that one Butty was seised of the Land where c. and also of a Messuage with which Messuage the said Land had been usually occupied time out of mind c. and being seised and lying sick commanded a Scridener to be brought to him and the said Scrivener being brought to him he gave him Instructions to make his Will and amongst other things declared unto him that his meaning was that the said Messuage and all his Lands in Westerfield should be sold by his Executors and the Scrivener in making of the Will penned the matter in this manner I will that my house with all the appurtenances shall be sold by my Executors Butty died the Executors sell forty acres of the said Land to the Def. and all this matter was found by special verdict and it was moved by the Plaintiffs Counsel that the sale of this Land by the Executors is not warranted by the Will Another matter was moved scil admitting that the Executors have authority by the Will to sell the Land if the sale of parcel of the Land be good and warrantable As if I make a Charter of Feoffment of ten acres and a Letter of Attorney to make livery of them to the Feoffee if the Attorney makes several liveries of the several acres the same is void But by Cook the Cases are not like for in the Case put he hath a special Commission in which the party to whom and all the other circumstances are set down certainly contrary in the Case at the Bar there the Commission is general c. and peradventure the Executors shall never find a Chapman who will contract with them for the whole More Rep. 222. Co. Inst 113. a. And afterwards upon conference amongst the Iudges Clench Gawdy and Wray it was resolved that by this devise the Lands do pass by the sale of the Executors to the Defendant which sale also by process is warranted by the Will for by Wray these words with all the appurtenances are effectual and emphatical words to enforce the devise and that doth extend to all the Lands especially because it is found that the Testator gave to the Scrivener his Instructions accordingly And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff See 3 Eliz. Plowd 210. Betwixt Sanders and Freeman there the Devise is pleaded in this manner Messuagium cum pertinentiis ad illud spectantibus in perpetuum in villa de Arthingworth XLIII Watkins and Astwicks Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 132. IN an Ejectione firmae it was found by special verdict that one Maynard was seised and made a Feoffment in Fee upon condition of payment of mony on the part of the Feoffor by way of Mortgage at a certain day before which day the said Maynard dyed his Son and Heir being within age Tender to redeem a Mortgage afterwards at the day of payment limited by the Mortgage a stranger at the instance and request of the Mother of the Heir tendred the money to the Mortgagee in the name of the Heir being within age who refused it And it was resolved by the whole Court that the same is not a sufficient tender to redeem the Land according to the Mortgage for it is found by the Iury that the Heir at the time of the tender was within age 2 Len. 213. generally not particularly of six or ten years c. then it might well stand with the verdict that the Heir at such time was of the age of 18 or 19 years at which age he is by the Law out of the Ward of his Mother or any other prochein amy in which Case it is presumed in Law that he hath discretion to govern his own affairs and in this Case the Mother is but a stranger for the Law hath estranged the Mother from the government of the Heir but if the Iury had found that the Heir at the time of the tender was of tender age viz. within the age of fourteen years in which Case by Law he ought to be in Ward in such Case the tender had been good XLIV Leput and Wroths Case Trin. 28. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Replevin by Lepur against Wroth 6 Co. 33. Replevin 3 Len. 132. and declared upon a tortious taking in Burnham in the County of Essex the Case upon the pleading was that Robert Earl of Sussex was seised of the Manor of Burnham in Fee and leased the same to the King for one and twenty years and afterwards the said Earl died by which the said Manor descended to Thomas late Earl of Sussex and he being seised 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary it was Enacted by Parliament That the Lady Frances Wife of the said Earl by virtue of the said Act of Parliament should have hold and enjoy c. during the widowhood of the said Frances for and in consideration of the Ioynture of the said Frances the said Manor Provided always and it is further enacted Construction of Statutes That it should be lawful for the said Earl by his writing indented dimissionem vel dimissiones facere pro termino 21. annorum vel infra de eodem Manerio pro aliquo redditu annuali ita quod super omnes singulos hujusmodi dimissionem dimissiones antiquus redditus consuetus vel eo major amplior reservaretur and that every such demise should be of force and effectual in Law against the said Frances for term of her life if the said term should so long continue And further the said Act gave to the said Frances Distress Avowry Covenant c. against such Lessee and for the said Lessee against the said Dame And afterwards the said Thomas the said former Lease not expired leased the said Manor to Wroth the Defendant for one and twenty years to begin at the Feast of Saint Michael next following and note the Lease was made the third of April before rendring three hundred and forty pounds per annum which was redditus amplior antiquo usuali Popham Attorney general argued that the said Lease did not bind the said Lady Frances and that for two Causes 1. because it is to begin at a day to come 2. because it was made a former Lease being in esse and he argued much upon construction of Statutes to be made not according to the letter but according to the meaning of them And he cited a Case upon the Statute of 2 H 5. 3. by which it is Enacted that in no Action in which the damages do amount to forty marks any person should be admitted to pass in trayl of it who had not Lands or Tenements of the clear yearly value of forty shillings yet the said Statute shall not be by construction extended where in an Action between an English-man and an Alien the Alien prayeth medietatem linguae and yet the Statute is general So in our Case although this private Act doth not seem to provide expresly but for two
Lands within the said Town every second year left their Lands to lye fresh and untilled and prescribed further that the Tenants of the Lands within the said Town might erect Herdals in in their Lands with the Licence of the Lord of the said Manor and not otherwise and further declared that the said Bedingfield had let to him the said Manor and that the Defendant had erected Herdals upon his Lands without Licence so as the profit of his Foldage is impaired by it And all this matter was found by Verdict And it was objected in stay of Iudgment that the prescription is not good for it is against Law and common right to abridge the Subject of the profits of his Lands But the whole Court was clear of opinion that the prescription is good enough as 15 E 2. Prescription 51. Prescription to have common appendant in other Land afte that the Hay is cut and v E. 1. Prescription 55. A. seised of Lands may Plow it and Sow it and cut and carry away the Corn and afterwards when the Corn is carried B. by prescription may have the said Land as his several and the other who sowed it cannot meddle with that land but to plow and sow it in season c. And the Cattel cannot eat and pasture in the Land when they come to plow or sow it or to carry it away nor have any profit but the Corn and yet the Free-hold of the Land is in such person c. and that was holden a good Prescription and a difference was taken by the Court where one doth prescribe to take away the whole interest of the Owner of the Land and where a particular profit is restrained And here this prescription doth not extend but to restrain the Ter-tenant to erect Herdals which is a reasonable prescription See 1 H 7 24. The Lord of the Town doth prescribe to have free Foldage of the Beasts of his Tenants in D. and see there that libera Falda is not any other but to hav the Beasts of the Tenants to manure the lands of the Lord c. And afterwards Punsany the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover XVI Mich. 25 26 Eliz. at Serjeants Inn. IN the Dutchy Chamber the case was that King E 6. leased for years certain lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster rendring rent with clause of re-entry and that a lease was made to one Bunny It was found by Office that the Rent was arrear and by another Office that the Servant of the said Lessee had tendred the rent in his absence and by the commandment of his Master and that afterwards one I. S. Receiver General of the Dutchy received the said Rent and had accounted for it and upon his account it was allowed And this matter was opened at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street before Wray Anderson Manwood Clench Rhodes Plowden and Stanhop and it was argued by Shuttleworth that in this case of rent reserved upon a Lease for years made by the King of Dutchy-Land The King not bound to demand Rent the King is not bound to demand it but he may for default of payment of it re-enter without demand and that the Lessee is tied to tender it at his peril as well as if the Queen had been seised of the said land in the right of her Crown and as to that payment the Statute of 1 H 4. is to be considered by which it is enacted that the possessions of the said Dutchy Taliter tali modo per tales officiarios ministros in omnibus remaneant deducantur gubernentur sicut remanere deduci gubernari debuissent si ad culmen Regis Dignitatis assumpti non fuissemus and these words ought to be intended of things which concern the Lands themselves but this Act of demand is a personal thing and concerns the person of the King and toucheth the Majesty and dignity of the King and in all cases of the Dutchy the person of the King shall hold his priviledge notwithstanding that the possession of the Land be carried in the course of a private person And therefore if the Queen will alien Lands parcel of her Dutchy she ought to make Livery for now she meddles with the possession it self but if the Queen will sue for parcel of her Dutchy non omittas shall be in the Writ for she cannot sue but as Queen and the Queen hath such Prerogative that none shall execute her Writs at her own sute but the Officer of the Crown 21 E 4. 60. for Livery if it be not Land within the County Palatine and for the residue See 10 H. 4. 7. 3. Eliz. 216 217. Plowden Lessee for years of Lands of the Dutchy shall have aid of the King before Issue joyned c. And if the King make a Feoffment of Lands of his Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of him in Capite the Feoffee shall hold it so and a Feoffment of such Lands upon condition that the Feoffee shall not alien is a good condition and Lapses shall not bind the Queen in case of an Advowson which the Queen hath in the right of the Dutchy and if the Villain of the Queen in the right of the Dutchy purchaseth Lands in Fee and aliens yet the Queen shall seise and that hath been adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber and if the Queen make a Lease of such Land and afterwards makes another Lease of the same Land without recital of the first Lease it hath been adjudged that the second Lease is void It was argued contrary by Beamount the younger that this condition which goeth to the realty to reduce the Land again ought to be ordered and governed by the Queen as it ought to be by a Subject and therefore if the Queen will take advantage of this condition she ought to make a Letter of Attorney under the Dutchy Seal to her own Officer authorizing him thereby to make demand of the said Rent c. And by Shuttleworth here be two Offices the one contrary to the other the best shall be taken for the Queen 14 E 4. 5. in Skreens Case in the end of it And if the Rent of the Kings Farmor be behind now although that after the Receivor of the Dutchy doth receive it yet the same doth not purge the forfeiture as if the Bayliffs of a Manor receive rent of a new Feoffee the same will not change the Avowry of the Lord without notice given to him 41 E 3. 26. And if a Copy-hold escheat the Steward without a special Warrant cannot grant it over de novo XVI Rearsbie and Rearsbies Case Intrat Trinit 25 Eliz. rot 746. Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. REplevin by W. Rearsbie against A. Rearsbie and L. Rearsbie who avow the distress because that one W. Vavasour was seised of the Manor of Deniby whereof the place where c. is parcel in his Demesne as of Fee and so seised gave the said Manor to
