plucking And for that if he suffer them to hang so long by negligence after the time that they are imbessed By Yelverton he shall pay tithes For the second matter it was agreed by the Court and for the depasturing in the Meadow and for the Hay with which they were fedd afterwards tithe shall not be paid Because that the Parson had tithes of them before But if the Question is for the tithes when he went with the other Heyfars By Crook that is no cause to excuse the tithe Harvey If I have ten Milch-kine which I purpose to reserve for Calves and they are dry The Parson shall not have tithe for their Pasture But if I sell them by which it appears I kept them for fatting There tithes shall be paid Hutton agreed That although that there was so small time yet when they went with the Heyfars he shall pay tithes for them Goddard and Tilers Case GOddard against Tiler in a Prohibition Tiler sued for tithes of Milk and Calves upon which modus decimandi surmised A Prohibition was granted viz. That every Inhabitant should pay 4 d. for every Cow and 2 d. for every Calf which they proved that there was never tithe paid in specie But
and Yelverton And a prohibition was granted Holmes against Chime before PResidents were shewn that such actions were brought scil Hill 3. Car. Elwin against Atkins and Hill 1. Car. Cophin against Cophin both in this Court. And Richardson said although the book makes a doubt of it yet his opinion was that the action would lie For it would be a miserable thing that all things should be shewed precisely And so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Port against Yates IN a replevin the case was The Defendant was known as Bayliff to Thomas Kett and the land was Copyhold land And 10 Maii. 3 Car. When it was granted by the Lord of the Mannor to the wife of Thomas Kett. The Plaintiff confesses that the Land is Copyhold land but that the Lord granted 1 Iacob to Robert Salter in Fée who had two daughters the wife of the Plaintiff and the wife of Thomas Kett and dyed seised and that the land descended to them upon which they demurred Berkely The first grant shews that the Defendant was in of all and the descent to the wife but for the moyety whereupon the grant of the whole is not traversed nor confessed and avoided And he cited Dyer 171. Pl. 8. to be the same case in effect and so ruled But Hutton Harvey and Crooke held what difference there was betwéen this case and the case in question Hutton the descent here which is pleaded makes the second grant void But by Richardson although that it be avoided Yet it is not confessed And afterwards for that that upon the whole truth of the matter disclosed It appears that a Copartener cannot distrein the lands of another damage feasant and the matter of form in pleading ought not to be regarded by the Iudges upon the Statute of 21 Eliz. cap. 5. Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Cockett against Delayhay COcket brought an action upon the case in Bristow against Delahay for these words Cockett hath forged a deed and because of that came out of his own Country And the Defendant justifies that he did forge a Déed in Middlesex of lands in Hartfordshire without that that he spoke in Bristowe Richardson said that that plea was naught either with traverse or without the Traverse Whereupon Henden altered his plea scil That he forged a déed of those lands at South Mimms in Middlesex where the lands lie By vertue of which he justified the words at Bristowe Richardson It is a good plea for now the other can plead nothing but de injuria sua propria And then the tryal shall be in Middlesex And by Crooke if there be a Demurrer there shall be a writ of inquiry of damages issue to Bristowe Issue IF the issue be not made up it may be tryed by Proviso But if the Plaintiff neglect that there may be called a non-sute upon the roll for there it shall be discontinued quod nota Page against Tayler PAge brought an Action against Tayler as Receiver c. which was found against him c. And Iudgement was given that he accounted and before the Auditors he pleaded that before the Action brought there was an arbirement that he should pay to the Plaintiff 11 l. in satisfaction of all accounts and demands which he had performed And it was ruled by the whole Court that that was not a good plea in discharge before Auditors but a plea in bar of the account And by Crooke an accord with satisfaction may be pleaded in Bar not in discharge Which the Court seemed to agree And by Crooke If the Defendant had any other matter to shew on the Declaration before Auditors it might be shewn c. Richardson Although that the Arbitrament was made after the action brought it cannot now be pleaded but he ought to have his Andita querela Manninghams case In Manninghams case The doubt was this A condition of an obligation made to Manningham was that he should pay after his death to his Executors after his death 10 l. per annum to the use of the Children of Manningham And Manningham dyed and there was no Executor whether the payment should be to the Administrator and so the obligation forfeited Berkly said that it ought to be payed to the Administrator for an Executor includes an Administrator And this money is as assets if not to satisfie debts yet to perform this case which is illsgal 5 H. 7. 12. 26 H. 8. 7. And also if a man limit a thing to be done to his Executors that may be done to his Administrators So that the nominating of the Executor is not but an expresse intention to whom the money shall be paid viz. to him who presents his person And he compares that to the case of 46. E. 3. 18. A rent upon a condition reserved to the Executors goes to the Administrators 15 E. 4. 14. Dy. 309. Cranmers case Where it seemed that if a lease be made to one for life and after to his Executors for years that the Executors shall not have the term as assets 32. E. 3. A quid juris clamat Fitzharb A Lease for life to his Executors for years in remainder Lessee for life atturns saving the term which proves that the Executor had that as privy not as strangers And he cited Chapmans and Daltons case the principall So that the Infant and the Executors shall have the money in right of the testator and therefore it goes to the Administrator Secondly The Executor extends to an administrator 8. rep 135. there kindes of Executors and an Administrator is an Excecutor datinus 3 H. 6. An action is brought against divers executors by the Statute when some appears upon the distresse it answers that extends to an Administrator although the Statute names only Executors Thirdly It does not appear here that Manningham made not Executors for it may be that he made Executors and that they dyed intestate or before probate And he cited 18. H. 8. And Shelleyes case 1. rep and 33. Eliz. If Executors dye before probate It is in Law a dying intestate Richardson Here is but meer trust and as it hath been said It doth not appear whether he had made Executors or not For if he dye and makes Executors and they dye before probate or refuse he dyes ab intestato but not intestate Nor shall it be questioned if the obligation had been to pay to Manningham only or to him and his Executors But it goes to the administrators But because that he had specially put his Executor Whether he ought to have the forfeiture of the obligation or whether he ought to have the sum to be annually payed to the Administrator Berkley the letters of administration make mention that he dyed ab intestaro Atthow That is matter de hors but by the declaration it is clear that he dyed intestate And the action brought by Administrator who who had not any cause of action Secondly admitt that there was an Executor and the money payed to him that
Iurisdiction of this Court it ought not to be received without Oath c. But if in Covenant or debt for money to be paid at another place he pleads payment accordingly or the Covenants performed in the place limited which was out of the Iurisdiction it ought to be received without Oath quod not Double delay BY the course of the Court double delay cannot be allowed as if the Defendant in debt plead that the Plaintiff is a Recusant convicted and had a special imparlance afterwards the Plaintiff conforms The Defendant cannot plead Outlawry in the Plaintiff Iohn Felton's Case MEmorand quod Thursday 29 die Novembr 1628. Iohn Felton was arraigned in the Kings Bench for the murther of George Duke of Buckingham And the Iustices of the Common Bench demanded of the Serjeants of the King who were present in the Kings Bench what was done with Felton And Ashley answered That he had confessed the fact and that the ordinary sentence of death was given against him But they marvelled that for so notorious offence the sentence was not that he should be hanged in chains Yelverton That any other sentence than the ordinary sentence cannot be given But after that he is dead his body was at the disposition of the King which was not denyed by the other Iustices Turner against Hodges TUrner brought Trespasse quare clausum fregit against Hodges The Defendant said that loco in quo c. is Copyhold and that the Lord Dudley is seised of the Mannor of Sedgley and granted the Copyhold in Fee to Roger Turner and he makes a Lease to the Defendant Hodges for a year The Plaintiff replies that there is custom within that Mannor If a Copyholder makes a lease without licence of the Lord for a year and dies within the term it shall be void against the heir And upon the issue of Nul tiel record it was found for the Plaintiff And Atthowe prayed Iudgement and shews that the custom is good and not contrary to reason 4 rep 26. It was resolved that lessee of a Copyhold without licence for a year may maintain an Eject firm for his term is warranted by the Law by force of the general custom of the Realm But that ought to be intended by the custom within every Mannor within the Realm Whatsoever a Copiholder does is by Custom The Case here is that it shall be void by the death of the Lessor which is an Act of God That was that if Copiholder made a Lease for years and afterwards aliens that to be void against the Alienee would be unreasonable 39 Eliz. There was a Case referred to the Iudges out of Chancery which was debated in Sergeants Inne Littleton 59 b. Armesstrong Lord of a Mannor prescribes that a Copiholder upon the change of every Lord should pay a Fine But by all the Iudges it was ruled a void Custom For the Lord might change his Mannor every day But if it had béen That after the death of the Lord he should have a Fine That is a good custom For it is the act of God So in our Case the custom is void against his Heir which is by the act of God In some Cases a custom alters the nature of a Free-hold land 5 Rep. 84. Perrymans Case A Feoffment shall not be good untill it be presented in the Court of the Mannor a good custom If a free-hold estate may be controlled by a custom a multo fortiori a Copi-hold estate Barkley argued on the other side Although it be found for the Plaintiff Yet if the custome be void a void custome is no custome And for that it is said in the Earl of Lecesters case That a void custome cannot be confirmed by Act of Parliament And that is a void custome We ought to consider the nature of a Copyhold Inheritance By the Common law it is but an Estate at will But the Common law so takes notice to establish it by a custome That there may be possessio Fratris of it and he may have Trespass against his Lord. If Tenant at will be out-lawed his Estate is determined But Copyhold is not determined or forfeited by Out-lawry As it was adjudged 44 Eliz. So that the Law takes notice of it as of an other Estate of Inheritance Where an Heir after his death may enter as Heir at Common law and have Trespass because that it descends At Common law he had power to make a Lease for a year For it is not the custome of the Mannor that he may make such a Lease For then it is pleaded If a Copiholder makes a Lease for divers years without alleging a custome or Licence of the Lord he cannot maintain an Ejectione firm against his Lord but perhaps against a Stranger It may be then if it be the very Law if he may make a Lease for one year if this custome be good It will be contrary to the very liberty of