my Lord Coke to be an allowance by the King 's Grant to any person for the sole buying or selling of any thing restraining all others of that Liberty which they had before the making of such a Grant 3 Inst 181. and this he tells us is against the ancient and fundamental Rights of this Kingdom This Patent agreeth exactly with that Definition 9 E. 3. cap. 1. 18 E. 3. c. 3. 25 E. 3. c. 2. Roll. Abr. 180. 2 R. 2. c. 1. 11 R. 2. c. 7. and therefore it must be against Law 't is against an Act of Parliament which gives Liberty to Merchants to buy and to sell in this Realm without disturbance and 't is expresly against the Statute of 21 Jac. cap. 3. which declares all such Letters Patents to be void That which may give some colour to make such Grants good 2 Inst 540. 11 Rep. is a pretence of Order and Government in Trade but my Lord Coke was of Opinion that it was a hinderance to both and in the end it produced Monopolies There is a great difference between the King's Grant and his Prohibition for the one vests an Interest which is not done by the other and all Prohibitions determine by the King's death but Grants still remain in force Adjornatur Langford versus Webber IN Trespass for the taking of a Horse Justification upon a bare possession good against a wrong doer the Defendant justified for that Joseph Ash was possessed of a Close c. and that the Defendant as his Servant took the Horse in that Close Damage fesant And upon a Demurrer to this Plea for that the Defendant did not shew what Title Ash had to this Close The Councel for the Defendant insisted that it being in Trespass 't is sufficent to say that Ash was possessed because in this Case possession is a good Title against all others But it might have been otherwise in Replevin The Title of the Close is not in question Cro. Car. 138. Yelv. 74. Cro. Car. 571. pl. 10. the possession is only an inducement to the Plea and not the substance thereof which is the taking of the Horse and the Law is plain that where the interest of the Land is not in question a Man may justifie upon his own possession against a wrong-doer Mr. Pollexfen on the other side alledged that damage fesant would bring the Title of the Land in question But the Court gave Iudgment for the Defendant Perkins versus Titus A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given in the Common-Pleas Fine upon an Admittance where it must be certain in Replevin for taking of the Plaintiff's Sheep The Defendant avowed the taking damage fesant The Plaintiff replied that the Lands where c. were Copy-hold held of the Manor of Bushy in Com. Hertf. the Custom whereof was that every Tenant of the said Manor qui admissus foret to any Copyhold Estate should pay a years Value of the Land for a Fine as the said Land is worth tempore Admissionis And upon a Demurrer the Question was 1. Whether this be a good Plea or not as 't is pleaded 2. If it be good as pleaded then whether such a Custom may be supported by Law 1. It was for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error now and in Michaelmas Term following argued that it was not a good Custom The substance of whose Arguments were that Fines are either certain or incertain those which are incertain are arbitrary and therefore cannot be due of Common Right nor by Custom for there can be no Custom for an incertain Fine and such is this Fine for the value of the Land cannot be known because as this Custom is pleaded it doth not appear whether it shall be a years value past or to come at the time of the admittance of the Tenant A Custom to assess rationabilem denariorum summam for a Fine upon an admittance that is to say 13 Rep. 1. being two years Rent of a Tenant of the yearly value of 53 s. 4 d. is no good Custom A Lease is made for so many years as a third person shall name this is altogether incertain 13 Edw. 3. Fitz. Abr. 273. but when the Term is named then 't is a good Lease but this can be done but once How can this Fine be assessed It cannot be by Iury for then it stands in need of the Common Law and will be therefore void for a Custom must have nothing to support it but usage 1. Neither can this be a good Custom as 't is pleaded because all Customs are made up of repeated Acts and Vsages and therefore in pleading them it must be laid time out of mind which is not done here for admissus foret hath a respect to future admissions and are not to those which are past 2. Here is no time laid when this Fine shall be paid for 't is said Quilibet tenens qui admissus foret c. solvet tantam denariorum summam quantum terra valebat per Annum tempore admissionis c. which last words must be taken to relate to the value of the Land and not to the time when the Fine shall be paid so that if there be such a Custom which is Lex loci and not fully set forth and expressed the Common Law will not help it by any Construction 2. Point Whether such a Custom can be good by Law And they argued that it cannot Where the Fine is certain the Lord may refuse to admit without a tender of it upon the prayer of the person to be admitted 4 Rep. 27. b. but where 't is incertain the Lord is first to admit the Tenant and then to set the Fine the reasonableness whereof is to be determined by Iudges before whom the Case shall depend or upon Demurrer or by a Iury upon proofs of the yearly value of the Land but for non payment of an unreasonable Fine the Lord cannot enter Cro. Eliz. 779. Cro. Car. 196. The Law admits of no Custom to be good but such as is very certain for incertainty in a Custom as well as in a Grant makes both void and therefore 't is held a void Custom for an Infant to make a Feoffment when he can measure an Ell of Cloth Rol. Abr. 565. 6 Rep. 60. Davies Rep. 37. It may be objected that certum est quod certum reddi potest the meaning of which saying must be quod certum reddi potest by something which is certain for if this Rule should be taken to be an answer to incertainties it would destroy all the Books which say a Custom must be certain The Law is very clear Fitz. Bar. 177. 2 Rol. Abr. 264. that a Custom is void for the incertainty therefore this Custom must be void for the value of Land is the most incertain thing in nature and therefore Perjury will not lye for swearing to the value Serjeant Fuller and Mr.