for that he hath not made his Fresh sute according to the Law for he ought to have begun his Fresh sute within the Hundred where the Robbery was done and it was also objected that the Robbery was done post occasum solis in which Case the Hundreders are not to pursue the Malefactors And Walmsley Serjeant cited a Case out of Bracton Si appellatus se defenderit contra appellantem tota dle usque ad horam in qua Stellae incipiunt apparere recedat quietus de appello and it is not reason to drive the Hundreders to Follow felons at such a time 1 Cro. 270. when for want of light they cannot see them And all the Iustices were clear of opinion that if the Robbery was done in the night time the Inhabitants are not bound to make the pursute And by Rhodes if in a Praecipe quod reddat of Lands the Sheriff summons the Demandant upon the Land in the time of night such a summons is meerly void LXXIII Wiseman and Wisemas Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin 28. Rot. 1458. IN an Action of Debt by Wiseman against Wiseman the Case was Debt 1 And. 160. Owen 140. that one Wiseman was seised of the Lands and by his Will devised 1. I will and bequeath unto my Wife B. acre for the Term of her life the remainder to my Son Thomas in tail Item I will and bequeath unto my Son Thomas Devises all my Lands in D. and also my Lands in S. and also my Lands in V. Also I give and bequeath unto the said Thomas my Son all that mâ— Island or Land enclosed with water which I purchased of the Earl of Essex To have and to hold all the said last before devised premisses unto the said Thomas my Son and the Heirs of his Body The only matter was If the Habendum shall extend to the Island only in which Case Thomas shall have but for life in the Lands in D. S. and V. or unto the Island and also to the Lands in D. S. and V 2 Roll. 60. Roph. 126. in which Case he shall have Fee-tail in the whole And it was argued by Fenner that the Habendum should extend to the Island only as he said the opinion of the Iustices of this Court was in 4 Eliz. in another Case I devise my Manor to D. my eldest Son and also my Land in S. in tail in that Case the entail limited for the Land in S. shall not extend to the 1 Roll. 844. said Manor and of such opinion was Weston Welsh and Dyer Brown contra that the Son hath tail in both But if the words of the devise had been I devise my Manor of D. and my Lands in S. to my Son in tail here the Son had an estate tail in both So it hath been adjudged that if I devise Lands to A. B. and C. successively as they be named the same is good by way of Remainder Walmesley contrary and he relied much upon this that the words of the Habendum are in the plural number 2 Bulst 180. 181. All the last before devised premisses whereas the thing lately devised by the Will was an Island in the singular number which cannot satisfie the Habendum Extent of an Habendum which is in the plural number and therefore to verifie the plural number in the Habendum the Habendum by fit construction shall extend to all the Lands in D. S. and V. and so upon his motion made at another day it was resolved by all the Iustices that the Habendum should extend to all the said Lands and the Habendum should not streighten the Devise to the Island only LXXIV Fullwood and Fullwoods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Bail renders himself in Court. IN an Action upon the Case the Defendant put in bail to the Court to answer to the Action and now Iudgment being given against him he came into Court and rendred himself and prayed that in discharge of his sureties that the Court would record the rendring of himself which was granted And the Court demanded of the Plaintiff if he would pray execution for the body against the Defendant who said he would not whereupon the Court awarded that the sureties should be discharged and the Rule was entred that the Defendant offered himself in discharge of his sureties and Attornatus Querentis allocatus per curiam c. dixit se nolle c. Ideo consideratum fuit per curiam quod tam praedict defend quam praedict Manucaptores de recognitione praedict denariis in eadem contentis exonerentur LXXV Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was He in the Reversion upon a Lease for years makes a Charter of Feoffment to divers persons to the use of himself for life Feoffments and after to the use of his eldest Son in tail and the words of the Charter were Dedi Concessi Barganizavi Feoffavi and he sealed and delivered the deed but no livery of seisin was made and afterwards he came to his Lessee for years and said to him that he had made a Feoffment and shewed also the uses but did not shew to whom the Feoffment was made to whom the Lessee said you have done very well I am glad of it Attornment And if that were a good Attornment was the Question It was said that that was the Case of one Arden And Gent and Manwood were of opinion that the same was no Attornment because it was not made to the Feoffee scil to the Grantee of the Reversion and so it was ruled in this Case for Attornment ought to be to the Grantee himself and not to Cestuy que use 1 Cro. 251. Tythes and where the spiritual court shall have jurisdiction of them LXXVI The Parson of Facknams Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Parson of great Facknam brought an Action of Trespass against the Parson of Hannington and the Case was If the Parson of one Parish claim by prescription a portion of Tythes out of the Parish of another if the Spiritual Court shall have the Iurisdiction for the tryal of it And the opinion of the whole Court was clear that it should because that the matter is betwixt two spiritual persons and concerning the right of Tithes As 35 H. 6. 39. I. Vicar of B. brought Trespass for taking away of forty loads of Beans c. The Defendant pleaded that he is Parson of the said Church of B. and the Plaintiff is Vicar c. and before the Trespass c. the Beans were growing in the same Town and severed from the nine parts and he took them as belonging to his said Church and demanded Iudgment of the Court c. The Plaintiff said that he and all his Predecessors Vicars c. time out of mind c. have used to have the Tithes of such a Close c. belonging to his Vicaridge and
the of Inner Temple being at the Bar when this Case was moved said unto Serjeant Shuttleworth that the Case had been adjudged against the Demandant and Scot Prothonotary did affirm that the Lord Dyer was of opinion that the Woman ought to be endowed according to the Custom and not otherwise And Sayer one of the Clarks of Nelson chief Prothonotary said that it was adjudged accordingly 16. Eliz. and that the Case was betwixt Gelbrand Demandant and Hunt Tenant LXXXIV Beverlie and Cornwals Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEverlie brought a Quare Impedit against Cornwal Quare Imped 2 Roll. 805. Out-lawry pleaded and had Iudgment to recover upon a Demurrer in Law Which see Mich. 28 29 Eliz. And now the Queen brought a Scire facias upon the matter That the said Beverly after the said Iudgment was out-lawed in an Action of Trespass at the sute of I. S. and upon that a Scire facias issued ad respondendum Quare dicta Domina Regina should not have execution of the Iudgment aforesaid by reason of the Out-lawry aforesaid and declared in all as aforesaid And further that the said Cornwal had resigned Vpon which Beverlie did demur in Law. And this Term it was argued by Puckering Serjeant for the Queen that by that Out-lawry the Interest to present is tranferred to the Queen Which see 5 H. 5. 3. Tenant at will of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant is out-lawed in an Action of Trespass the Church voided by award of the Court it belongs to the King to present And see 8 R. 2. scil Quare Imped 200 A. seised of an Advowson the Church becomes void A. is Out-lawed in a personal Action the King shall have a Quare Impedit in that Case And as to the Exception taken because the Out-lawry is not sufficiently layed in the Writ but only generally viz. utlagatus in Com. Lincoln ad sectam J.S. in placito transgressionis without shewing the Out-lawry at large There is a difference where an Out-lawry is pleaded by way of â—â—r and disability of the person c. and where it is set down in a Writ for a Writ ought shortly and compendiously to comprehend the cause of the Action especially judicial Writs which are not tied to any form certain especially because that the Out-lawry set forth in the Writ is a Record of the same Court For the perclose of the Scire facias is prout per recordum hic in curia plenius apparet And that Record being in the Court the party cannot plead Nul tiel record as if the Record had been in any other Court But he ought to demand Dyer of the Record Which vide 5 H. 7. 24. Walmesley Serjeant contrary By Out-lawry in an Action personal the King cannot seise Land but only take the profits of it 9. H. 6. 20. 21 H. 7. 7. And as our case is nothing doth accrew to the Queen by this Out-lawry for the Queen her self is seised of the Advowson because she usurpando presentavit and her Clerk admitted and although Beverlie hath recovered in a Quare Impedit against the Presentee of the Queen yet because he is not removed by a Writ to the Bishop the Queen continues Patron and nothing remains in Beverlie that may be forfeited But Rhodes and Periam contrary for by Periam if after such Recovery the Incumbent dieth the Patron shall present for by the Iudgment in the Quare Impedit for Beverlie the Patronage is revâ—â—ted in him without any other execution And by Rhodes If after such Iudgment the Patron dieth his Executors shall have a Writ to the Bishop And by Walmesley the Scire facias doth not lie for the Queen for that Writ always runs in privity of the Record upon which it is grounded to which Record the Queen is a stranger and by Out-lawry in an Action personal no Action real shall escheat and therefore this Scire facias being in the nature of a Quare Impedit upon which it is grounded which is a real Action or at least a mixt shall not be forfeited and also it shall be absurd to grant now a Writ to the Bishop for the Queen whereas Iudgment was given against the Queen as in our case it hath been And in no Case the Iudges shall respect the title of the Queen being a stranger to the Writ But where a title for the Queen doth appear upon the pleading or otherwise within the Record 11 H. 4. 224. by Hankford If a clear title for the King be confessed by the parties upon pleading a Writ to the Bishop shall issue for the King so if such matter appear in Evidence 3 Cro. 427. c. the Land in question is seisable into the Kings hands See 9 H. 7. 9. 16 H. 7. 12. so 21 E. 4. 3. by Choke and F.N.B. 38. e. In a Quare Impedit betwixt two strangers if title doth appear to the Court for the King a Writ to the Bishop shall issue forth for the King but in our Case nothing is within the Record to intitle the Queen but all the matter upon which a Writ to the Bishop is prayed for the Queen is out of the Record and a foreign thing And as to the Out-lawry he conceived it is not sufficiently alledged for he ought to have made mention of the Exigent and of all the proceeding upon it and the Iudgment of the Coroners and for defect of that no title is given to the Queen and of that opinion was the Lord Anderson and that it ought to be set forth in the Writ in what Term the said Beverly was out-lawed and the Number Roll also so that if Beverly had demanded Dyer of the Record the Court might know it And by Nelson chief Prothonotary the Term in which the Out-lawry was ought to be comprised in the Scire facias Vide Book of Entries 485. where in a Quare Impedit for the King upon such a title the King shewed in his Count that A. was seised of such an Advowson and granted the next Avoidance to B. and that afterwards one C. impleaded the said B. in a Writ of Account in such a Court where Nihil was returned upon the summons upon which issued forth a Capias upon which is returned Non est inventus c. upon which an Exigent upon which the Sheriff did return quod ad com tent c. ad v. comitat tunc prox praecedent the said B. exactus fuit non comparuit quia ad nullum eorundem comitat apparuit utlagatus fuit and after the the Church voided and that by reason thereof it did belong to the King to present vide ibid. 196. accordingly And as to the Scire facias all the Iudges agreed that upon the matter the Writ lay well enough And it is good discretion in the Court to grant such a Writ And by Rhodes If two Coparceners of an Advowson make composition to present by turns and afterwards