the Estate 19 Eliz. Dyer Solomons Case Custom that Tenant in Fee-simple shall not make a Lease for more than 5 years is void So Littleton says That a Condition that the Feoffee should not alien was void And a Condition that Tenant in tayl should not suffer a Common recovery is void Because that it restrains that Liberty which is annexed to the Estate And for the difference between the Father and the Heir in our Case there is not any difference For the Heir is all one with Father and in loco patris For he might have Trespass by discent of a Copihold Sir William Herberts Case And then if the Father shall be bound by the Lease so shall the Heir Richardson said That Iudgement ought to be given for the Plaintiff Copihold as it is created by Custome so in all it is guided by Custome For at the Common law a Copiholder could not make a Lease for a year But because that it is a general custome of all Mannors in England For it is not but a meer Estate at will by the Common law Then this custome is not against the Liberty of the Estate For a Custome inables that the Lease and a Custome ought to destroy it upon a Contingency as here by the death of the Father For that the Lord may know his Tenant And therefore the Case is reasonable and not to be compared to the case of a Freehold in Dyer A Freehold may be restrained by Custom And yet a Freeholder may be restrained by custome As antient demesn which he passes by the delivery of a Turf or a pair of Gloves and it is not convenient for it is at the peril of him who takes the Lease Copyholder makes a Lease for a year But if he dye within the year his Heir within age it shall be void against the Lord. So that the Lord during the nonage shall have the Copihold to hold for his Services is a good Custome And so in our Case Hutton agreed That at the Common law it might be restrained by custome
And a Condition that a Lease for 3 years shall be void if the Lessor dye during the term is a good Condition Without doubt the custome is as old as the Estate then it is as good to abridge the Estate as to the other to create it is It is reasonable too For the Lord should have his Tenant in possession by which he may the better pay his Fine But if the Lease be made by Licence of the Lord It is a Confirmation For that if the Copiholder makes a Lease for years with Licence and dies without Heir The Lord shall not avoid the Lease In some place the custome is If a Copiholder dies before Candlemas the Executor shall have it for that year to remove and dispose the Copiholders Estate Custome in this Case you see tolls the Heir And he agreed the Case and difference cited by Atthowe out of Cook Littleton Harvey agreed That it is a good custome for the Lord and for the Tenant For the Lord to know his Tenant and for the Tenant to have the Estate and pay the Fine Yelverton agreed also the Lease for a year is in it self made by custom And the same custome may confound it For there is a concurrence of others or one may controll another 21 H. 7. 14 H. 8. A Lease for years provided the Lessor may enter at his will that is a good lease determinable at will being uno flatu so So in our Case But it is done that a Copiholder within the year surrenders his Copihold that the Lease shall be void That is an unreasonable custome In the Kings Bench It was adjudged A Copiholder makes a Lease for years by Licence and the custome if the Lessee was not in possession at the time of the death of the Lessor that it shall be void Lessee assigns that over and the Assignee holds it For custome ought to be taken strictly And he agreed the Case put by Hutton of an Executor And the difference that against the Lessor it should not determine And the reason put before And so judgement was given for the Plaintiff Stone against Walsingham before THe case was again moved in Court which was that they agreed de anno in annum so long as the one should be Parson and the other Parishioner si ambobus partibus tam diu placuerit he should retain his tithes for 6 s. 8 d. per annum And Richardson Iustice said and it was not denied that the suggestion is naught for the incertainty of it and a Prohibition cannot be granted upon that For the words de anno in an make an estate for a year And the next words make an estate for life the last but an estate at will what shall be traversed here It is seen that for years it is good without Deed but not for life And if it be but at will when the other demands his tithes the Will is determined But at an other day the suggestion was made That he made severall agreements with his Parishioner that he pay 6 s. 8 d. for his tithes for 4 years And then a Prohibition was granted Harvey sufficit If an agreement be proved for those 4 years Wilson against Peck WIlson brought an action upon the Case against Peck and declares A Man may justifie in maintenance that he was a Sollicitor That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff should be his sollicitor in several sutes depending against him in this Court affirmed that he would give to him for his pains as much as he deserved And he said that he deserved five marks And upon an Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the consideration was against Law because that it was maintenance But Henden on the contrary And that it was lawfull to have a sollicitor 5 H. 7. 20. There it is said that a man may justifie in maintenance that he was a sollicitor And the fees of an Officer 3 Iac. cap. 7. gives satisfaction in that case It was said that a sollicitor is not a man known at the common law but an Attourney and had his fees set out by the Law 9 Eliz. Dyer Onelyes case But Munson and Manwood held that it was maintenance in a sollicitor to prosecute and pay money for another And Dyer did not oppose that opinion Pas 13 Iac. Rot. 75. Com. Banc. Solomon Leeches case An Atturney of this Court brought an action upon the case for solliciting of sutes And there it was conceived that it was an ill consideration and could never have judgement But Richardson said that in Solomon Leeches case he brought an action for the money disbursed and not only for as much as he deserved for his labour And said that a Sollicitor is a person known in the Law 1 H. 7. And it was one Snowdens case One brought an action against him And he justified that such an one made a title to his Clyents land and that he was his Sollicitor in the suit And ruled to be a good Iustification By which it appears that a Sollicitor is a person known in the Law And the Stat. 3 Iac. much prevails with him for to be of that opinion And it would be a miserable case if you would allow no Sollicitors but Attourneys in the Star-chamber Chancery For there the Attournies will not move out of their Chambers And also it is convenient that Attournies of this Court follow businesses in the Kings Bench And the case was in consideration that he would be my servant and follow my sutes I promise him as much as he deserved An action will clearly lie here and a Sollicitor will not alter the Case For he is not but a servant Hutton on the contrary I may retain a man in my service he may follow my sutes but then he ought to maintain the action upon the Statute For a Sollicitor is within the Statute and a Sollicitor of sutes is one kind of maintenance and we ought not to allow it And so it was taken in Leeches case That there was no remedy for a Sollicitor if he had not an obligation And he said that in the Star-chamber in the time of Egerton a Sollicitor was punish'd there Yelverton agreed with him Harvey said that the same case is now depending in the Kings Bench. And the opinion is that an Attourney or a Counsellor who had a profession towards the Law might sollicite any sute in any Court and it is not maintenance But another person not Yelvert agreed to that but said that he ought to shew in his Declaration that he is an Attourney And afterwards the parties agreed c. Scire facias against the Bayle IF a Scire facias be brought against the bayle and Iudgement be Debt be brought against the bayl that the Plaintiff be satisfied out of the lands and chattels of the bayle and so a capias does not not lie against them But if debt be brought as
W. who died seised of the Lands which descended to his Vncle who was the Defendant Crawley Two things are required to maintain the action Whether the Defendant be heir Secondly who held lands by descent from the Obligor now is heir at Common law And now the heir by the Mannor shall be charged in debt as well as the Heir at Common law Dyer 228. All Brothers in Gavelkind shall be charged 11 H. 7. 12. The heir of the party of the mother shall be charged and so shall Bastardeign 4 E. 3. 14. Heir by Borrough-English And in this Case R. is not heir but by the Mannor Yet he shall be charged 32 Eliz. Dyer 368. by 4 the Iustices And the Defendant here had Lands by descent from the Obligor by which he shall be charged which was agreed by the whole Court But by Richardson It is not sufficient that he be heir in Blood and heir by the Mannor But he ought to have also Land to him by descent from the Obligor But here the Plea is that the Land descended to him immediately And for that you ought to have pleaded that the Obligor died and Lands descended to W. his Son and Heir who died without issue seised of the said Land which descended to R. his Vncle as Brother and heir to the Obligor Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Grays Case HEnden shewed cause that a prohibition should not be granted to the Ecclesiastical Court where the case was That one Brother had taken administration and the other would have distribution of the goods of the intestate And said that issues might enforce distribution of it And it is grounded upon Magna Charta cap. 18. Where there is a saving to the wife and the issues their reasonable part And upon the same reason that there may be a division between the issues so there may be between the Brothers but more remote degrees have no distribution And it is hard that one Brother shall have the whole estate and the others nothing And the Ordinary here is the most indifferent man to make distribution Hutton if the eldest son had lands descended to him and the youngest took Administration It is reason that the eldest shall have distribution And by him and Harvey a Writ de rationabile parte bonorum lies only where there is a custom And they said if it should be admitted that the Ordinary should distribute to the Brothers by the same reason he may to more remote degrees And he declared their opinions that many terms before they were against those distributions But they said That now the Ordinary would have an Obligation before they granted a Prohibition and they coloured their Obligation with the Statute of 31 E. 3. cap. 11. That an Administrator shall be count able to the Ordinary And Harvey said that be knew where a man that was rich died and the Ordinary had 600 l. to pious uses before he would grant administration But he said that in the time of Sir Iohn Bennet such an Obligation was questioned and they would not endure the tryal of it Hutton said that now for that that they could not distribute they might invent a new way scil divide the Administration As if the Estate be 400 l. they might grant Administration of the Goods of the value of 100 l. to the other But by him and Harvey That is illegally granted Doctor Wood and Greenwoods Case DOctor Wood libels against Greenwood in the Ecclesiastical Court for tithes of Wool Wood and Apples c. And he shews that he was Vicar there and that the 8 E. 1. there was a composition that the Parson should have the tithes of Grain and Hay praeterea the Viccar should have Alteraginum And for that that those tithes did not belong to the Viccar he prayed a prohibition And Henden objected that the Parishioner ought to set forth his tith and not dispute the Title of the Parson or Viccar But the Viccar ought to come in the Spiritual Court pro interesse suo but notwithstanding that and notwithstanding the Viccar refuses to claim those tithes that always within memory they have been paid to the Parson yet a prohibition was granted And in the end upon this Composition power is reserved to th◠Ordinary if any doubt or obscurity be in the composition to expound or determine it And if he please to encrease the part of the Viccar And there was not power of diminution As by Hutton It is also usual in such compositions And they say that the word Alteraginum shal be expounded according to the use As if wood had always been paid to the Viccar by vertue of this word so it shall continue otherwise if not And so it had been ruled in the Eschequer And upon that president it was ruled accordingly in this Court And by them wood is minuta decima as in the case of St. Albans it was ruled Sir Richard Dorrel against Blagrave SIr Richard Dorrell was Plaintiff in action of debt upon an Obligation of 400 l. against Blagrave who demanded oyer of the condition which was that if Blagrave fulfilled and kept all Covenants and agreements in an Indenture c. between him and the Plaintiff which on his part is to be performed and kept Then the Defendant pleads that he had performed all the Covenants on his part to be performed c. And the Plaintiff shews that Blagrave the elder by his Indenture granted a rent of 20 l. per annum to one that he intended to marry for her joynture which was to commence after his death And that it was out of all his lands in Watchfield And afterwards by the same Indenture he Covenants that he was seised of a good and perfect estate in Fee simple of lands and tenements in Watchfield to the value of 40 l. per annum And he assigns for breach that Blagrave was not seised of an Estate in Fée of the lands and tenements aforesaid in Watchfield Whereupon the Defendant demurred And Heidley moved two questions First that admitting the breach here well assigned yet the obligation is not forfeited And then when the Defendant is bound that he perform all Covenants on his part to be performed and not to the Covenants broken As if Lessee for years rendring a rent at Michaelmas and the Annunciation covenant to pay the rent at a day and afterwards he fail and then a Stranger is bound that he perform all Covenants c. That extends to the failer of payment which is past here in our case And by the whole Court not allowed For by such means all assurances of England should be deluded And now in this case the Indenture and the Obligation shall be sealed and delivered at the same time But if the Obligation had been sealed afterwards at another day yet it was allowed For by Richardson Suppose that the Condition of the Obligation recites the grant c. And the condition is that if the land
charged be to the value of 40 l. per an that will be a good condition and the Obligation shall be forfeit If the condition was that the Land was then of such a value it was presently a breach of the Condition The second matter was whether the breach was well assigned or not And Richards Yelvert held that the breach is not well assigned There are two things in the Covenant one of the Estate another of the value Here may be a breach to be assigned upon the Estate but then it ought to be general For the grant out of all his lands and tenements in Watchfield is not a conclusion to him who had lands and tenements in Watchfield then the Obligation is forfeited As if one be obliged to make a Feofment to I. S. of all his lands which he had by descent in D. If he had no lands there it is not a forfeiture So here But if the rent was granted out of particular land as out of the Mannor of D. There the grantor is included to say but that he was seised of the Mannor of D. which was granted As to this diversity the word praedictis had relation to lands and tenements in Watchfield for no lands were named But the material thing is the value c. And if praedict goes to all the Lands then the breach goes to more than the Covenant and then it is not met with But admit that it goes to all yet it is all one For the intention of the parties was that the value of 40 l. joynture per annum shall be mentioned But the Plaintiff does not mention the value And it is sure that the word praedict may goe to all the lands in Watchfield or to lands of 40 l. And if the Defendant had rejoyned he might have rejoyned generally scil That he was seised of lands in Watchfield in Fee simple and he is not forced to shew his particular estate in the lands And admitting they had gone to tryal upon that issue what might the Iurors find And if they had found the value it is nothing to the breach That is more than was in their charge and so void But Hutton and Harvey on the contrary and said that the breach is well assigned And Hutton took this difference That if the Covenant was that he was seised of such particular lands of such value The breach ought to be assigned in particular also but where it is that he was seised of lands of such a value the breach is now well assign'd here it is a recital of lands of the value of 40 l. per an to that predict has relation And it does not appear to us if he had more lands in Watchfield than of 40 l. per an But these things were agreed by all First that the antient pleading in the time of H. 6. is now changed and the general pleading of all Covenants in the Indenture in form although that the affirmative is good And the Plaintiff ought to shew the particular Covenant broken c. Secondly in the principal Case if the Plaintiff had replyed that he was not seised of lands and tenements in Watchfield in Fee-simple without praedict or deque fuit seise de nullis terris vel tenementis praedictis in Watchfield of the value of 40 l. in modo forma secundum formam conventionis is a good assignment of the breach And the Defendant forced to shew the particulars The Plaintiff discontinued the principal sute and begins again but that he might not doe without the license of the Court as they said Because that they might agree afterwards to give Iudgement Taylors Case TAylor was Plaintiff against Waterford in debt upon an Obligation and the Defendant demanded Oyer of the Condition quae legitur ei in haec verba If the Defendant should pay such costs as should be assist at the Assizes without shewing for what the Obligation should be void And the Plaintiff replies that post confectionem Obligationis Pasch .. 4 Car. Com. Banc. the aforesaid words were written upon the Obligation and the truth is that they were endorsed upon the Obligation by memorandum after the Delivery And Atthowe moved that the Plaintiff might not reply in that manner because that when Oyer of the condition was demanded that was entred for a condition and so was admitted by the Plaintiff And for that he is concluded to say the contrary But Serjeant Davenport replyed on the contrary And said first that the words of themselves will not make a condition It is Litletons case That some words doe not make a condition without a conclusion as what is contingent 39 H. 6. And admit that the words will make a condition yet they were written after delivery 3 H. 8. Kellways reports Hutton If there be an Obligation made of 20 l. if it be written upon the back of the Obligation before the sealing and delivery The intent of this Bond is to pay 10 l. for such costs That is no good condition Which Iustice Harvey only being present agreed And if any thing may be part of the condition it ought to be written before the sealing and delivery But it is no condition if it be written after And by them here is no conclusion but that the Plaintiff may plead that the words were written after sealing and delivery Termino Pasch Anno 5. Car. Regis Com. Banc. Mericke against King IN evidence to the Iury he who had purchased the land in question It was said by the Court he shall not be a witness if he claim under the same title Richardson said that the conveyance may be proved by other circumstances And the same reason was also agreed by the Court That if a Feoffment be made of a Mannor to uses that if the tenants have notice of the feoffment that although they have not notice of the particular uses their attornment to the Feoffees is good For the Feoffees have all the estate And Harvey said that so it was agreed in one Andernes's case Sir Richard Moors Case IT was said in evidence to the Iury. The case was that a man prescribes to have common in 100 acres and shews that he put his cattel in 3 acres without saying that those thrée acres are parcel of the 100 yet good And Hitcham said that so it was adjudged in this Court. And Richardson said it was an Huntingtonshire case Where a man alleged a custom to put his Horses c. And the custom was for Horses and Cows And adjudged good Hutton said there can be no exception to the Witness who is Cozen to the party to hinder his evidence in our law To which all agréed Clotworthy against Clotworthy THe case between Tenkely and Clotworthy was cited One grants an Annuity for him and his heirs to be paid annually at two usual feasts for 30 years which was to begin after the death of the grantor And it was agreed by all Richardson being absent that
the principal case Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Iohn Costrell against Sir George Moor. JOhn Costrell and Ioan his wife brought an action upon the Case against Sir George Moor and declares That whereas the said Iohn and Ioan were seised of a Messuage and lands in right of his wife Ioan A man having land in right of his wife in trust they cannot both joyn in the action but the Husband only and that the said Iohn and Ioan and all their predecessors time out of mind c. had common in such a waste which is the soyle of the Defendant pro omnibus a veriis levantibus cubantibus c. and the Defendant had inclosed 20 acres of the said waste and made a fish pond of it there so that they could not take the profits as before with their cattel Vpon the general issue pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And Crawley moved in arrest of Iudgement For that the prescription is ill made and that the Husband and wife cannot joyn in this action but the Husband might bring the action only And also where it is said that they cannot take the profits with their Cattel when the wife cannot have Cattel during the Coverture Richardson said the prescription is good and it would have been better if he said all those whose estate the wife had But this tantamounts and is as well in substance for that goes meerly to the estate of the Wife Trin 5 Car. Com. Banc. which was granted But for the second I doubt if the Wife may joyn in this Action If a man be seised in right of his Wife he may have Trespass for Trespass done upon the Land there the Wife shall not joyn for she cannot have the dammages if she survive And there is no difference between this Case and the principal Case It is Trespass on the Case and for the personal and temporary trespass and such for which the Wife should have the Action after the death of the Husband unless that the Defendant continue the Pond c. I agree if Battery be done to the Wife they both shall joyn for the Wife might have had the Action if she survived And so it was resolved in the Cooks of Grays-Inns Case they might joyn For the wrong was done to the Wife But here the Husband only lost the benefit of the Common and the wife could not take it with her Cattel For she had not any Cattel during the coverture And Yelverton also was of the same opinion But Hutton said In a Quare impedit the Husband and Wife shall joyn And yet the avoidance goes to the Executors of the Husband Hitcham In an Ejectione firm or ravishment of Ward the Feme joyns quod concessum fuit Yelverton said that in 4 E. 4. it is express that the Wife shall not joyn in trespass done upon the Land of the Wife for dammages shall be recovered in lieu of profits Moor against Everay MOor and his Wife brought dower against Everay To parcel he pleads non tenure and to the other parcel ne unque seise de dower which goes to the tryal and there the Tenant makes default and upon that a petit cape is awarded and now at a day in bank one Lumbard prays to be received upon the Statute of Gloucester to save his term c. But Henden alleged to the contrary First That Statute is not to this purpose in force by the Common law Tenant for years cannot falsifie 6 Rep. Periams Case Then because it was hard that a recovery should be had by Covin and the Lessee for years without remedy for his term the Statute of Gloucester was made which gives a receipt for the