the Obligation which was made for the further assurance of the duty And here the Defendant ought to have pleaded the tender and see 14. E. 4. 4. A. is bound unto B. that where he hath granted to the said B. a Rent-charge out of such Land now if the said B. shall enjoy the said Rent according to the form and effect of the said Grant that then c. there he needs not to plead any tender for the Rent is not payable in other manner than it was before contrary if the Condition had been for the payment of the Annuity And of that opinion was the whole Court that he ought to have pleaded a tender Another matter of the Award was that the said Audar should yield up surrender relinquish to the Plaintiff all such Houses and Tenements which he had in his possession by reason of the custody of the said Plaintiff As to that the Defendant pleaded that he had yielded up c. All such Houses c. generally without shewing which in certain And for that cause the Court was clear of opinion that the Plea was not good which see 9 E. 4. 16. If I be bounden upon condition to enfeoff the Obligee of all Lands Tenements which were to I.S. in pleading the performance of that Condition I ought to shew what Lands and Tenements in certain for they pass out of me by the Feoffment See also 12 H. 8. 7. 13 H. 8. Non damnificatus generally where no Plea. 19. Another point of the Award was That the said Audar should acquit and discharge and save harmless the Plaintiff of such an Obligation to which the Defendant pleaded that Querens non fuit damnificatus and that Plea was holden insufficient for he ought to have shewed how he had discharged him and it is not sufficient to answer only to the damnification as if I be bounden to convey unto you the Manor of B. in pleading the performance of the condition it is not sufficient to shew that I have conveyed the said Manor but to shew by what manner of conveyance viz. by Fine or Feoffment c. 22 E. 4. 43. If the condition be to discharge the Plaintiff c. then the manner of the discharge ought to be shewed but if it be to save harmless only then non damnificatus generally is good enough 40 E. 3. 20. 38 H. 6. 39. The condition of an Obligation was that the Obligor should keep without damage the Obligee of such a sum of mony against B. to whom he was bounden for the payment of it and the said Obligor pleaded that at such a day c. the said B. at his request delivered the Obligation to the Plaintiff in liew of an acquittance without that that the Plaintiff was damnified by the said Obligation before the delivery of it and it was holden by the Court that if the Defendant had pleaded that he had kept the Plaintiff without damage and had not shewed how that the Plea had not been good See 22 E. 4. 40. The Lord Lisles Case And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XCVI Heydons Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. RAlph Heydon pretending title to certain Land entred into it and made a Lease of it to try the title Vpon which his Lessee brought an Ejectione firmae in which the parties were at Issue And now at the day of the Enquest the Iurors were called and but five of them appeared whereupon the Defendant came and shewed to the Court that the said Heydon by his Friends and Servants had laboured the Iury not to appear and that for the further vexation of the Defendant who had four Verdicts in affirmance of his title that the said Heydon to procure the Iury not to appear had surmised to them that he and the Defendant were in course of an agreement whereas in truth no such communication of agreement had any time passed betwixt them And all this was openly deposed in Court as well upon the oath of the Defendant himself as upon the oath of one of the Iurors upon which the Court awarded an Attachment against the said Heydon to answer the contempt And also granted to the Defendant that he might sue a Decem tales with proviso for his own expedition XCVII Smith and Kirfoots Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Debt upon Arbitrament SMith brought Debt upon an Arbitrament against Kirfoot and declared that the Defendant and he imposuerunt se in arbitrium ordinationem judicium Johannis Popham ar arbitratoris indifferenter electi de jure titulo inturesse in quibusdam Messuagijs c. Who taking upon him the burthen of the Arbitration ordinavit that the said Defendant should pay unto the Plaintiff ten pounds in plenam satisfactionem c. and thereupon he brought his Action It was moved by Walmesley Serjeant that the Declaration is not sufficient for it appeareth that the Arbitrament set forth in the Declaration is utterly void because whereas ten pounds is awarded to the Plaintiff nothing is awarded to the Defendant and so the Award unequal and so void But the Court was clear of opinion that notwithstanding that such an Arbitrament be void in Law yet it may be for any thing that appeareth that the award is good enough 1 Cro. 904. â— Cro. 354. 355. For the Plaintiff is not to shew in his Declaration all the Award but such part only of it which doth entitle him to the thing c. and if the Defendant will impeach the Award for any thing that is to come in on his part vide ac Book of Entries 152. 123. vide For the Arbitrament 39 H. 6. 12. by Moile 7 H. 6. 41. XCVIII Arundel against Morris Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco RIchard Arundel sued an Audita Querela against Morris and it was comprehended in the Writ That Morris had recovered against him a certain Debt and that he was taken by a Capias ad satisfaciendum Audita Querela at the suit of the said Morris by Hickford Sheriff of the County of Gloucester who let him go at large c. And they were at issue upon the voluntary escape it was found for the Plaintiff It was objected in arrest of Iudgment that the Writ of Audita Querela is not good for the words are that the Plaintiff captus fuit virtute brevis nostri judicialis whereas this word judicialis is not in the Register but only brevis nostri de capiendo But by the whole Court the Writ is good for the word judicialis is but a word of surplusage and shall not make void the Writ And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XCIX Brook against King. Mich. 29 30. Eliz. IN Debt upon an Obligation by Brook against King the Defendant pleaded that the Bond was endorced with such condition viz. Debt That it the said Defendant King shall procure one I.S. to make reasonable recompence to the
Ancestor of the Demandant was pleaded in Bar by the name of W the Demandant in avoidance of it would have said that the name of his Father was R. to have avoided the Fine but to that he was not received And 3 E. 3. 32. scil Averment 42. In a Formedon the Tenant pleaded Ne dona pas The Demandant by Replication said That a Fine was levied of the same Lands between the Father of the Demandant and one T. by which Fine the Father of the Demandant did acknowledge to T. the Lands come ceo c. and the said T. gave by the said Fine to the Father of the Demandant the Land in tail Where it is said by Stone that since the gift is proved by as high a Record a man shall not aver against such matter in avoidance of the said Fine c. and yet the party against whom it was was a stranger to the Fine And see 38 E. 3. 7. The Lord shall not be received against a Fine levied by his Tenant to aver the dying seised of his Tenant in his Homage And as to the Issue in tail he conceived that the Averment doth not lie for him for the Issue in tail is as much privy as the Heir of a Tenant in Fee-simple And see 33 E. 3. scil Estoppel 280. In a Formedon the Tenant voucheth the Demandant Counter-pleaded that the Vouchee nor any of his Ancestors had any thing in the Land in demand after the seisin c. to which the Tenant said that to that the Demandant should not be received for the Father of the Demandant after the gift levied a Fine to the Ancestor of the Vouchee of the said Land in demand sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and the same was holden a good bar to the Counter-plea And it was said by the Iustices That although the Statute of West 2. of Donis conditionalibus doth not avoid the Fine as to the fore-closing of the Issue in tail of his Formedon yet it remaineth in force as to the restraining of the heir in tail to aver a thing against the Fine as well as against the heir in Fee-simple and in all Cases where he against whom a Fine is pleaded claims by him who levieth the Fine he shall not have the same Averment but where he claims by a stranger to the Fine there he shall have it well enough see 33 H. 6. 18. If my Father Tenant in tail or in Fee grant the Land by Fine and afterwards I make Title to the same Land by the same Ancestor and the Fine is pleaded against me I shall not be received to say that those who were parties to the Fine had not any thing at the time of the Fine levied but such a one an estranger whose estate c. but it is a good Plea for me to say that after the Fine such a one was seised in Fee and did enfeoff me vid. 22 E 3. 17. before 33 E. 3. Estoppel 280. And Dyer 16 Eliz. 334. The Father is Tenant for life the Remainder in Fee to his Son and Heir levieth a Fine to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. with warranty and takes back an estate by the same Fine in that case it was holden that the heir should not be received to aver continuance of the possession and seisin either ante finem tempore finis or post finem in the Tenant for life for it is a Feoffment upon Record and makes a discontinuance of the Remainder and Reversion The only Book in our Law to maintain the Averment is 12 E. 4. 15. by Brian who although he was a reverend Iudge in his time yet he erred in this that if Tenant in tail be disseised and levieth a Fine unto a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. that the Issue in tail may well say that partes ad finem nihil habuerunt but Coke and Lit. were clear of a contrary opinion and see in the same year fol. 12 by Fairfax and Littleton that if Tenant in tail where the Remainder is over to a stranger levieth a Fine sur conusans dodroit come ceo c. he in the Remainder may aver continuance of seisin against that Fine for he is not party nor heir to the party c. And the Stat. of 4 H. 7. goes strongly to extort such Averment out of the mouth of the Issue in tail for the words concerning the same point are saving to every person or persons not party nor privy to the said Fine their exception to avoid the said Fine by that that those which were parties to the said Fine nor any of them had ought in the Land at the time of the said Fine levied And it is clear that the Issue in tail is privy to his Ancestor whose heir to the tail he is which see agreed 19 H. 8. 6. 7. And he vouched the Case of one Stamford late adjudged Land was given to the eldest Son in tail the Remainder to the Father in tail the eldest Son levied a Fine sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and died without Issue in the life of his Father and afterwards the Father died the second Son shall inherit but if the eldest Son had survived the Father and afterwards died without Issue the second Son should have been barred Periam to the same intent It should be very dangerous to the Inheritances of the Subjects to admit of such Averments and by such means Fines which should be of great force and effect should be much weakned and he put many Cases to the same purpose as were put before by Rhodes Iustice and he shewed how that Fines and the power of them were much weakned by the Statute of non-claim whereof followed as the preface of the Statute of 4 H. 7. observeth the Vniversal trouble of the Kings Subjects and therefore by the said Statute of 4 H. 7. Fines for the good and safety of the Subjects were restored to their former Grandure and authority which should be construed by us who are Iudges strongly and liberally for the quiet and establishment of present possessions and for the barring and extinguishing of former rights and so did the Iudges our Predecessors which see in the Argument of the said Case between Stowel and the Lord Zouch So see such liberal construction 19 Eliz. Dyer 351. Where if Land be given to Husband and Wife in special tail and the Husband alone levieth a Fine and dieth having Issue the Issue is barred And it hath lately been adjudged by the advice of all the Iudges of England upon the Statute of 1 Ma. viz. All Fines levied whereupon Proclamations shall not be dayly made by reason of Adjournment of any Term shall be of as good force and strength to all intents and purposes as if such Term had been holden and kept from the beginning to the end thereof and not adjourned and the Proclamations shall be made in the following
and damages and in an Action upon the Case brought upon that promise the Plaintiff was barred for here is not any consideration for they bailed the Servant of their own head without the request of the Master and the matter which is alledgged for consideration is executed before the Assumpsit and the promise was not before the enlargment and the said bailment was not at the instance Claytons Rep. 45. 1 Cro. 756. or request of the Master And the Case of one Hudson was cited adjudged in the Kings Bench The Defendant in consideration that he was Administrator and natural Son of the Intestate and that the goods of his Father have come to his hands promiseth to pay the debt to the Plaintiff And in an Action upon the Case upon that promise the Defendant pleaded he made no such promise and it was found that no goods came to the hands of the Defendant And it was holden that the consideration that he was Administrator and Son to the Testator was not of any force to maintain the Action and afterwards in the principal Case the Iudgment was affirmed And it was moved by Coke that Iudgment should not be given against the Executor of his own goods if he had not goods of the Testator for the charge doth not extend beyond the consideration i. e. That the goods of the Testator came to the hands of the Defendant But Wray Iustice was of opinion that Iudgment shall be of his proper goods as in Case of confession Kemp Secondary if the Action be brought upon Assumpsit of the Testator Iudgment shall be of the goods of the Testator but of the promise of the Executor of his own goods but the Original Iudgment which is now affirmed was general CXXII Savel and Woods Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 71. 3 Len. 203. 265. Post 128. THe Case was That a Parson did Libel in the spiritual Court against a Parishoner for Tythes of such Lands within his Parish the Defendant came into the Kings Bench and surmised and that he and all those whose estate he hath in the Lands out of which the Tythes are demanded have used to pay every year five shillings to the Parish Clark of the same Parish for all the Tythes out of the same place And it was argued by Coke that that could not be for a Parish Clark is not a person corporate nor hath succession But if he had prescribed that they had used to pay it to the Parish Clark to the use of the Parson it had been good Also he ought to shew that the Parson ought of right to find the Parish Clark c. And he cited the Case of Bushie the Parson of Pancras who libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tithes The Defendant to have a prohibition did prescribe that he and all those c. had time out of mind c. used to pay to the Vicar c. and at last a Consultation was awarded because it was triable in the Ecclesiastical Court for both parties as well Vicar as Parson are spiritual persons and the modus decimandi is not in question but cui solvend And at another day it was agreed by the Iustices that of common right the Parson is not tied to find the Parish Clark for then he should be said the Parsons Clark and not the Parish Clark But if the Parson be tied to find such a Clark Challenge and such a sum hath been used to be paid to the Parish Clark in discharge of the Person the same had been a good prescription and so by way of composition and by Clench Tythes are to be paid to spiritual Persons but a Parish-Clark is a Lay-person And afterwards the Court granted a Consultation CXXIII Higham and Reynolds Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant 1 Maii 28 Eliz. cut down six posts of the house of the Plaintiff at D. The Defendant doth justifie because that the Free-hold of the house 10 Aprilis 27 Eliz. was to I. S. and that he by his commandment the same day and year did the Trespass c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law because the Defendant did not traverse without that that he was guilty before or after And the opinion of Wray was that the traverse taken was well enough because the Free-hold shall be intended to continue c. Vide 7. H. 7. 