Lessee for years after the Statute 21 H. 8. was made which gives the Lessee power to falsifie The Common experience of the Court is If an habens facias seisinam issue there is not any saving of the term of Lessee for years Hil. 39 Eliz. in Bests Case A receipt was moved and denied For if the Lessee had a good term he might have trespass for entry upon him Littleton though says in his Chapter of Tenant for years that he shall be received Hutton The Statute of Gloucester aids them only who knew and had notice of the Recovery 21 H. 8. aids them who had not notice of it And it is better to prevent mischief than to remedy it after and as to that a final Bar. I was of Counsel in some Cases where the Lessee was received And if the Lease be not good the Lessor may avoid it by Plea scil Traverse or Demurer And I remember the issue taken upon the Term and found against the Termor And it was Mr. Fulhams Case against Sergeant Harris Sed adjournatur Fawkenbridges Case IT was moved he having Iudgement before to have costs where the Court doubted because that it was a special Verdict and the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 15. says That where a Verdict is found against the Plaintiff But in a special verdict it is neither found for or against But it may be said that when it is adjudged against the Plaintiff then it is found against him And 4 Iac. cap. 3. which gives costs in an Ejectione firmae had the same words if any verdict c. But it may be answered That as in Demurrer no costs shall be recovered no more in a special verdict For that the Plaintiff had a Prohibition causam litigandi And the Statute may be intended of vexatious Sutes c. But Brownlowe said that he had many times given costs upon the Statute of 4 Iacob For that the Prothonotaries were commanded to search Presidents The University of Cambridge THe Vniversity of Cambridge claimed by their Charter to be Clarks of a Market and that they had power by their Office to make orders and execute them And they made an Order that no Chandler should sell Candles for more than 4 d. ob the pound And because that one R. sold for 5 d. he was imprisoned and a Prohibition granted But it séemed that an Habeas corpus was more proper For he was not presented First For that they could not imprison without course of Law Secondly Because that as Clarks of a Market they have nothing to do with but Victuals and Candles are not Victuals The Sheriff of Surrey against Alderton THe Sheriff of Surrey returns a rescous against one Alderton That whereas there was a Iudgement had against B. and a fieri facias awarded upon that by vertue of his Warrant directed to R. to take the Goods of B. By vertue whereof such a day the said R. diversa bona catalla ipsius did levy and had them in his custody No rescous can be of Goods and one Alderton rescued them from the Bayliff contra voluntat ipsius Rich. The return is naught First For that that it is rescued from the Bayliff Secondly It is of Goods whereof a rescous cannot be returned Yelverton contrary in
agreed clearly that a Covenant to stand seised of as much as should be worth 20 l. per annum is méerly void And so by the Court it was lately adjudged Flower against Vaughan FLower sued Vaughan for tithes of hay which grew upon Land that was heath ground and for tithes of Pidgeons And by Richardson If it was mere waste ground and yeeld nothing it is excused by the Statute of payment of tithes for 7 years But if sheep were kept upon it or if it yeeld any profit which yeeld tithes then tithe ought to be payed As the case in Dyer And for the Pidgeons which were consumed in the house of the Owner he said that for Fish in a Pond Conies Deer it is clear that no tithes of them ought to be paid of right wherefore then of Pidgeons Felony to take Pidgeons out of a Dove-coat quod nemo dedixit and a day was given to shew wherefore a Prohibition should not be granted And the Court agreed that it was Felony to take Pidgeons out of a Dovecoat And afterwards a Prohibition was granted but principally that the Pidgeons were spent by the Owner But by Henden they shall be tithable if they were sold Clotworthy against Clotworthy IN Debt upon Obligation against the Defendant as Heir to Clotworthy scil son of Clotworthy without shewing his Christian name And Iudgement was given against the Defendant upon default and upon that Error brought and that assigned for error and after in nullo est erratum pleaded But Henden moved that it might be amended and he cited one Wosters and Westlys Case Hil. 19. Iac. rot 673. where in a Declaration in Debt upon an Obligation there was omitted obligo me haeredes and after was amended And he said that in this Case the Plea roll was without Commission of the Christian name then by the Court the Plea roll may be amended by the Imparlance roll but not è converso And the Case of the Obligation is the misprision of the Clark But here there was want of instructions Dennes Case IN Dennes Case of the Inner Temple issue was joyned in a Prohibition whether the Will was revoked or not and for a year the Plaintiff does not prosecute nor continue it upon the Iury roll And by the Court now it is in our discretion to permit it to be continued or not which the Prothonotaries agréed Mosses Case IN one Mosses Case in an Assumpsit for debt which was out of the 6 years limited by the Statute of 21 Iac. part within the time If the Iury found for the Plaintiff and taxed dammages severally The Plaintiff recovered for that that is within the time and not for that that was without But if dammages are intirely taxt the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgement of some part Which was granted by the Court. And by Richardson where an Action is brought upon an Assumpsit in Law and the Request is put in which is not more than the Law had done the Request there is not material But where a Request is collateral as in Pecks case there it is material Hutton said that in Pecks Case it was agréed by the whole Court that a Request was material but they conceived that the postea requisitus was sufficient For which afterwards it was reversed in the Kings Bench. Richardson said if one sells an Horse for money to be paid upon Request and no Request is shewn he can never have Iudgment which was not denied Boydens Case BOyden Executer of Boyden brought a scire facias to execute Iudgment given against Butler for the Testator which was directed to the Sheriff upon nihil habet returned testatum a scire fac is directed to the Sheriff of S. who returns Ployden terretenant of the Mannor which Butler was seised of at the time of the Iudgement Ployden appears and demands Oyer of the scire fac and of the return and pleads that long time before A. B. and C. were seised of the Mannor in fee and before the first return makes a feoffment to the use of one Francis Boyden for life who makes a Lease to the Defendant for 80 years And because that Francis Boyden aforesaid is not returned terretenant demanded Iudgement of the writs aforesaid Bramston said that the conclusion here to the writ is naught for a writ shall never be abated where we cannot have a better The matter here is the return of the Sheriff that Mr. Ployden is terretenant to which he makes no answer but by Argument And in all Cases where a special non tenure is pleaded it is used to be a Traverse upon which issue may be taken 8 E. 4. 19. 7 H. 6.16.17 But in our case no issue was taken and here all the matter alleged may be found c. For the matter although general non tenure is no plea yet a special non tenure may be pleaded 7 H. 6. 17. 25. 8 H. 6. 32. In real actions non tenure of a Franktenement is good But here a Chattel is only in question 2ly he may plead non tenure of Franktenement where the Lessee shall be concluded and bound But here here Edw. Boyden is not bound Crawly said that the plea is good and for the matter the difference is between the general and the special non tenure The general non tenure is no plea but in a praecipe quod reddat as it is But a special non tenure is a good plea in a scire facias nomina praecipe 31 H. 6. non tenure 21 Statham scire fac The Plaintiff in a scire fac does not demand Land but execution Yelverton In Holland and Lees Case in the Kings Bench this point It was adjudged that the Writ shall abate Richardson This Writ is a judicial Writ and by that Plea a better Writ given you For where before it was against the Terre-tenants generally he might have now a particular scire fac against Francis Boyden and both waies are good either to demand Iudgement of the Writ or Iudgement of the Court if execution ought to be against him quod concessum per totam curiam And agreed also by the Prothonotaries that a special scire facias might issue against Francis Boyden Turner against Disbury TUrner against Disbury in Trespass Where the Writ was quare domum clausum fregit but the Declaration was quare domum clausum canem molossum cepit which was found for the Defendant And it was moved by Hitcham for the Plaintiff in arrest of Iudgement to prevent costs for it That there is not a material difference between the Original and the Declaration For that that there is more in the Declaration than in the Original And then here is no Original to warrant part of the Declaration But this variance was between the Original it self which remained with the custos brevium and the Declaration For the Original as it was recited in the Declaration according to the usage in this Court agreed with the Declaration
But by the Court it is after verdict For the Original for part cannot be applyed to this Declaration and it shall not be taken as the Original for it And then there is no Original which is aided by the Statute and so it had been frequently ruled By Harvey it was one Blackwells Case here where the Writ was bona catalla cepit and the Declaration was viz. unicum discum plumbi And that was ruled to be no Original The Wife of Cloborn against her Husband THe Wife complains against her Husband in the Spiritual Court Causa saevitiae For that he gave her a box on the ear and spat in her face and whirled her about and called her damned whore Which was not by Libel but by verbal accusation after reduced to writing The Husband denies it the Court ordered the Husband to give to his Wife 4 l. every week pro expensis litis and Alimony Barkley and Henden moved for a Prohibition The Sute is originally Causa saevitiae and as a Case that they assesse Alimony And now for a ground of a Prohibition It was said that Cloborn chastised his wife for a reasonable Cause by the Law of the Land as he might which they denyed and said that they had Iurisdiction in these matters de saevitia c. And afterwards that the wife departed and that they were reconciled again And then that reconciliation took away that saevitia before as reconciliation after elopement Richardson It was said here that the Sute was now held and without Libel but that is no ground of a Prohibition for he proceeded upon that matter reduced in Articles and we cannot grant a Prohibition if they proceed to their form For we are not Iudges of their form But if they will deny a Copy of the libell a Prohibition lies by the Statute And you you 'l say that an Husband may give reasonable chastisement to his Wife and we have nothing to do with it But only that the Husband may be bound to his good behaviour by the Common law And the sentence in causa saevitiae is a mensa thoro and we cannot examine what is Cruelty and what not And certainly the matter alleged is Cruelty For spitting in the face is punishable by the Star-chamber But if Mr. Cloborn had pleaded a Iustification and set forth a Provocation to him by the wife to give her reasonable castigation Then there would be some colour of a Prohibition Henden We have made such an Obligation as it is absolutely refused Hutton Perhaps he is in contempc and then they will not admit any Plea As if one be out-lawed at Common law be cannot bring an Action But the Plaintiff they advised to tender a Iustification and if they refused it then to move for a Prohibition Bachus and Hiltons Case HUtton cited one Bachus and Hiltons Case in the Kings Bench Where a Bill was of Lands 17 Maii and the Declaration 20 Mail which was after and so the Original before the trespass and after verdict Because it was mistaken Iudgement was stayed Mortimores Case AMhurst desired the opinion of the Court in this Case Copiholder is ousted and so the Lord disseised and the Copiholder releases all his right to the Disseisor and dies his Heir enters and brings trespass against the Disseisor who pleads his Franktenement And by the Court the Release is clearly void the Disseisor never being admitted Copiholder But they ought not to teach him how to plead And Hitcham cited a Case in which he was of Councel Two Copiholders in fee the one release to the other by Deed. And that was adjudged a good Release which was now also agreed by the Court. Earl of Mulgrave Ratcliffes Case Intratur Exchequer Chamber 18 Iac. Rot. Argued by Sergeant Atthowe D' e Mercurii post festum Sanctae Margaret 17 Edwardi 2d Iohn de Malo lacu gave to Peter de Malo lacu and the Heirs of his body the Castle and Mannor of Mulgrave by divers mean conveiances the Land came to Sr. Ralph Bigod 11 Ian. 6 H. 8. Sr. Ralph Bigot made a Feoffment to William Euer and others to the use of his last Will and died and the right of the Land together with the Entayl and the use also after the Will performed descended to Sr. Francis Bigot 10 Dec. 28 H. 8. Sir Francis Bigod made a Feoffment to Iohn and others to the use of himself and Katherine his wife and the Heirs of their bodies and they had issue Ralph Bigod and Dorothy then the Statute 16 H. 8. cap. 13. for forfeiture for treason is made and 26 Maii 29 H. 8. Sir Francis Bigod was attainted of Treason committed 7 Ian. 28 H. 8. and was executed and Katherine survived H. 8. by the special act of attainder of Sir Francis Bigod and his forfeiture is made 4 Novem. E. 6. Ralph Bigod Son of Katherine and Sir Francis was restored in blood and died without issue Dorothy maried Boger Ratcliff and they had Issue Francis Ratcliff 5 Octob. 8 Eliz. Katherine died and Francis Ratcliff died having issue Roger Ratcliff 1 Febr. 34 Eliz. Francis Ratcliff Roger Ratcliff entred 11 Aug. 33 Eliz. Office found for the Quéen 28 April 34 Eliz. The Quéen by Letters Patents granted the same to Edward Lord Sheffield and the Heirs males of his body begotten at the rate of 9. 18. 3 d. Roger Ratcliff upon the whole matter sued his Monstrare de droit in the Exchequer and had Iudgement for him and Writ of Error being brought by the Lord Sheffield to reverse the Iudgement formerly given in the Case Points 2. First whether Francis Bigod who had Estate in special tayl in possession had also any right in the antient entayl left in him at the time of his Attainder or whether it were not in abeiance in respect of the Feoffment made 21 H. 8. and whether that right did accew unto the King by the Attainder of Francis and the general Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. or by the particular act of Attainder of 31 H. 8. and I am of opinion that there was a right of the old entayl remaining in him and that the King ought to have it together with that estate in special entayl in possession freed and discharged thereof as long as the Estate entayl endured In the handling of this point I shall occasionally speak of rights of Actions real given or not given to the King upon Attainder of Treason by force of Statute 26 of H. 8. or of the general Statute of 33 H. 8. for this Statute is so near of kin to that conservation of antient Rights that we must foresee that we do not in the Iudgement of this Cause prejudice the Statute ex aliqua Secondly Whether there be a Remitter in the Case after Attainder of Treason and if there be such a Remitter here when the Remitter begins and in whom whereas nothing hath as yet been distinctly said I am of opinion that there
ought to be no remitter in this Case to the old Entayl and thereby I adde more that if there be a remitter it is but for a time By the Office following it is remitted and ended I must profess that whatsoever I have thought upon this Case and advised upon it with my self I have met with two strong affections Zeal and Indignation Zeal in the behalf of the King to preserve the antient Rights of the Crown and against the invasion of Rebells and Traytors Bigod that sometimes brought a puissant Army into the field to depose the King failing in that enterprize now to rise in Question against him that what he could not gain by the sword he might supplant by the Law for though Ratcliff bear the name of this Case yet I see nothing but the hand of Francis Bigod his Estate his Right his Title Land per descent that maintains it therefore let it not seem strange that I am warm in this Case for Zeal and Indignation are fervent passion and I do profess to give Prerogative to the rights of the Crown in my care and vigilancy and it is nobile Officium judicis debitum due by Oath of Office to watch for him who works for us ne quid detrimenti capit respublica and if Charity begins at it self so ought Iustice to do that the King who grants Iustice to all should not be wanting to himself Because I desire to be plain and clear in my Arguments I will make the Questions as single as is possible for multiplex judicii nunc parit consusionem et quaestiones quo sinpliciores eo laudiores ergo will I make this first point a single Question Tenant in tayl of Land in possession makes a Feoffment in fée Question whether any right of the Entayl remaineth in him still against his own Feoffment and to what ends and uses and what he may do or suffer by force of this right in this Question I take no exception at the validity of the Feoffment made by Francis Bigod at cestui que use in tayl by the Statute of R. 3. and not the then Tenant in tayl in possession yet notwithstanding taking the Case at the worst I am of opinion that this Feoffment gives away all the Estate of the Tenant in tayl and as concerning the Issue in tayl inheritable to that Entayl and to him in the reversion there remains still in the Issue a right to that Entayl by force of the Statute de bonis condi and it is confessed on both sides that there remains a right of that Entayl by force of the Statute for their use and good and whether it be for the Lessor himself sleeping till there be an Heir to claim it or in the preservation of the Law which is termed an abeyance or in nubibus is the Question by which it appears that the exact enumerations of Rights as jus habendi redimendi percipiendi possidendi recuperandi finendi inferreth that there was no right because it was none of these rights makes but a noyse for there is jus recuperandi when the time commeth but it is in the mean time till the person inheritable appear which may put this right in execution which the Lessor cannot do against his own Feoffment it is the only Question and upon this exact division of Rights they have left out one whole member of Rights such are the Rights to depart with an Estate and not to get or keep are omitted such are the Rights to give or release or jus extinguendi or jus renunciandi to renounce or disclaim of which kind this very right is That Tenant in tayl hath after the Feoffment which had not discontinued finally to Bar the whole Entayl for by that Right which is left after the Feoffment the Estate tayl may be recontinued again for the root of the Entayl is left alive still Now see the reason of this and let the Statute of West of Estates tayl and the pleading and practice upon that Statutes which are the expositions of Law judge the Statute recites the form of Fee-simple conditional which now are intayls and then sheweth 2 mischiefs that the Donces after issue had power to alien and disinherit their Issues and that the Donors were defeated of their reversions both being against the minds of the Givers and the remedy provided in these words It is ordained that the Will of the Giver according to the force of his Gift expressed in his Deed shall be from henceforth observed so that they to whom the Land was given under such Conditions shall have no power to alien but that it shall remain to their Issue after death and shall revert to the Donor after death and if a Fine be levyed of such Lands finis ipsi jure sit nuilus but if neither Fine or Feoffment be void for they are but voidable not as before when they bound both Heirs and Donors absolutely so that it appears whereas before the Statute the Donee had power absolute post prolem suscitatam and so totally and in a sort rightfully to disinherite their Heirs the Act being not against the rules of positive Law to bar to all purposes aswell his Issue as the Giver as also himself Now since the Statute that very power of Alienation remaining against himself not restrained by the Statute though he may still disturb and discontinue it against them by exposition which the Statute hath received which as Littleton saith Discountenance cap. 171. is a wrong to the Issue and the Giver So that upon this Statute I reason thus that the Tenant in tayl hath the whole Estate in tayl and all the right of it in himself and may finally and totally bar it as well against his Issue as against himself by Common recovery but by Feoffment or Fine he could not by reason of this Statute And that ergo summum jus or verum jus intayl though it be discountenanced is not barred by the Feoffment for it is not in his power by that kind of conveiance and a non posse ad non esse valet argumentum necessario negative so that the Argument stands thus What the Tenant in tayl had and hath not parted withall remaineth in him still but the main right in tayl he had and hath not parted ergo it remaineth in him still for qui non habet potestatem alienandi habet necessitatem retinendi If you say that he hath parted with it I deny it for the Statute hath taken from him that power by Fine or Feoffment only finis ipse jure sit nullus which before he could have done and the practice of the Law is answerable to this both towards the Donor and towards the Issue The Donor hath two things whereby he may be benefitted and prejudiced the one in his Rent reserved the other in his reverter but the Issue prejudiced only in his Descender Now for the Donor when the Donee hath made a Feoffment and hath excluded
himself from all rights as concerning himself yet the Donor shall by force of this Statute which at the Common law he could not And if the Donor will release all his right in the Land to the Donee after a discontinuance by Feoffment his release though it will extinguish no right to the very Land yet it will extinguish Rents which proves that the Donee by his Feoffment cannot dismiss himself of all his right but that by the Statute of West his alienation is disabled as to that but that the Donor may avow for the Rent But wheresoever Tenant in tayl suffers a Recovery or levies a Fine the Rents together with the entayl ceases And the answer as to that is imperfect to resemble it to the Case of tenant in see simple doth alien and yet the Lord may avow upon him for the Cases have no resemblance for as Littleton well distinguisheth when Tenant in fee hath departed with his whole Estate he is no more Tenant to the Lord to avow upon though the Lord if he Will may avow upon him for the arrerages and if the Lord after future alienation release to him all his rights in the Land the Release is void to release the Rents and Services in all which it differs materially from the other Case and it is an equall proportion of the Law That when the Lord aliens his signory the Tenant is to he acquainted that all Arrearages may be paid that he may have no after-reckonings for after notice and the Arrerages paid the avowrie vanisheth Now for the Heir in tayl claiming from his Ancestor after his Feoffment by descent from him thereby allowing a right to remain in him against his Feoffment The Case is more difficult because during the Feoffor there can be no motion of that right neither by the Feoffor who hath hard himself nor his Issue because his Right is not yet come yet let me put this Case upon the Statute 11 H. 7. upon the opinion of Mountague Chief Iustice If Tenant in tayl Iointress make a Feoffment the person to whom the land doth belong after her death may enter and hold it according to his right Now till such Entry there is a discontinuance but when the Issue enters he is an Heir intayl et quasi eins per discent But now generally when Tenant in tayl hath made a Feoffment and dies the Heir shall bring a Formedon in the Discender and shall count that descendere debet from that Ancestor that made the discontinuance performam doni and therefore the Writ saith discendit jus it is as much devenit jus It is true that regularly a Feoffment bars all former rights and future rights yet respect to be had to Estrangers Albanies Case 2 Rep. Archers Case 1 Rep. 66. 