3. But all the other three Iustices were of a contrary opinion to Wray But they all agreed that where the Defendant doth justifie by reason of his Free-hold at the day supposed in the Declaration there the traverse before is good enough And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Defendant CXXIV Knight and Footmans Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass by Knight against Footman the Case upon the pleading was that one Margaret had issue two Sons Richard and Thomas Surrender of Copy-hold Land. and surrendred to the use of Richard for life and afterwards to the use of Thomas in Fee they both Thomas being within age surrender to the use of one Robert â—ap John in Fee who is admitted Richard dieth Co 1 Inst 248. Thomas dieth having issue A. who is also admitted and enters into the Land and if his entry be lawful or that he be put to his plaint in the nature of a Dum fuit infra aetatem was the Question And Wray was clear of opinion that it was And if a man seised of Copy-hold Land in the right of his Wife or Tenant in tail of a Copy-hold doth surrender to the use of another in Fee the same doth not make any discontinuance but that the issue in tail and the Wife may respectively enter 1 Cro. 372. 380. 391. 483. 717. More 596. and so was it holden in the Serjeants Case when Audley who afterwards was made Chancellor of England was made Serjeant and afterwards it was adjudged that the entry of the Enfant was lawful CXXV Sir Wollaston Dixies Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information was in the Exchequer against Sir Wollaston Dixie upon the Statute of Vsury upon not guilty pleaded Information upon the Statute of 13. Eliz of Usury The Informeâ— gave in evidence an usurious Contract upon a bargain of Wares The opinion of the Court was that the Information being exhibited for the loan of money that the Evidence was not pursuing nor leading to the Issue And yet the Iury against the opinion of the Court upon that evidence found the Defendant guilty And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Evidence did not maintain the Information nor prove the Issue ex parte Querentis and it was said there are three things within the Statute i. three words i. bargain loan and cheivizance and these three are several things and therefore if the Information be conceived upon loan and the Informer giveth in Evidence a corrupt
which process issued out of the Exchequer to take and seize all the goods and two parts as well of all the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases and Farms of such Offender as of all other the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments liable to such seisure or to the penalties aforesaid by the true meaning of this Act leaving the third part c. And Popham Attorney General moved If a Recusant hath more than a third part of his Lands in Copy-hold land if this Copy-hold as to the surplusage shall be liable to the penalty Manwood chief Baron conceived that the Copy-hold is liable in this Case by the Statute although not directly by express words yet within the intent of it and that by reason of these words all other the lands c. liable to such seisure c. Walmes Serjeant Copy-hold is not liable to a Statute Merchant or Staple also if the Queen hath the Copy-hold how shall the Lord have the services which the Queen cannot do Also a Copy-hold is not an Hereditament within this Statute which extends only to Hereditaments at the common Law and not by custom Also in Acts of Parliaments which are enacted for forfeiture of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments by those words they shall not forfeit Copy-holds Clark Baron this Statute was made to restrain Recusants from taking the benefit of their Livings and Copy-holds are their Livings as well as Free-holds and by this Statute the Queen shall not have every estate in the Copy-hold Land but only the taking of the profits but the scope of the Statute was to impair the Livings of Recusants and that by driving of them for want of maintenance to repair to the Church Walmesley If the Statute had given to the Queen to seise two parts of their livings then the Statute had extended to Copy-holds Manwood when a Statute is made to transfer an estate by name of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments the Copy-hold is not within such Statute but if the Lords Signiory his Customs and Services are not to be impeached or taken away by such Statute then it is otherwise for such Statute doth not make another Tenant to the Lord And by him Copy-holder shall pay Subsidies and he shall be assessed according to the value of his Copy-hold as well as of his Freehold and in this Case the Queen is to have the profits of the Lands only but no estate At another day the case was argued for the Recusants by Snag Serjeant and he said that these words Lands Tenements and Hereditaments are to be construed which are such at the Common Law not by Custom If I give to one all my Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in D. my Copy-holds do not pass and Statutes which are made to take away Possessions and Hereditaments out of persons ought to be strictly taken and not by Equity The Statute of 13 Eliz. of Bankrupts enacts that the Commissioners may sell the Lands and Tenements of the Bankrupts if the Statute had not made a further provision the Commissioners could not sell Copy-hold Lands but there are express words in the Statute for that purpose i.e. as well copy as fee Also the Staute of 13 Eliz. cap. 4. of Auditors and Receivers of the Queen doth not extend to Copy-holds And it should be a great prejudice to the Lords of such Copy-holds that the Queen should have the Land. Popham the intention of the Law somtimes causes a liberal construction of a Statute in the letter of it What Statutes extend to Copy-holds somtimes a strict and precise exposition and here it appeareth that the intention of the Statute was that the Queen should have all the goods of the offender and two parts of the Lands c. Leases and Farms and the Recusant but the third part of all his Lands only And therefore the Recusant is not to have any other thing but only that which is allotted to him by the Statute and that is the third part which is all the maintenance which the Law allows him and then if Copy-holds be not within this Statute a Recusant who hath great possessions in Copy-holds and hath no Free-hold should be dispunishable and hath his full maintenance against the meaning of the Statute And he said that many things are within the meaning of a Statute â—y 5. 6. Co. 3. Inst 109 Yel 60. 12 Co. 12. which are not within the words as Bonds Obligations and Specialties made to Recusants shall pass to the Queen by this Statute by force of the word goods according to the meaning of the Statute and all personal things are within the Statute c. profits of the Lands Advowsons and the like and the very scope of the Statute was to take away from Recusants all personal things whatsoever and two parts of real things as Leases Farms Lands Tenements c. with the intent that with the superfluity of their goods and possessions she should not maintain Iesuits and Seminary Priests people more dangerous than the Recusants And by him Lands in ancient demesne are liable to the penalties by the Statute although not by express words So if a Recusant hath Lands extended by him upon a Statute acknowledged unto him that Interest is not properly a Lease or Farm yet it is Land within this Statute liable c. And if I be Tenant by Elegit or Statute c. of Lands in D. not having other Lands in the said Town and I grant all my Lands in D. my Interest ut supra shall pass contrary If I have other Lands there And I grant that if I have Copy-hold Lands in D. and none other and I grant all my Lands in D. Copy-hold Land shall not pass by such assurance because that Copy-hold cannot pass but by surrender If I put out a Copy-holder out of his Lands the same is a Disseisin to the Lord of whom the Copy-hold is holden And if I levy a Fine of such Lands and five years pass not only the Lord is bounden as to his Free-hold and Inheritance but also the Copy-holder for his possession for the intent of the Statute of 4 H. 7. was to take away controversies litibus finem imponere 5 Co. 124. and contention may be as well for Copy-hold as for Land at the common Law. One hath a Lease for years to begin at a day to come he who hath the Free-hold thereof is disseised the Disseisor levieth a Fine five years pass he who hath the Free-hold is bound by it but not he who hath the Interest for years in futuro as it hath been lately adjudged But he said That if that point were to be handled again the Law would be taken to the contrary but it is clear that a Lease in possession shall be bound by such Fine And as unto any prejudice to the Lord it is clear that notwithstanding that the Queen hath the Copy-hold Land yet the Lord shall have the Rent during the possession of the Queen which is the
in the Case which gives cause of suit in Chancery for they will not order a matter there which is directly against a Rule and Maxim of the common Law. As if a Feme Covert be bound c. and the Obligee bring her into the Chancery and if a man threaten me that if I will not pay to him ten pounds he will sue me in Chancery upon which I promise to pay it him no Action will lye And an Infant is not chargeable upon any contract but for his meat drink and necessary Apparel 19 Z. 4. 2. And in Debt upon such necessary Contract the Plaintiff ought to declare specially so as the whole certainty may appear upon which the Court may judge if the expense were necessary and convenient or not and upon the reasonableness of the price for otherwise if the necessity of the thing and reasonableness of the price doth not appear the Chancellor himself would not give any remedy or recompence to the party Wray Justice conceived that the Action would not lye for the contract was void and the Infant in an Action against him upon it may plead Nihil debet And if an Infant sell goods for money and doth not deliver them but the Vendee takes them he is a Trespassor but if the Infant had been bounden in an Obligation with a surety and afterwards at his full age he in consideration thereof promiseth to keep his surety harmless upon that promise an Action lyeth for the Infant cannot plead non est factum which see Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Case of one Edmunds And afterwards it was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLVII Charnock and Worsleys Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot 833. In the Kings Bench. Owen 21. 1 Cr. 129. CHarnock and his Wife brought a Writ of Error against Worsley the Case was that the Husband and Wife the Wife being within age levyed a Fine and the Wife upon inspection was adjudged within age it was moved if the Fine should be utterly reversed or as to the Wife only should stand against the Husband by Godfrey the Book of 50 E. 3. 