9 H. 7. And therefore in Archers Case Lands were demised to one fore life remainder to his first Heir male Tenant for life made a Feoffment in fee and died his next Heir was barred of his right for ever by the Feoffment A man seised of Land by right of his Wife makes a feoffment in fee and then the Estate is made back to the Wife she is thereby remitted and her Husband shall never be Tenant by the Courtesie and therefore well resolved if Tenant in tayl discontinue and levy fine with Proclamations is no bar to the Estate tayl Now this Case is irregular because it standeth by Act of Parliament which is able to make the same Act good to one purpose or person and void or voidable to another as the Statute of Ecclesiastical persons and binds the party but is void or voidable against the Successors and shall nevertheless when they enter be in by succession And that there is still a right remaining in the Tenant in tayl appears in that he hath still in him a power to bind it more finally and totally by fine and recovery if he pursue them rightly and therefore note Cuppledikes Case If Tenant in tayl with divers remainders over make a Feoffment and Feoffee vouch not the Feoffee Tenant in tayl in possession but the first in Remainder by the Statute the Feoffees are not bound but are remitted and Maunsells Case there is cited where one recovery is a bar to 3 several Intayls with double voucher And this is called jus extinguendi which he could not extinguish and discharge if not in him and in his power and therefore there is no cause to frame Abeyances needless and in vain but the Law allows not nor admits not but in Cases of necessity as in the vacancy of Bishops Parsons and other Ecclesiastical persons or the like Remainders to right Heirs upon Freehold abeyances are not allowed but where the original Estate required them or where the consequences of Estates and Cases do require them As for the first in Case of single Corporations Bishops Deans and Parsons which must dye and a vacancy of freehold or a Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. yet living Or Secondly in Case of congruity as if a man gives a Warranty and die his Heir in ventre sa mere may not be vouched but if there be Heir he may be vouched and a Vouchee may take and plead a Release quasi tenens or may lease a Fine to the Defendant of the Land in Question But for Estates that of their own nature and origination creation are perfect and intire as this Estate entayl is the Law permits not vain affected abeyance or fictions by the voluntary Act of the party as this to no good which should preserve a right to serve the Heir and to defraud the King which was one of the principal reasons for the making the Statute 27 of H. 8. for the transferring of uses into possession Vses being but a kind of abeyance and shift to kéep the profits to the use and defraud the King and Lords of their Escheats and them that had a right to know against whom to bring their Actions Littleton was confounded in himself when he made an abeyance of totum statum suum and yet made an Estate for life which is condemned in Walsinghams Case by the Iudges Again though fictions take place amongst common person the King is not bound by fictions and therefore the King is not bound by his remainders by recompence feigned upon a common recovery warrant collateral binds not the King but warranty with real and actual Assets nor the King is not bound by Estoppels of his own recitall certa scientia as it is in Altenwoods Case And I hold plainly that as the Land in possession is distinctly and literally given to the King so the right is as literally directly and plainly given to the King by discharge of that ancient right whereof formerly it was bound for when the Statute saith that the King should have the Lands saving the right of all persons other than the Offenders and their Heirs and such as claim to their use it is plain that the eye of the Statute was not
only upon the Land in possession but also the rights to the same the one in point of Giving The other in point of renouncing The Land in possession could be but in one that is in the Offenders and so it was given but the rights to the same Lands might be in sundry persons in the Offendor or in his Heirs or in Strangers Now when the Statute saith the King shall have the Land without saving the Rights of the Offendors or his Heirs or any claiming to their use Tenant in tayl discontinues and after disseiseth his Discontinuee and is attainted of Treason he forfeits his Estate gained by the Disseisin and also his right of Entayl for he cannot take benefit of his ancient Right against the King by force of the Statute of 26 H. 8. and 32 of H. 8. and this agrees with the reason and the rule in the Marquess of Winchesters Case for if the Traytor have right to a Strangers land that shall not be given to the King for the quiet of the Stranger being Possessor for the quiet of his possesion but such right shall be given to the King being Possessor for the quiet of his possession and the word Hereditament in the Statute 26 H. 8. are both sufficient and fit to carry such right in such Cases and no man will dispute but they are sufficient to save naked rights to the Lands of strangers therfore it is not for the count of words but because it is alleged it was not meant so it was said in Digbies Case and so hath Antiquity expounded it for the good of the Subject against the King and against the letter of the Law But can any man imagine that the Parliament that gave the Land to the King should leave a right in the Traytor in the same Land to defeaf him again of it since the Statute gives the right and the Land and this gives a forfeiture of all rights belonging to the Person attainted of Treason and their Heirs for the benefit of the Kings forfeiture is of so great importance that if it be not taken as large as I take it it is an avoiding of all the Statute even that 33 H. 8. cap. 20. for though they have the word Rights in both Statutes even that of 33. doth not include the right of Action to the Lands of Estrangers by an Equity against the Letter So for this time the Case was abruptly broken off by reason the King had sent for all the Iudges of every Bench. Springall against Tuttersbury IN Springall and Tuttersburies Case It was agreed by the Court If a verdict be given at a nisi prius and the Plaintiff or Defendant die after the beginning of the Term yet Iudgement shall be entred for that relates to the first day of the term Overalls Case ONe Overall was sued in London and for that that he was of the Common Bench a Writ of Privilege issued which is a Supersedeas and staid the Sute wholly and not removed the Cause And if the Plaintiff had cause of Action he ought to sue here And then by the course of the Court a Clark shall not put in bayl Foxes Case THe Lord Keeper in the Star-chamber cited one and Butchers Case to be adjudged 38 Eliz. An Vnder-Sheriff makes his Deputy for all matters except Executions and restrained him from medling with them And it was adjudged a void Exception So if it be agreed and covenanted between them that the Deputy should not meddle with matters of such a value It is a void Covenant And that was agreed by Richardson to be good Law Hil. 5 Car. Com. Banc. Overalls Case IT was agreed at another day in Overalls case by all the Clarks and Prothonotaries of the Court that the Course always was that if an Atturney or Clark be sued here by bill of Privilege he needs not put in bail But if he be sued by original and taken by a Capias as he may be if the Plaintiff wil Then he ought to put in bail quod nota MEmorandum that on Sunday morning in the next term ensuing which was the 24. day of Ianuary Sir Henry Yelverton puisne Iudge of the Common Bench dyed who before had been Attourney general to King Iames and afterwards incurring the displeasure of the King was displaced and censured in the Star-chamber and then he became afterwards a practicer again at the bar from whence he was advanced by King Charls to be a Iudge He was a man of profound knowledge and eloquence and for his life of great integrity and piety and his death was universally bewailed Termino Hill 5 Car. Com. Banc. Honora Cason against the Executor of her Husband HOnora Cason sues Edward Cason Executor of her Husband and declares by bill original in nature of debt pro rationabili parte bonorum in the Court of Mayor and Aldermen of London and alleges the custom of London to be That when the Citizens and Fréemen of London die their goods and chattels above the debts and necessary funeral expences ought to be divided into three parts and that the wife of the testator ought to have the one part and the Executors the second part to discharge Legacies and dispose at their discretion And the children of the Testator male or female which were not sufficiently provided for in the life of the Father to have notwithstanding the Legacies in the will the third part And the custom is that the Plaintiff in this action ought to bring into the Court an inventory and sue before the Mayor and Aldermen And that she had here brought an Inventory which amounted to 18000 l. so that her third part was 6000 l and demanded it of the Executor who unjustly detained c. And it was removed to the Common bench by writ of Privilege And now Hitcham Serjeant moved for a procedendo And the Court séemed to be of the opinion to grant it Because that the custom is that the sute ought to be before the Mayor and Aldermen and then if they retain the action here the custom would be overthrown But they agreed that a rationabile parte bonorum may be remanded here and that they may proceed upon it in this Court And that there be divers presidents to this purpose And they agreed that a rationabile parte bonorum is the original writ by the Common Law and not grounded upon the Statute of Magna Charta But that it does not lie but where such a custom is which custom they ought to extend to all the Province of York beyond Trent Richardson chief Iustice said that in the principal case The Plaintiff in London might have declared without alleging the custom As it is in 2 H. 4. Because that the custom is well known But otherwise Where custom ought to be shewed and where not where an action is upon the custom in a place where the custom does not extend There it ought to be shewn And afterwards at another