6. was vouched where it is said by Candish that where such a Fine is reversed the Plaintiff shall not have execution till after the death of the Husband and by Coke and Atkinson a Fine acknowledged by the Husband and Wife is not like to a Feoffment made by them for in case of Feoffment something passeth from the Husband but in case of a Fine all passeth out of the Wife and the Conusee is in by her only And Atkinson shewed a Precedent in 2 H. 4. where the Fine was reversed for the whole and also another Precedent P. b. H. 8. Rot. 26. A Fine levyed betwixt Richard Elie Plaintiff and N. Ford. and Jane his Wife Deforceants the Wife being within age and Iudgment was given quod finis praedict adnulletur pro nullo penitus habeatur and that the Husband and Wife should be restored and thereupon a Writ issued to the Custos Brevium to bring into Court the Foot of the Fine and it was presently cancelled in Court. Wray this is a strong Precedent and we will not varse from it if other Precedents are not contrary Gawdy who was the same day made Iustice the Fine cannot be reversed as to one and stand as to the other and resembled it to the Case of Littleton 150. where Land is given to Husband and Wife in tail before coverture and the Husband aliens and takes back an estate to him and his Wife for their lives they both are remitted for the Wife cannot be remitted if the Husband be not remitted And a Precedent was cited to the contrary 7 Eliz. where the Case was that the Husband and Wife levyed a Fine the Husband died the Wife being within age the Wife took another Husband and they brought a Writ of Error and the Wife by inspection adjudged within age Fine reversed as to one to stand good against another and the Fine was reversed as to the Wife and her Heirs And it was argued by Golding that here the Writ of Error ought to abate for the Writ is too general whereas it ought to be special Ex querela A.B. nobis humillime supplicantis accepimus c. See the Book of Entries 278. Also the purclose of the Writ is ad damnum impsorum the Husband and the Wife whereas the Wife only hath loss by it and as to the Fine it self he conceived that it should be reversed but as to the Wife as if a man of full age and a man within age levy a Fine in a Writ of Error brought the Fine shall be reversed as to the Infant only and shall stand against the other and he cited the Case of the Lord Mountjoy 14. Eliz. Where a man seised in the right of his Wife acknowledged a Statute and afterwards he and his Wife levyed a Fine and he said that during the life of the Husband the Conusee of the Fine should hold the Land charged with the Statute Also in the Precedent of 2 H. 4. the Iudgment is that propter hunc alios errores the Fine should be reversed and I conceive that another Error was in the said Writ for which the Fine might be reversed in all viz. the Fine was levyed of two parts of the Manor of D. without saying in tres partes dividend And see that where two parts are demanded in a Writ 3 Co. 58 59. Modern Rep. 182. the Writ shall say so Brief 244 Coke contrary and as to the last matter I confess the Law is so in a Writ but not in a Fine for the same is but a Conveyance for it I be seised of a Manor and I grant to you two parts of the said Manor it is clear it shall be intended in three parts to be divided And as to the principal matter I conceive when the Fine is levyed by the Husband and Wife it shall be intended that the Land whereof c. is the Inheritance of the Wife if the contrary be not shewed and therefore if the party will have an especial Reversal he ought to shew the special matter as in Englishes Case A Fine was levyed by Tenant for life and he in the reversion being within age bringeth a Writ of Error now the Fine shall be reversed as to him in the Reversion but not as to the Tenant for life but here it shall be intended the Inheritance of the Wife and that the Husband hath nothing but in the right of his Wife and therefore she shall be restored to the whole for nothing passeth from the Husband but he is named with his Wife only for conformity 11 H. 7. 19. A. takes to Wife an Inheretrir who is attainted of Felony the King shall not have the Land presently by which it appeareth that all is in the Wife and she shall be restored to the whole and the Iudgment shall be according to the Presidents cited
plead it specially but as our case is here is no Act to be done but a permittance as abovesaid and it is in the Negative not a disturbance in which case permisit is a good plea and then it shall come on the other side on the Plaintiffs part to shew in what Lands the Defendant non permisit Which difference see agreed 17 E. 4. 26. by the whole Court. And such was the opinion of the whole Court in the principal case 1 Co. 127. Another Exception was taken to it that the Defendant had covenanted that his brother Edward should pay to the Plaintiff the said Rent To which the Defendant pleaded that his said brother had payed to the Platntiff before the said Feast of Michaelmas in full satisfaction of the said Rent three shillings and that was holden a good plea and upon the matter the Covenant well performed for there is not any Rent in this Case for here is not any Lease and therefore not any Rent For if A. covenant with B. that C. shall have his Land for so many years rendring such a Rent 1 Roll. 847. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 97. here is not any Lease and therefore neither Rent But if A. had covenanted with C. himself it had been otherwise because it is betwixt the same parties And if the Lessee covenant to pay his Rent to the Lessor and he payeth it before the day the same is not any performance of the Covenant causa patet contrary of a sum in gross Another Covenant was that the said Humphry solveret ex parte dicti Edwardi 20 l. to which the Defendant pleaded that he had paid ex parte dicti Humfridi 20 l. and that defect was holden incureable and therefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXVII Geslin and Warburtons Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 128. IN an Ejectione firmae by Joan Geslin against Hen. Warburton and Sebastian Crispe of Lands in Dickilborough in the County of Norf. Mich. 30. 31 Eliz. rot 333. upon the general Issue the Iury found a special verdict that before the Trespass supposed one Martin Frenze was seised of the Lands of which the Action was brought in tail to him and his Heirs males of his body so seised suffered a common Recovery to his own use Devises and afterwards devised the same in this manner I give my said Land to Margaret my Wife until such time as Prudence my Daughter shall accomplish the age of nineteen years the Reversion to the said Prudence my Daughter and to the Heirs of her body Lawfully begotten upon condition that she the said Prudence shall pay unto my said Wife yearly during her life in recompence of her Dower of and in all my Lands 12 pounds and if default of payment be made then I will that my said Wife shall enter and have all my Lands during her life c. the Remainder ut supra the Remainder to John Frenze in tail c. Martin Frenze died Margaret entred the said Prudence being within the age of fourteen years Margaret took to Husband one of the Defendants John Frenze being Heir male to the former tail brought a Writ of Error upon the said Recovery and assigned Error because the Writ of Entry upon which the Recovery was had was Praecipe quod reddat unum Messuag and twenty acras prati in Dickelborough Linford Hamblets without naming any Town And thereupon the Iudgment was reversed And it was further found that in the said Writ of Error and the process upon it Hutt 106. 2 Cro. 574. 3 Cro. 196. no Writ of Scire facias issued to warn dictam Prudentiam ten existentem liberi ten praemissorum ad ostendendam quid haberet vel dicere sciret quare Judicium praedict non reversaretur The Iury further found that the said Margaret depending the said Writ of Error was possessed virtute Testamenti ultimae voluntatis dict Martini reversione inde expectant dictae Prudentiae pro ut lex postulat And they further found Error that six pound of the said tewlve pounds were unpaid to the said Margaret at the Feast c. and they found that the said John Frenze praetextu Judicii sic reversat entred into the premisses as Heir male ut supra And so seised a Fine was levyed betwixt John Frenze Plaintiff and one Edward Tindal Owen 157. Dyer 321. 1 Cro. 471. 739. and the said Prudence his Wife Deforceants and that was to the use of the said John Frenze And that afterwards Humphry Warburton and the said Margaret his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against the said John Frenze Edw. Tindal and Prudence his Wife of the said Lands The said Edward and Prudence made default and the Demandants counted against the said Frenze and demanded against him the moity of the third part of the said Lands To which the said Frenze pleaded that the default of the said Edward and Prudence idem John Frenze nomine non debet quia he said that he the said John was sole seised of the Lands aforesaid at the time of the Writ brought c. and pleaded in Bar and it was found against the said John and Iudgment given for the Demandants of the third part of the whole Land and seisin accordingly And that afterwards 17 Eliz. the said Frenze levyed the Fine to the said Tindal to the use of the said Tindal and his Heirs And they found that after the said Feast the said Henry Warburton and Margaret his Wife came to the Messuage aforesaid half an hour before Sun-set of the said day and there did demand the Debt of the said twelve pounds Dower to the said Margaret by the said Martin Frenze devised to be paid unto them and there remained till after Sun-set of the said day demanding the Rent aforesaid and that neither the said Tindal nor any other was there ready to pay the same And first it was moved if the said yearly sum of twelve pounds appointed to be paid to the said Margaret were a Rent or but a sum in gross And the opinion of the Court was that it was a Rent and so it might be fitly collected out of the whole Will where it is said that Prudence his Daughter should have the Land and that she should pay yearly to Margaret twelve pounds in recompence of her Dower c. But if it be not a Rent but a sum in gross it is not much material to the end of the case For put case it be a Rent the same not being pleaded in Bar the Dower is well recovered and then when default of payment is made if the Wife of the Devisor shall have the whole was the Question And the Court was clear of opinion that by the suit and Iudgment in the Writ of Dower the Wife of the Devisor had lost all the benefit which was to come to her by the devise For the said Rent was devised to her in recompence of
second Lessee and declared upon a Lease made for years without speaking of the Indenture And Gawdy Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court if the Defendant might safely plead no Wast And they conceived that it should be dangerous so to do Then it was demanded if the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff had nothing tempore dimissionis whereof he had counted if the Plaintiff might estop the Defendant by the Indenture although he had not counted upon it and if such Replication be not a departure And it seemed to Periam and Leonard Custos brevium that it was not for it is not contrary to the Declaration but rather doth enforce the Declaration CCXXI Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAlmesley Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court upon this matter Land is given to Husband and Wife in special tail during the Coverture they have issue the Husband is attainted of Treason and dieth the Wife continues in as Tenant in tail the issue is restored by Parliament and made inheritable to his Father saving unto the King all advantages which were devolded unto him by the Attainder of his Father the Wife dieth And he conceived that the issue was inheritable for the Attainder which disturbed the inheritance is removed and the blood is restored and nothing can accrue to the King for the Father had not any estate forfeitable but all the estate did survive to the Wife not impeachable by the said Attainder And when the Wife dieth then is the Issue capable to enherit the estate tail Windham and Rhodes prima facie thought the contrary yet they agreed that if the Wife had suffered a common Recovery the sâ—me had bound the King. CCXXII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Assumpsit that he had delivered to the Defendant diversa bona ad valentiam 10 li. the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise to pay to the Plaintiff the Debt owing pro bonis praedictis and did not shew that the Defendant bought the said goods of the Plaintiff and so it doth not appear that there was any Debt and then a promise to pay it is meerly void which was agreed by the whole Court. CCXXIII. Seaman and Brownings Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. GEorge Seaman brought Debt upon a Bond against W. Browning and others Executors of one Marshal the condition was Debt that where the said Marshal had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff if the said Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoy the said Lands against the said Marshal c. and assigned the breach in this that the said Marshal had entred upon him and cut down five Elms there upon which the parties were at issue And it was found that A. servant of the said Marshal by commandment of his said Master had entred and cut c. in the presence of his said Master and by his commandment for he is a principal Trespassor And it was so holden by the Court. CCXXIV. Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IF the Kings Tenant by Knights service dieth his Heir within age 8 Co. 172. and upon Office found the King seiseth the Body and Land yet the Heir during the possession of the King may sell the Lands by Deed enrolled or make a Lease of such Land and the same shall bind the Heir notwithstanding the possession of the King but if he maketh a Feoffment in Fee it is utterly void for the same is an intrusion upon the possession of the King but where the King by Office found is entituled to the Inheritance as that his Tenant dieth without Heir whereas it is false for which the King seiseth in such case the Tenant of the King before his Ouster le mayne cannot make a Lease for years or sell the Land by Deed enrolled The Case depended in London before the Iudges of the Sheriffs Court. The King by colour of a false Office which doth falsly entitle him to the Inheritance is seised of certain Land he who hath right leased the same for years by Deed indented and then an Ouster le mayne was sued and he enfeoffed a stranger And it was holden that the Lease should not bind the Feoffee although it was by Deed indented for the Feoffee is a stranger to the Indenture and therefore shall not be estopped by it 18 H. 6. 22. A stranger shall not take advantage of an Estoppel and therefore shall not be bound by it As if one take a Lease for years by Indenture of his own Lands the same shall bind him but if he dieth without Heir it shall not bind the Lord in point of Escheat CCXXV. Gibbs Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 861. Owen 27. GIbbs brought an Action upon the Case upon Trover and Conversion of a Gelding and the Case was that one P. had stolen the said Horse and sold the same unto the Defendant in open Market by the name of Lister and the said false name was entred in the Toll-book And it was holden clear by the Court that by that sale the property was not altered CCXXVI Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Owen 45. Hutton 105. 1 Cro. 734. Post 322. TEnant in Socage leased his Lands for four years and died his Heir within the age of eight years the Mother being Guardian in Socage leased the Land by Indenture to the same Lessee for fourteen years It was holden by the Court that in this Case the first lease is surrendred but otherwise upon a Lease made by Guardian by Nurture CCXXVII Kimpton and Dawbenets Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass the Defendant did justifie by a grant of the Land where c. by Copy The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Land is customary Land ut supra and claimed the same by a former Copy The Defendant by Rejoynder saith that well and true it is that the Lord may grant Copies in possession at his pleasure and also estates by Copy in Reversion with the assent of the Copy-holder in possession but all estates granted by Copy in Reversion without such assent have been void It was argued that this custom is not good for it is not reason that the Lord in disposing of the customary possessions of his Manor should depend upon the will of his Tenant at will and the same is not like to the case of Attornment for there the Attendancy is to be respited which is not to be done here for the Copy-holder in possession shall continue attendant to his Lord notwithstanding such a grant in Reversion And see for the unreasonableness of the custom 19 Eliz. 357. in Dyer Sallfords Case It was moved on the other side that the Custom was good enough and 3 H. 6. 45. was vouched That every Freehold of a Manour upon alienation might surrender his Land c. It was adjourned CCXXVIII Marriot and Pascalls Case in a Writ of
day the same had bin good for such By-law doth not take away but order the Inheritance For the nature of a By-law is to put Order betwixt the Tenants concerning their affayrs within the Manor which by law they are not compellable to do And by Periam The Avowant ought to have averred That this By-law was for the Common profit of the Tenants See the Lord Cromwells Case 15 Eliz. Dyer 322. and afterwards in the Principal Case Iudgment was given against the Avowant CCLXXI. Wicks and Dennis Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Replevin WIcks brought a Replevin of Dennis who avowed That one Dennis his Father was seised of the Manor c. and granted out of it to the avowant a Rent of twenty pounds per annum and further granted That if the said Rent be arrear unpaid six days after the feasts c. wherein it ought to be paid si licite petatur That then it should be lawful to distrein The grantor afterward by Indenture Covenanted with the Lord Treasurer and others to stand seised of the same Manor unto the use of himself and his heirs until he or his heirs have made default in they payment of one hundred pounds per annum until three thousand pounds be paid and after default of payment to the use of the Queen and her heirs until the sum of three thousand pounds should be paid and levied The grantor afterwards levied a fine to the said Lord Treasurer and others to the uses aforesaid the Rent is arrear default of the payment of the hundred pounds in made Office is found The Queen seised the land the Avowant during the possession of the Q. demanded the Rent the arrearages thereof The Queen granted over the Manor to W. B. D. the grantee did distrain for the rent arrearages demanded ut supra It was moved by H. Serjeant That this demand of several sums payable at several days before is not good for every sum ought to be severally demanded when it was first due scil si licite petatur scil within the six days for otherwise without such demand distress is not lawful and he resembled it to the case of Sir Thomas Gresham 23. Elizabeth Dyer 372 of several Tenders Periam conceived that the demand ought to be several Anderson That the demand is good enough And as to the demand made during the possession of the Queen It was holden by the whole Court to be good enough for although the possession of the Queen be priviledged as to the distress yet the demand is good Demand of Rent charge during the possession of the King good without any wrong to her prerogative for the Rent in right is due and the possession of the Queen is in right charged with it and the Rent is only recoverable by Petition as it was by way of distress and if the partie sueth to the Queen by Petition for the said Rent he ought to shew in his Petition that he hath demanded the Rent for if the possession had bin in a common person he could not distreyn before demand nor by consequence have Assise And the Rent notwithstanding the possession of the Queen is demandable and payable for to entitle the party unto Petition against the Queen and to distress against the subject when the possession of the Queen is removed And see 7 H. 6. 40. disseisee may make continual claym although the possession of the Land of which he is disseised be in the King. And 34 H. Br. seisin 48. If the heir at full Age intrude upon the possession of the King and pays Rent to the Lord of his Land holden of a subject the same is a good seisin and shall bind the heir after he hath sued his livery 5 E. 4. 4. and see 13 H. 7. 15. That distress taken upon the possession of the King is not lawful but seisin obtained during it is good So in 21 H. 7. 2. CCLXXII Ashegells and Dennis Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Com. Pleas. Int. M. 30 31. Rot. 458. AShegel brought a Quare Impedit against Dennis Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 163. Hob. 304. and the Plaintiff Counted that the Defendant had disturbed him to present ad vicariam de D. and shewed that the Queen was seised of the Rectory of D. and of the Advowson of the vicaridge of D. and by her letters Patents gave unto the Plaintiff Rectoriam praedictam cum pertinentiis etiam vicariam Ecclesiae praedict And it was holden by the whole Court That the Advowson of the vicaridge by these words doth not pass nor so in the Case of a common person much less in the Case of the King But if the Queen had granted Ecclesiam suam of D. then by Walmesley Iustice the Advowson of the vicaridge had passed CCLXXIII Collman and Sir Hugh Portmans Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Ejectione firmae by Collman against Sir Hugh Portman it was found by special verdict Ejectione firmae That the lands where were holden by Copy of the Manor of D. whereof Sir H. Portman was seised and that the Plaintiff was Copyholder in Fee and further found That the said Sir H. pretending the said Copy-hold lands to be forfeited Surrender of Copy-holder entred into Communication with Collman touching the same upon which Communication it was agreed betwixt them That the said Collman should pay to the said Sir Hugh five pounds which was paid accordingly that in consideration thereof Collman should enjoy the said Customary lands except one Wood called Combwood for his life and also of Alice his wife durante sua viduitate and that Collman should have Election whether the said lands should be assured unto him and his said wife by Copy or by Bill c. he chose by Bill which was made accordingly and further found That the said Sir H. held and enjoyed in his possession the said Wood c. upon this matter The Court was clear in opinion That here is a good surrender of the said lands and that for life only and that the said Sir Hugh had the Wood discharged of the customary interest CCLXXIV Thetford and Thetfords Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt IN an Action of Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared That Land was given to him and to T. his wife and to the heirs of their bodies and that his wife leased the Lands to the Defendant and that the Donees were dead and that the Plaintiff as heir c. for rent arrear c. and upon Non demiserunt the Iury found that the Husband and Wife demiserunt by Indenture and afterwards the husband died and the wife entred and within the term died Now upon the matter it seemed clear to Anderson that the Iury have found for the Defendant scil Non demiserunt for it is now no lease ab initio because the Plaintiff hath not declared
upon a Deed. Hutt 102. Dy. 91. 2 Co. 61. 1 Ma. Dyer 91. and also the wife by her disagreement to it and the occupation of the Land after the death of her Husband hath made it the Lease of the Husband only CCLXXV Rockwood and Rockwoods Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 163. IN an Action upon the case the case was this The Father of the Plaintiff and Defendant being sick and in danger of death and incending to make his Will In the presence of both his Sons the Plaintiff and Defendant declared his meaning to be To devise to the Plaintiff his younger Son a Rent of 4 l. per annum for the term of his life out of his Lands and the Defendant being the eldest Son the intention of his Father being to charge the Land with the said Rent offered to his Father and Brother That if the Father would forbear to charge the Land with the said Rent he promised he would pay the 4 l. yearly to his Brother during the life of his Brother according to the intention of his said Father Whereupon the Father asked the Plaintiff if he would accept of the offer and promised of his Brother who answered he would whereupon the Father relying upon the promise of his said eldest Son forbore to devise the said Rent c. so as the Land descended to the Eldest Son discharged of the Rent and the opinion of the whole Court in this case was clear that upon the whole matter the action did well lye CCLXXVI Petty and Trivilians Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Livery of seisin HUmphrey Petty brought Second Deliverance against William Trivilian and upon especial verdict the case was That A. was seised of certain Land and Leased the same for years and afterwards made a Deed of Feoffment unto B. and a Letter of Attorney to the Lessee C. and D. conjunctim vel divisim in omnia singula terras et Tenementa intrate et seisinam inde c. secundum formam Chartae c. Lessee for years by himself makes Livery and seisin in one part of the Land and C. in another part and D. by himself in another part It was first agreed by the Iustices that by that Livery by Lessee for years his Interest and Term is not determined for whatsoever he doth he doth it as an Officer or Servant to the Lessor Secondly It was agreed That these several Liveries were good and warranted by the Letter of Attorney especially by reason of these words In omnia singula c. So as all of them and every of them might enter and make Livery in any and every part And so it was adjudged CCLXXVII Rigden and Palmers Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIgden brought a Replevin against Palmer who avowed for damage feasant in his Freehold The Plaintiff said Replevin That long time before that Palmer had any thing he himself was seised until by A. B. and C disseissed against whom he brought an Assise and recovered Avowry and the estate of the Plaintiff was mean between the Assise and the recovery in it The Defendant said That long time before the Plaintiff had any thing One Griffith was seised and did enfeoff him absque hoc that the said A. B. and C. vel eorum aliquis aliquid habuere in the Lands at the time of the Recovery Walmsley Iustice was of opinion That the Bar unto the Avowry was not good for that the Plaintiff hath not alledged That A.B. and C. Ter-Tenants tempore recuperationis and that ought to be shewed in every recovery where it is pleaded And then when the Defendant traverseth that which is not alledged it is not good Windham contrary For the Assise might be brought against others as well as the Tenants as against disseisors But other real actions ought to be brought against the Ter-Tenants only and therefore it needs not to shew that they were Ter-Tenants at the time of the Recovery and also the traverse here is well enough Another Exception was taken because the Avowry is That the place in which conteineth an 100 Acres of Land The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry saith that the place in which c. conteins 35 Acres c. but that Exception was not allowed for it is but matter of form is helped by the Statute of 27 Eliz. Another Exception was taken as to the hundred of Cattel and doth not shew in certain if they were Ewes Sty 71. 264. or Lambs or how many of each which also was dissallowed for the Sheriff upon Returno habendo may enquire what cattel they were in certain and so by such means the Avowry shall be reduced to certainty CCLXXVIII RUssell and Prats Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber RUsell brought an action upon the case against Prat and declared That certain goods of the Testator casually came to the Defendants hands and upon matter in Law Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff sed quia nescitur quae damna Error c. Ideo a writ of Enquiry of Damages issued and now Prat brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 8. But note That the Iudgment was given before the said Statute but the Writ of Enquiry of Damages was retorned after the said Statute Writ of Enquiry of Damages the said Statute doth not extend but to Iudgments given after the making of it And it was moved That the said Iudgment is not to be examined here but by the clear opinion of Anderson Manwood Windham Walmesley Gent and Clark Iustices of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer the Writ of Error lyeth here by the Statute 1 Cro. 235. for in an action of Trespass as this case is full judgment is not given until the Writ of damages be retorned And if before the Retorn of it any of the parties dieth the Writ shall abate and the first Iudgâ—ent which is given before Award of the Writ is not properly a Iudgment but rather a Rule and order and so in a Writ of accompt where Iudgment is given that the Defendant computet cum querente he shall not have Error upon that matter for it is not a full Iudgment See 21 E. 3. 9. So as to the Iudgment in a Writ of Trespass scil That no Writ of Error lyeth before the second Iudgment after the Return of the Writ of Enquiry of Damages are given And also it was holden by all the said Iustices and Barons That an Executor shall have an action upon the case de bonis testatoris casually come to the hands and possession of another Action de bonis Testatoris and by him converted to his own use in the life of the Testator and that by the Equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3. 7. de bonis asportatis in vita Testatoris