all his Interest which he had before usurpation During the life of the Incumbent and non-age of the Infant the Vsurper had an Estate in fee. But after the death of the Incumbent and full age of the Infant the Estate of the Vsurper ceased And the reason is upon the Statute of Westm 2. Infans habeat candem possessoriam actionem qualiter antecessor And 33 H. 6. 42 is that an Vsurper puts an Infant out of possession Infans habeat eandem actionem possessoriam qualiter antecessor But that ought to be understood during the Infancy only Et adjournatur Rawlins's Case HE was Plaintiff in a Replevin and was non-suted after Evidence given to the Iury and the Iurors did not find Costs and Dammages And afterwards a Writ of Enquiry of dammages was granted And Ashley moved that the writ might not be filed Because that the Writ of Inquiry of dammages could not issue but awarded from the Court And the Plaintiff here being non suted was out of the Court and that nothing might be done against him And the Prothonotaries said That in Case of a Verdict where the Iurors omit to find dammages a Writ of Enquiry is many times granted Writ of Enquiry may be granted after a verdict when Jury omit the dammages But they were commanded to search for Presidents in Case of a non-sute Richardson cited one Grimstons Case in the Kings Bench. Which was one Plaintiff in Action upon the Case against an Inne-holder was non suted and the Declaration was insufficient And for that the Plaintiff might not have costs But by Henden It is ordinary now in the Kings Bench If the Defendant had a Verdict although the Declaration be insufficient Yet he shall have Costs Nurse a gainst Pounford NUrse a Barrester of Grays-Inne brought an Action upon the Case against Pounford And declares that he is a Counsellor and was of Councel with several Noble men and that he was Steward to the Lord Barkley of 20 Mannors and also the receiver of his Rents for those Mannors And that the Defendant maliciously intending to disgrace him to the Lord Barkley writ an infamous Letter against him to the Lord Barkley Which Letter was here recited and it was to this effect briefly ut sequitur scil Your wonted Courtesie to Strangers incourageth me to desire your Honor not to protect your Steward in his unlawfull Sutes He hath unjustly vexed his own Brother by Sutes and caused him to be arrested and taken out of his Bed forcibly by Catchpoles He hath likewise almost undone me who have maried his own Sister notwithstanding his entertainment at my House for himself Wife Servants and Horses for several years And now instead of payment thinks to weary me out with Vexations and Sutes at Law I hope your Lordship will give no countenance to him in these things By reason of which Letter the Lord Barkley turned him out of his Office The Defendant pleads not guilty which was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Action here would not lye Atthowe said that the Action would lye well by reason of the particular loss the Plaintiff had And that is proved by Anne Davies Case Coo. 4. Such words that there are spoken of a maried woman are not actionable But of a Feme sole who had a Suter the Action will lye If one said of a Feme sole That she is a Whore and such a mans Whore It will not bear an Action in our Law But in the Spiritual Court it will And perhaps for Whore generally there And in the Case of Anne Mayes there was a loss of preferment which she might have But here the Plaintiff lost the preferment which he had If a man said to the Ordinary of a Clark presented to him that he is a Bastard seditious or heretique by reason of which words the Ordinary refuses him An Action lies for the Clark for the temporal losse and he cited Butchers Case and Stewkleys Case Cook 4. Also he cited Sir Gilbert Gerrards Case Cook 4. 18. If one said Take not a Lease of such an one I have a Lease of it an Action does not lie But if the party by reason of those words could not demise it to one with whom he had Communication for the Lease Then it lies Or if he said that another had a Lease of that also an Action lies 6 E. 6. Dyer 72. One saying that a Merchant would be a Banckrupt is Actionable Because that no man will trust him 7 E. 4. 24. One threatens another if he will come abroad he will beat him For the threatning an Action does not lie But if for that Cause he could not go abroad about his Business an Action will lye Secondly It hath been objected that the Action does not lie Because that it appears that the Letter was written out of the time of Limitation by the Statute of 21 Iac. which is for Slander That the Action ought to be brought within two years after the Slander I agree if it be brought for slanderous words But this is an Action upon the Case only An Action upon the Case for slandering of a Title is not within the Statute 21 Jac. for the two years but for the six years So here the Action is not for slanderous words For the Letter does not bear an Action But for the temporal loss But it was resolved by the Court That the Action did not lie For by Richardson Chief Iustice In all Cases where you will maintain an Action for words there ought to be some particular words of Slander spoken or written by which the particular loss came Here is a Letter it had not any Slander in it And it cannot be conceiceived that the Lord turned him away out of his Service or Office by that Letter which does not touch him in his Office of Stewardship nor his Receivorship If he had written that the Plaintiff was a contentious and troublesome man that had been more questionable than this is Yet it would not bear an Action And Richardson said that they alwaies conceived Sir Gilbert Gerrards Case not to be Law For if a man said that he himself had a Title to the Land of an other it is not actionable although he lost by that But if he had said that another man had Title to the Land of another that is actionable And no Case can be shewen where an Action upon the Case lies upon a particular losse unless the words carry some slander with them Hutton said the words of the Letter are not actionable But if being said to be done maliciously and falsesly and to the intent the Lord Barkley should put him out of his place and upon that the Lord displaced him then there would be more doubt of it But here the Iury had found the Defendant guilty and that seemed only to the writing of the Letter and it might be false notwithstanding But if the Iury had found that
all was false and written of set purpose and that for that the Lord displaced him it would be more difficult But for any thing as appears to us there is not any thing for which he might be justly displaced And also it was not said in the Declaration that the Defendant had any fee for his Office And Richardson also said That if it had been found as my Brother Hutton said Yet it is known that it should be more strong But then I conceive that the Action does not lye For it is apparent that nothing in the Letter may be applyed to a particular misbehaviour in his Office And by the Court Although the Declaration be laid falsely and maliciously Yet if the words be nâ—…t scandalous yet it ought to be laid falsely and maliciously And he said that it was adjudged in this Court Where an Action upon the Case was brought for conspiracy to indict a man and upon the Indictment the Iury found Ignoramus There the Indictee was clear And yet for the conspiracy the Action laid which was Blakes Case And it was said by Hutton If I have Land which I intended to sell and one came and says maliciously and on purpose to hinder my sale that he had a Title to it That that is actionable Which Harvey agreed without Question if he does not prove that he had a Title If one says of an Inue Go not to such an House for it is a very cutting House Agreed by the Court not Actionable Mich. 5 Car. Com. Banc. And Iudgment was given quod querens nil cap. per bil Pasc 6 Car. Com. Banc. THis Term there was nothing worthy the reporting as I heard of others For I my self was not well and could not hear any thing certum referre c. Trin. 6 Car. Com. Banc. Tomlins's Case IF the Husband makes a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the Remainder to his Son in tayl By the Court That is a dying seised in the Husband For the Wife shall have dammages in Dower And so it was adjudged in the Lady Egertons Case But the Husband ought to dye seised of an Estate tayl or Fée simple which might descend to his Heir Mich 6 Car. Com. Banc. MEmorandum That Sergeant Atthowe died at his House in Northfolk who was a man somewhat defective in Elocution and Memory but of profound Judgement and Skill in pleading NOte it was was said by Hutton and Davenport That if an Inferiour Court prescribe to hold Pleas of all manner of Pleas except Title to Freehold That that is no good prescription For then it may hold Plea of Murther which cannot be c. Note It was said by Richardson chief Iustice that if two conspire to indict an other of a Rape and he is indicted accordingly If the Iury upon the Indictment find Ignoramus Yet that Conspiracy is not punishable in the Starchamber Father purchases Lands in his Sons name who was an Infant at the age of seaventeen years and he would have suffered a Common recovery as Tenant to the Praecipe But the Court would not suffer him Rawling against Rawling THe Case was thus A man being possessed of a Lease for 85 years devises it as follows viz. I will that R. Rawling shall have the use of my Lease if he shall so long live during his life he paying certain Legacies c. And after his decease I devise the use thereof to Andrew Rawling the residue of the term with the Lease in manner and form as R. Rawling should have it Crew said That after the death of R. Rawling and Andrew the term shall revert to the Executors of the Devisor But by the Court not But it shall go to A. Rawling the last Devisée and in manner and form shall go to pay Legacies And by all a strong Case And together with the Lease be by strong words The Archbishop of Canterbury against Hudson of Grays-Inne THe Archbishop of Canterbury prosecuted against Hudson of Grays-Inne in an Information upon the Statute of E. 1. of Champerty Henden Sergeant for the Plaintiff moved upon the Plea that it was insufficient Because that the Defendant had prayed Iudgement of the Writ when he ought to have pleaded in Bar For the Statute of E. 1. had appointed a special Writ in this Case as the Defendant said But by him the Information is upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. which gives that Action by sute in Chancery which before was only by sute at Common Law Richardson chief Iustice said That the Plea is not to the matter but to the manner for the Plaintiff had mistaken his Action For the Action is given to the King only And therefore said to Henden demur if you will The Case was that the Defendant purchased Lands in anothers Name hanging the Sute in Chancery for it And after rules for Publication was given in the Cause Malins Case AYliff moved in arrest of Iudgement in an action of Battery c. And the cause that he shewed was An issue mistaken cannot be amended It was brought against William Malin of Langlee and in the Record of nisi prius It was William Langley of Malin But by the Court it ought to be amended For it is a misprision apparently of the Clark For the whole Record besides is right And the Record of nisi prius ought to be amended by the Record in the Bench according to the 44 E. 3. But if the issue had been mistaken otherwise it had been Arrerages for rent upon an estate for life cannot be forfeit by Outlawry NOte That it was agreed by the whole Court That arrerages of rent reserved upon an Estate for life are not forfeited by Outlawry because that they are real and no remedy for them but a distress Otherwise if upon a Lease for years c. Hill 6 Car. Com. Banc. MEmorandum that this term Sir Humfrey Davenport puisne Iudge of the Common Bench was called into the Exchequer to be Chief barron Browns Case AN Information upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. pro eo that one Brown was retained an Apprentice in Husbandry until the 21 year of his age and that he before his age of 21 years went away And the Defendant absque ullo testimonio detained him contra formam Statuti And by Hutton and Harvey Iustices only shewed the branch of the said Statute which says And if any servant retained according to the form of this Statute depart from his Master c. Hil. 6 Car. Com. Banc. And that none of the said reteined persons in Husbandry until after the time of his reteiner be expired shall depart That is not to be intended of an Apprentice in Husbandry but of an hired servant For the Statute did not intend to provide for the departure of an Apprentice because that an Apprentice ought to be by Indenture And then a writ of Covenant lies upon his departure to force him to come again And by the Common Law an