and made partition of the Demeans only but the Services of the Free-holders and Copy-holders did remain in Common One of the Daughters took Husband the Husband and the Wife make a Lease of the moyety of the Manor to the Plaintiff for years by word rendring Rent the Lessee entred into the Demeans allotted to the Wife of the Lessor Partition The Husband died and the Wife brought an Action of Wast Anderson By the partition the Demeans are now become in gross and severed from the Manor And if partition be made of a Manor so as the Demeans be allotted to one Sister and the Services to the other now the Mannor is dissolved yet if the other Sister dieth without issue and her part descendeth to the other now it is become a Manor again which Windham and Periam granted 6 Co. 64. See 12. H. 4. 271. And Anderson was of opinion that the moyety of the Demeans did not pass by the words of the moyety of the Manor as if one seised of a Manor maketh a Feoffment in Fee of part of the Demeans and afterwards re-purchaseth them and then makes a Feoffment of the whole Manor the Demeans repurchased will not pass thereby for they were once severed from the Manor and not re-united by the purchase Periam Although that in truth it is not a Manor nor any part of a Manor yet if it hath beeen reputed the moyety of the Manor it shall pass by such name which Anderson grant ed but it is not like to our Case Periam This is an ancient partition as appeareth by the Verdict ten years past and also it hath been reputed the moyety of the Manor therefore it shall pass Windham concessit Periam The intent of the Grantor is the best Interpreter of these words without relying strictly upon the words Anderson If we shall take the intents of men for Law we shall fall into many confusions in our proceedings but the Law is to judge of the meanings of men by their words Ever in the constructions of Wills the intent of the Testators have not had further favour than the words have given leave As to the other point It was argued by Walmsley that the Lease made by the Husband and Wife without Deed was void See 1 Ma. Dyer 91. And if the Wife after the death of her Husband accepts the Rent upon such a Lease reserved it shall not bind her for the consent of the Wife ought to be at the beginning of it which cannot be without Deed. Anderson conceived that the Lease is not meerly void See 15 Eliz. Smith Stapletons Case Plowd 431. Periam The matter is clear for although the Plaintiff declares generally of a Lease made by the Husband Wife yet the Iury hath found that it was by Indenture and that is pursuant enough And if the Husband and Wife make a Feoffment of the Wives Land it is the Feoffment of doth of them which Walmesley granted It was adjorned CCLXXXIV Smalwood amd others against the Bishop of Lichfeild and others Quare Impedit Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUmphrey Smalwood Richard Say and Thomas Say Executors of VVilliam Say Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 241. brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfeild and M. Incumbent quod permittat praesentare ad Archidiaconatum de Derby which was void Et ad praesentationem Testatoris in vita sua nunc in retardationem executionis Testamenti did belong to the Executors Exception was taken because these words In retardationem executionis Testament could not be applied to a disturbance in the life of the Testator Windham There is not any Writ in the Register of Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Testator Anderson What then therefore no remedy because no Writ according to his special matter 25 E. 3. 25. Goods are taken out of the possession of the Testator upon which the Executors brought Trespass In retardationem executionis Testamenti Writ abated for it ought to be where the Executors themselves were possessed Periam The Advowson it self is valuable not the presentment therefore it cannot be said in retardationem Periam Before the Statute of 4 E. 3. 73. In Case were damages were only to be recovered the Action moritur cum persona but where the thing it self was to be recovered there the Action accrued to the Executors Anderson 7 H. 4. 73. Ejectione firmae of an Ejectment made unto the Testator was maintained by the Executors be equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3 cap. 6. And by the opinion of the whole Court the Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Presentment It was objected also that a Quare Impedit doth not lye of an Archdeaconry-ship for it is not local nor any Indenture made of it but is only a matter of function but it was not allowed for â—iii Archdeacon hath Locum in Coro And by the Statute a Quare Impedit lyeth of a Chappel and by the equity of it of a Prebend c. See the Statute of West 2. Quare Impedit of a Chappel Prebend c. It was moved if the Executors had presented after the death of the Testator whether the Archdeacon ought to receive the Clark of the Testator or of the Executors and the opinion of the Court was That the Bishop should have election therein And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Writ should abate for the disturbance to the Testator cannot be supposed new matter In retardationem executionis Testamenti But yet it was agreed that the Executors might have their special Writ upon their Case for the said disturbance Trin. 31 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Action brought against one as Executor who pleaded that he refused upon which the parties were at Issue The Bishop did certifie 1 Cro. 81. 3â—â— 2 Len. 180. quod non recusavit whereas in truth he had refused before the Commissary Tenner Serjeant moved to have the advice of the Court upon that matter and argued that the Court ought to write to the Commissary Which was denyed by the whole Court for he is not the Officer unto the Court to that purpose but the Bishop himself is the Officer And the party cannot aver against the Certificate of the Bishop no more than against the Retorn of the Sheriff The Court was also of opinion that the only remedy for the Defendant was by Action upon the Case against the Bishop for his false Certificate But it was moved That the Issue joyned upon the refusal ought to be tryed by Iury and not by the Certificate of the Bishop and so was the opinion of Windham and Walmesley Periam Where the Issue is whether the Executor did refuse before such a day or after there the tryal shall be by Iury contrary where the Issue is upon refusal generally because the refusal is before him as a Iudge as also is Resignation CCLXXXVII Sutton and Holloway and Dickons Case
Entry holden lawful But Error was brought upon it And also Calthrops case was cited to the same purpose 16 Eliz. Dyer 336. This estate limited to Ambrose doth refer to the estate limited to Muriel and Ann and not to the time for ever the first estate is to be respected as 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. He in the Remainder in Fee upon an estate for life deviseth it to his Wife yielding and paying during her natural life yearly 20 shillings and dieth living Tenant for life the Rent shall not begin until the Remainder falleth So as the general words refer to the beginning of the estate although the words imply that the Rent shall be paid presently And see also such construction 9 Eliz. 261. A Lease was made for thirty years and four years after the Lessor makes another Lease by these words Nos dictis 30 annis finitis dedisse concessisse c. Habend tenend a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque terminum c. And although prima facie the beginning of this Term seems incertain yet the Iustices did respect the former estate and so the Lessee hath the Interest of the Term from the making of the Deed but no estate until the first Term expire Then Ambrose before his age of 21 years levying a Fine the Fine shall not bind the Feoffee for it enures only by way of conclusion and so binds parties and privies but not a stranger And the party needs not to plead against this Fine quod partes to the Fine Nihil habuerunt for that appeareth upon their own shewing Wiat contrary The state of Ambr. accrues and rises when any of the said times come first full age return death for the words are And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death c. This word or before death disjoyns all and makes the sentence in the Disjunctive and he cited a case lately judged in the Common Pleas A Lease was made to Trewpeny and his Wife for one hundred years if he and his Wife or any Child or Children betwixt them begotten should so long live the Wife died without Issue the Husband held the Land c. for the Disjunctive before Child made the sentence Disjunctive Gawdy Iustice That had been Law if no such word had been in the Case And Wiat said That although the return be incertain yet it is certain enough that he shall come to the age of 21 years or dye And also this is by way of use which needs not to depend upon any estate and if the Remainder shall vest presently upon his return then it would be doubtful what Remainder it is if it be a Remainder depending upon the estate for the life of Ann and Muriel or for years i.e. until Ambrose shall come of the age of 21 years But be it incertain yet the Fine is good for here is a Remainder in Ambrose and both are but particular estates and there is not any doubt but that one may convey by Fine or bar by Fine such contingent uses for which see the Statute of 32 H. 8. All Fines to be levied of any Lands intailed in any wise to him that levieth the Fine or to any his Ancestors in possession reversion c. which word use goes to contingent uses for at the time of the making of that Statute there was no other use Fenner Iustice remembred the Case adjudged M. 30 31 Eliz. betwixt Johnson and Bellamy 2 Len. 36. which ruled this Case Gawdy Iustice Here is a certainty upon which the Remainder doth depend i. e. the death of Ambrose but the Case had been the more doubtful if no certainty at all had been in the Case Atkinson contrary Here the Lord Vaux is Tenant for life the Remainder to George in tail now when the Lord Vaux levies a Fine this is a forfeiture and then the Entry of George is lawful It hath been objected on the other side that this Remainder was future and contingent and not vested therefore nothing passed to George by Ambrose The words are quousque Ambrose shall return This word quousque is a word of Limitation and not of Condition and then the Remainder may well rise when the Limitation hapneth It hath been said that this Remainder is contingent and then the Remainder which is to vest upon a contingency cannot be granted or forfeited before that the contingent hapneth And he cited the Case of 14 Eliz. 314. Dyer A Fine is levied to A. to the use of B. for life the Remainder to E. in Tail the Remainder to B. in fee. Proviso That if B. shall have Issue of his Body that then after such Issue and 500 l. paid to c. within six months after the birth of such issue the use of the said Lands after the death of the said B. and the said six months expired shall be to the said B. and the heirs of his body And it was holden that before the said contingent hapneth B. had not any estate tail for there it was incertain if the said contingent would happen but in our case the contingents or some of them will happen or run out by effluxion of time and that makes the Remainder certain in Ambrose And he also argued that the Limitations are several by reason of the Disjunctive and the last part of the sentence and that the said sentence is in the Disjunctive appeareth by the subsequent words which of the said days or times shall first happen And then the return of Ambrose for that first hapned vests the Remainder in him and therefore the Plaintiff ought to be barred Buckley contrary The estate of the Daughters doth depend upon a Copulative i.e. the return of Ambrose and his full age and both is but one Limitation it is clear that the first Limitation is upon a contingent and the remainder cannot vest until both are performed And as to that which hath been said that there is a certain Limitation i. e. the return of Ambrose 18 Eliz. the Case was Lands were given to Husband and Wife the Remainder to such of them as should survive the other for years the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth it was holden that although the Limitation was upon a certain estate yet because it is not known in which of the parties the estate secondly limited shall begin the Lease is void So here it is not certainly appointed when the estate limited to Ambrose shall begin upon the return full age or death of Ambrose and he said that here are but two times of Limitation first return and full age second death return and full age determines the estate of the Daughters and also the death if it shall first happen and if these three times shall be construed in the Disjunctive 2 Len. 2â— the same would overthrow the estate of the Daughters which is an estate for years determinable upon the death of themselves or Ambrose
was moved in arrest of Iudgment that it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing that the Plaintiff hath the Free-hold and therefore he ought to have an Assize but the same was not allowed and therefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCXXXIV Kensam and Redings Case Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Grants of the King 1 Cro. 244. Hob. 170. That the Queen by her Letters Patents granted the Site of the Manor of Brokeley lying in W. and all the Lands Pastures Woods Vnder-woods and Hereditaments parcel or appertaining to the said Site exceptis omnibus grossis arboribus boscis maremio and further in the said Letters Patents there was a Proviso that the Lessee should have sufficient House-boot and Hedge-boot c. And if notwithstanding the said Exception the Lessee should have the Vnderwoods was the question And it was argued that the Lessee should have subbois i. e. Vnderwoods for that is granted by express words and the exception extends only grossis arboribus for this word grossis in the exception extends to all that which follows Gawdy Iustice If it were in the case of a common person it is clear that upon such matter the Vnderwoods are not excepted 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. A Lease is made of a Mannor except Timber and great Woods the Vnderwoods shall pass Fenner Iustice The Proviso that the Lessee should have House-boot shews the Queens intent that the Vnder-woods should not pass Wray If this word bois in the exception should not extend to Vnder-woods it should be vain and signifie nothing which should be hard in the Case of the Queen CCCXXXV Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared of Trover and of a Bag of mony and the conversion of it Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 97. 201 555 693. The Defendant pleaded that the Bag of mony was delivered to him as a pawn to keep until A. and B. were agreed which of them should have it and pleaded further that A. and B. were not yet agreed who of them should have it for which cause he kept it absque hoc that he converted it to his own use upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law It was moved that the Conversion is never traversable Wray Generally Conversion is not traversable but upon such special matter as is here Or if A. lend money to B. and B. delivereth a thing of the value to A. in pawn now the Conversion is traversable see the same case 4 E. 6. Br. Action upon the Case 113. so here Fenner agreed with Wray CCCXXXVI The Bishop of Lincoln and Cowpers Case Mich. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prohibition THe Bishop of Lincoln sued a Prohibition against Cowper who had libelled against him in the Spiritual Court for Tithes out of the Manor of D. Tithes 1 Cro. 216. Post 331 332. And the Bishop did suggest that he and all his Predecessors had been seised of the said Manor and that as long as it was in their possessions had been discharged of Tithes and shewed that in the time of E. 6. the said Manor was conveyed to the Duke of Somerset in Fee and afterwards was re-granted to the Bishop and his Successors It was moved That the Prescription was not good because de non decimando And admit that the Prescription be good that same is interrupted by the seisin of the Duke of Somerset and although that the Manor be re-assured to the Bishop of Lincoln yet the Prescription is not revived as Homage Ancestrel if it be once in a Forrain Seisin although it be re-assured yet it is not revived But by Wray Gawdy and Fenner The Prescription is good in the Case of a Spiritual person but not in the case of a common person And they all were clear of opinion that the Prescription is not gon by this Interruption for Tithes are not issuing out of the Lands neither can Vnity of possession extinguish them neither are they extinguished by a release of all right of Land c. See for this Case Co. 11. part of his Reports in the Case of Pridle and Napper CCCXXXVII Dethick King of Arms Case 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictment 1 Cro. 224. Yelv. 34. Noy 250. Misnosmer in an Indictment WIlliam Dethick against Garter King of Arms was indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for striking in the Church-yard For that the said Dethick in Pauls Church-yard in London struck I.S. It was moved If Cathedral Churches be within the meaning of the Statute The Court was clear of opinion that they were And afterwards the Defendant pleaded that before the Indictment found he was created and crowned by the Letters Patents of the Queen which he shewed chief and principal King of Arms and it was granted by the said Letters Patents that he should be called Garter and that that name is not in the Indictment and demanded Iudgment The Kings Attorney by Replication said That by the Law of Arms and Heraldry every one who is made King of Arms before he receives his Dignity ought to be led betwixt two Officers of Arms by the Arms before the Earl Marshal of England or his Deputy and before him are to go four Officers of Arms whereof the one is to bear his Patent another a Collar of Esses the third a Coronet of Brass double guilt fourthly a Cup of Wine and his Patent shall be read before the Earl Marshal and afterwards his Coronet shall be set upon his Head and the Collar of Esses about his neck and afterwards the Wine poured upon his Head And that the Defendant had not received these Ceremonies for which cause he is not King of Arms nor to be called upon to which the Defendant did demur in Law. Broughton argued for the Defendant and he took Exception to the Replication because it is pleaded there that secundum legem Heraldorum Garter upon his Creation ought to receive c. of which Law this Court cannot have Conusance and therefore the Replication ought to be scil Secundum legem Angliae If in Appeal the Defendant wage Battel although that belongs unto Arms and Heraldry yet it shall be pleaded according to the Law of the Land and shall not speak of the Law of Arms. So if an Infant be made a Knight and he be to plead in discharge of his Wardship he shall plead according to the Law of the Land and yet the degree of a Knight belongs to the Law of Arms 11 E. 3. Dower against the Earl of Richmond who was also Duke of Britain who pleaded to the Writ That he was Duke of Britain and not so named in the Writ but the Court did not regard it for they cannot have knowledge of it so not here of the Law of Heraldry Also this Court cannot write to the Heralds to certifie it as they may to the Marshal of the King or to the Bishop But we have sufficiently
magnitudine sufficienti essendi maremium and that the place where they growed was neither Orchard nor Garden It was said by the Court That by the Custom the Copyholder could not cut down such Trees but the Lord might and that the cutting down of such Trees which were not Wast the Copy-holder might justifie without punishment but because by the Verdict it did not appear that the Trees for which the Action was brought were Timber in facto but only de magnitudine effendi maremium the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCLXVI The Lord Staffords Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Extent UPon Recovery in debt against the Lord Stafford certain Lands of the Lord were extended by Elegit The Queen because the Lord Stafford was endebted unto her by Prerogative ousted the Tenant by Elegit Fleetwood Serjeant moved the Court in the behalf of him who recovered and surmised to the Court that the Queen was satisfied and therefore prayed a Re-extent but the Court would not grant it because they were not certain of the matter but advised the party to sue a Scire facia against the said Lord Stafford to know and shew cause why a Re-extent should not issue forth the Queen being satisfied c. CCCLXVII Gibbs and Rowlies Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Tithes SYmon Gibbs Parson of Beddington Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Rowlie for Tithe Milk Rowlie upon surmise of a Prescription de modo Decimandi obtained a Prohibition which was against Symon Gibbs Rectorem Ecclesiae parochial de Nether Beddington and the parties were at Issue upon the Prescription Prohibition and it was found for Rowlie Egerton Solicitor moved against the Prohibition because the Libel is against Gibbs Rectorem Ecclesiae paroch de Beddington and the Prohibition was de Nether Beddington and it was not averred that Beddington in the Libel and Nether Beddington is unum idem non diversa It was said by the Court That upon the matter there is not any Prohibition against Rectorem Ecclesiae de Beddington only and therefore said to the Plaintiffs Counsel let the Parson proceed in the Spiritual Court at his peril CCCLXVIII Russell and Handfords Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RUssell brought an Action upon the Case against Handford and declared Quod cum quoddam molendinum ab entiquo fuit erectum upon such a River Nusance de quo one Thomas Russell whose Heir the Plaintiff is was seised in his Demesn as of Fee and dyed thereof seised after whose death the same descended to the Plaintiff by force of which the Plaintiff was seised in his Demesn as of Fee and so seised The Defendant upon the same River had levyed a new Mill per quod cursus aquae praedict coarctatus est and upon Not guilty It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not layed in the Declaration that his Mill had been a Mill time out of mind c. And then if it be not an ancient Mill time out of mind Words of Prescription c. it was lawful for the Defendant to erect a new Mill And it was said That these words ab antiquo are not fit or significant words to set forth a Prescription but the words A tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit are the usual words for such a purpose See the Book of Entries 10 11. See 11 H. 4. 200. If I have a Mill and another levies another Mill there and the Miller hinders the Water to run to my Mill or doth any such Nusance Roll. 140. an Action lyeth without any Prescription as it seems by the Book in 22 H. 6. 14. The Plaintiff declared That he was Lord of such a Town and that he and all his Predecessors Priors of N. Lords of the same Town have had within the same Town four Mills time out of mind c. And that no other person had any Mill in the said Town but the Plaintiff and his Predecessors the said four Mills and that all the Tenants of the Plaintiff within the same Town and all other Resiants there c. ought and time out of mind c. had used to grind at the said Mills of the Plaintiff and that the Defendant one of the Tenants of the Plaintiff had erected and set up a Horse Mill within the said Town and there the Resiants grinded c. And it was holden That peradventure upon such matter an Action lyeth because the Defendant being one of the Tenants of the Plaintiff is bound by the Custom and Prescription so as he hath offended against the privity of the Custom and Prescription And as to the Case in question It was the opinion of all the Iustices Hob. 189. Ante 168. 1 Cro. 415. That if the Mill whereof the Plaintiff hath declared be not an ancient Mill that this Action doth not lye upon the matter eo quod cursus aquae coarctatur But yet at last it was holden by the Court to be good enough notwithstanding the Exception Another Exception was taken to the Declaration because that here is set forth the seisin of the Father of the Plaintiff and the Descent to the Plaintiff by force of which he was seised in his Demesn c. without shewing that after the death of the Father that he entred into the said Mill Seisin in fact and in Law. c. so as no seisin in fact is alleadged but only a seisin in Law and if the Plaintiff was not seised in fact he cannot punish this personal wrong but the Exception was disallowed for such a seisin in Law is sufficient for the maintenance of this Action And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his Damages See for the Action it self contained in the Declaration 8 Eliz. Dyer 248. CCCLXIX Cleypools Case Mich. 26. Eliz. In the Exchequer Informations upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Tillage INformation in the Exchequer against Cleypool upon the Statute of Tillage 5 Eliz. setting forth That the Defendant hath converted three hundred Acres of arable Lands of Tillage to pasture and the same conversion hath continued from 15 Eliz. unto the two and twentieth of Eliz The Defendant as to the Conversion pleaded Not guilty and as to the Continuance the general Pardon by Parliament 23 Eliz. upon which the Attorney general did demur in Law. It was argued That that pardon did not extend to the continuance of the said Conversion And first the Barons were clear of opinion That if A. be seised of Arable Lands and converts the same to pasture and so converted leaseth it to B. who continues it in pasture as he found it he shall be charged by that Statute And it is not any good Construction where the Exception in the pardon is excepting the converting of any Land from Tillage to Pasture made done committed or permitted that the Conversion excepted