Fifthly that he retained one Steveson in one of the Chapels of ease who was a man of ill life and conversation scilicet an Adulterer and a Drunkard Sixthly that he did not catechise according to the Parish Canon but only brought many of Dr. Wilkinsons Catechisms for every of which he paid 2 d. and sold them to his Parishoners for 3 d. without any examination or instruction for their benefit And that he when any Commissions were directed to him to compel any person in his parish to do penance he exacted mony of them and so they were dismissed without inflicting any penalty upon them as their censure was And that he and his servants used divers menaces to his Parishioners and that he abused himself and disgrac'd his function by divers base labours scilicet He made mortar having a leathern a prou before him and he himseif took a tithe Pig out of the Pigsty and afterwards he himself gelded it And when he had divers presents sent him as by some flesh by some fish and by others ale he did not spend it in the invitation of his friends and neighbours or give it to the poor but he sold the flesh to Butchers and the ale to Alewives again And that he commanded his Curat to marry a couple in a private house without any licence and that he suffered divers to preach which peradventure had not any licence and which were suspected persons and of evil life It was said by Henden that they cannot by the Statute of primo Eliz. cap. 1. meddle with such matters of such a nature but only examine heresies and not things of that nature and that the High-Commissioners at Lambeth certified to them that they could not procéed in such things and advised them to dismiss it But they would not desist and the Iudges Richardson being absent granted a prohibition if cause were not shewed to the contrary Note it was said by the Iustices a discontinuance could not be after verdict Humbleton against Bucke THeophilus Humbleton was Plaintiff in an Assumpsit against Bucke and declares that whereas there was a controversie between one Palmer who pretended to be Lord of the soyl and the Inhabitants of such a Village concerning Common in ripa maritima which Palmer claimed to be his own soyl The Tenants claim common there and a liberty to cut grass and make hay of it and to carry it away Palmer incloses the soyl Humbleton enters upon the place enclosed and also takes the grass being one of the Tenants And Palmer brought a Trespass against him and then Bucke assumes to the Plaintiff in consideration of a Iugg of Beer and in consideration that the Plaintiff in the Trespass hanging against him would plead a Plea in maintenance of their title of Common he immediatly would pay to him the half of his expences or if he failed of that he would pay him forty pounds And further he said that he pleaded not guilty in that action of Trespass which was found for him and that he expended so much money the half of which the Defendant refused to pay to him c. The Defendant pleads non defendit sectam in maintenance of their Common which was found against him And Davenport moved in arrest of Iudgement because that he ought to have pleaded such a Plea by which the title of Common might come in question but when he pleads not guilty he disclaims the matter of Common And also the word immediatly is not to be taken so strictly that he should pay the money in the same instant c. But the Plaintiff must declare what costs he had expended and then he shall have reasonable time by the Statute to pay the money But Athowe answered that the verdict which was in the Kings Bench helps him For it was there found that that land was the Kings wast and that Palmer was not owner of the soyl and therefore for that his plea was good for the title of Common cannot come in question Richardson Chief Iustice said that that is not a maintenance of the title of Common against Palmer First he cannot give that verdict in evidence in a prescription for the Common and the maintenance by that Plea of not guilty is for the soyl and not for the Common and whoever is owner of the soyl the title of Common is not specially against Palmer but it is general against every one in the world And so was the opinion of Harvey and Crook And Crook said that although the verdict had found the Assumpsit and so admitted that that plea was for maintenance of the title yet that shall not bind us For if a verdict finds matter which is repugnant or a thing which cannot come in question it shall not bind us But by Iustice Yelverton it was said That because the Iury have found the Assumpsit they have admitted all the residue And for that we do not doubt of it no more than the Iury have decreed As in an Ejectione firm If they be at issue upon the collateral matter it shall be admitted that there was an ejectment and so it was adjudged But this cause was deferred to another time to be argued more c. Meridith Mady against Henry Osan aliis MEridith Mady brought debt against Henry Osan for that he and 5 others were bound to perform the Arbitrament of thrée elected by them and the Plaintiff concerning all tithes and all other matters of controversie between them and that they still and all the Parishioners should perform and stand to the award made c. And upon breach of the award made was the action brought For the award was that when any of the Parishioners clip their sheep they ought to give notice to Mady the Parson to the intent that he or his Servants may be there And the Defendant did not give notice c. The Defendant by rejoynder pleads that Allen and others that they were Deputies to receive the Tithe-wool and that they or one of them were present at the clipping and so they demur Athowe said that notice ought to be given to the Parson himself for perchance he would be there himself had he notice And for that the breach alleged is not answered And also he said that they or some of them were present and does not name him as he ought for he may come in issue c. Richardson If the Arbitriment was made for some things within the submission and some things without It is good for those things that are within and void for the residue And although the Parishioners did not submit yet it is good because the six are bound for them Hutton said that the Award for the notice is not good for it is not well assigned where the notice should be given And an Arbitrement ought to be reasonable but it is unreasonable that he ought to inquire Mady wheresoever he is to give him notice as Cook 77. Salmons Case Crook said that the Award is
good and it shall be intended that the Parson is alwaies resident in his Parsonage as a Surrender or an Attournment shall be intended upon the Land and it is not requisite to name any place And it seemed to Harvey that the Arbitrement was good although that all the Parishioners had not submitted to it Because that these were bound for them 18 E. 4. 22. 1â—… 1. And Iudgement was afterwards in the next Term given for the Plaintiff Iohn Paston against William Manne IOhn Paston brought an Ejectione firm against Manne and a special verdict was given to this effect scilicet Edward Paston was seised of the Mannor of Bingham parcel whereof was the Land in question grantable by Copy And he by his Deed indented in consideration of a Mariage to be had between Tho. Paston his Son and the Daughter of I. S. covenanted with I.S. to stand seis'd of the Mannor to the use of his Son for life and after to Mary the wife for life the remainder to the first Son between them in tail with divers remainders over The Mariage was solemnised and they found moreover that there was a Custome that the Lord might have liberty of fould course for 100 Sheep throughout all the Copiholdland lying in the East and North field the Customary places and Lands in these Fields not being inclosed from the Feast of St. Michael to the Feast of the Annunciation if the grain was carried in by that time Or otherwise from the time of the carrying in to the Annunciation if it be not sowed with seed again and that those 15 acres in question be in the Corn-field And that Thomas Paston granted that Copihold to the Defendant in Fee and that in 14 Iacobi the Defendant enclosed the Land without Licence of the Lord and if Licence was obtained then he ought to have paid a Fine which the Lord would have assest And if any of the Tenents inclose without Licence they find that they have used to be punisht and pay those penalties which the Lord would assess And they also found that that incloser by the Copiholder was with a Ditch of six foot in breadth and 3 foot in depth and that the land which he digged out was but to make a Bank upon the Land upon which a hedge of quick thorn was set and that four gaps were left in the inclosure of nine feet in breadth And they found that the Defendant did not at any time compound for a Fine And then they find that the Copiholders which before this inclosed without Licence were amerced and commanded upon a pain before a certain day to throw up their inclosures And now for this inclosure Thomas enters for a forfeiture and dies his Wife makes a Lease of it and the Defendant ejects the Lessee Atthowe held that he had forfeited his Copihold for that inclosure is against the Custome of the Mannor which is found For the Custome is the life and soul of a Copihold as it is in the 4 Rep. 31. Brownes Case The breaking of that is a forfeiture and make the Copiholder have an Estate at will meerly whereas before he had an Estate not meerly at the will of the said Lord but secundum volunt domini And so by the inclosure the Lord cannot have his fould course and so the custome is broken 42 Ed. 3. 25. For not doing the services the Lord may enter and have the Emblements If a Copiholder makes a feoffment it is a disseisin for which there may be an Assise of novel disseisin de libero tenement of Lands whereof the profits or of the Rent issuing out of the Land there is a forfeiture And Littleton said that a rescous Replevin Enclosure and denying the Rent is a Disseisin And what is a Disseisin of a Freehold is a forfeiture of the Copihold Rescous by a Copiholder is a forfeiture for all the books say that a denial of a rent is a forfeiture And it is held that if a Copiholder brings a replevin it is a forfeiture and the Lord may enter presently But if he avow then perchance he hath dispensed with it And an inclosure is more strong than a denial 11 E. 3. Assise 88. cited in Taverners Case 4 Rep. The heir cannot have an Assise before entry but if the Defendant menaces him or stops up the way it is a Disseisin 14 Ass plac 19. 8 E. 2. As 374. A stopping up of the way is a disseisin but if he can go another way he can have nusance 29 Ass 49. But it will be objected that the Lord had another remedy for he might have an Action of the Case And for that not enter for a forfeiture But an Action of the Case does not restore him to the Freehold but give dammages only And if an Assise be brought it affirms the Disseisin and makes forfeiture and that agrees Taverners Case That where several Copiholds were granted by one Copy a rent denied of one forfeits that and not the others But admit it is a forfeiture if the leaving the Gaps dispence with it And it seem'd that not for he loses the profit of the Fould-course for 500 Sheep would tear their fleeces by such a narrow passage and the inclosure is an impediment to hinder their spreading in their feeding And so every one also may inclose and leave gaps and the Lord perhaps compell'd to put and remove the Shéep ten times in one day and so the Sheep worse at night than in the morning c. Secondly if the Lord had given Licence then he would have had a Fine but he would so be his own Carver And the Lord had no remedy for a Fine upon admittance after Surrender 4 Rep. 46. He had no remedy there by Action of debt nor by Action of the Case without promise to the Admittance c. Lord grants a Copihold Escheat he ought to improve his Fine before or he hath no remedy for he is not compelled to grant the Copihold again and therefore he shall have what Fine he will And it is not found also who may inclose paying his Fine A Lord admits a Copiholder for life with remainders the admittance of Tenent for life was the admittance of the remainder but he shall have his Antefine 4 Rep 23. And if they may inclose paying a Fine then the Lord had an Estate at the will of the Tenents Thirdly when it is found that the Lord amerced and commanded upon pain c. that is no mitigation or dispensation of the forfeiture For ruinous Houses pull'd down is a forfeiture without Custome to the contrary Because no waste lies against a Copiholder as against Lessee for years And yet the Lord in favour may amerce such a Copiholder if he will and that is no dispensaition but an affirmation of the forfeiture And so because the Lords were conscionable and would not take the forfeiture that does not prove that it is a Dispensation Fourthly the making of the gap and hedge of