Revocation or not at all which revocation must depend upon the construction and exposition of the sixth Paragraph in the Statute of Frauds c. the words whereof are Viz. That no Devise of Lands c. or any clause thereof shall be Revoked otherwise than by some Codicil in Writing or other Writing declaring the same or by burning cancelling tearing or obliterating the same by the Testator himself or in his presence and by his direction or consent But all devises of Lands c. shall be good until burnt cancell'd torn c. by the Testator c. or unless the same be altered by some other Will or Codicil in Writing or other Writing of the Devisor signed in the presence of three Witnesses declaring the same So that the Question will be whether a Will which revokes a former Will ought to be signed by the Testator in the presence of three Witnesses 'T is clear that a Will by which Lands are devised ought to be so signed and why should not a Will which revokes another Will have the same formality The Statute seems to be plain that it should for it saies that a Will shall not be revoked but by some Will or Codicil in writing or other writing of the Devisor signed by him in the presence of three or four Witnesses declaring the same which last Clause is an entire sentence in the disjunctive and appoints that the Writing which revokes a Will must be signed in the presence of three Witnesses c. Before the making of this Act it was sufficient that the Testator gave directions to make his Will tho' he did never see it when made which mischief is now remedied not in writing the Will but that the Party himself should sign it in the presence of three Witnesses and this not being so signed but only published by the Testator in their presence 't is therefore no good Revocation Iustice Street was of a contrary Opinion that this was a good Revocation That the words in the fifth Paragraph of this Statute which altered the Law were Viz. That all Devises of Lands c. shall be in Writing and signed by the Party so devising or by some other person in his presence and by his express Directions and shall be attested and subscribed in the presence of the Devisor by three or four credible Witnesses In which Paragraph there are two parts 1. The act of the Devisor which is to sign the Will but not a word that he shall subscribe his Name in the presence of three Witnesses 2. The act of the Witnesses viz. that they shall attest and subscribe the Will in the presence of the Devisor or else the Will to be void But the sixth Paragraph is penn'd after another manner as to the Revocation of a Will which must be by some Codicil in writing or other Writing declaring the same signed in the presence of three Witnesses Now here is a Writing declaring that it shall be revoked not expresly but by implication and though that Clause in the disjunctive which says that the revocation must be by some Writing of the Devisor signed in the presence of three Witnesses c. yet in the same Paragraph 't is said that it may be revoked by a Codicil or Will in Writing and therefore an exposition ought to be made upon the whole Paragraph that the intention of the Law may more fully appear Such a construction hath been made upon a whole Sentence Sid. 328. 1 Sand. 58. where part thereof was in the disjunctive as for instance viz. A Man was possessed of a Lease by disseisin who assigned it to another and covenanted that at the time of the assignment it was a good true and indefeasable Lease and that the Plaintiff should enjoy it without interruption of the Disseisor Or any claiming under him in this Case the Diffeisee re-entred and though the Covenant was in the disjunctive to defend the Assignee from the Disseisor or any claiming under him yet he having undertaken for quiet enjoyment and that it was an indefeasable Lease it was adjudged that an exposition ought to be made upon the whole Sentence and so the Plaintiff had Iudgment The Chief Iustice Herbert was of the same Opinion with Iustice Street Rex versus Grimes and Thompson THE Defendants were indicted for being Common Pawn-Brokers Two are indicted for a Confederacy one is acquitted and that is the acquittal of the other and that Grimes had unlawfully obtained Goods of the Countess of c. and that he together with one Thompson per confoederationem astutiam did detain the said Goods until the Countess had paid him 12 Guineas Thompson was acquitted and Grimes was found Guilty which must be of the first part of the Indictment only for it could not be per confoederationem with Thompsom and therefore it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that to obtain Goods unlawfully was only a private injury for which the party ought not to be indicted To which it was answered that a plain Fraud was laid in this Indictment which was sufficient to maintain it and that tho one was acquitted yet the Iury had found the other guilty of the whole But the Court were of Opinion that the acquittal of one is the acquittal of both upon this Indictment and therefore it was quash'd King versus Dilliston Hill 2 3 Jacobi Rot. 494. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment in Ejectment given in the Common-Pleas Infant not bound by a Custom for one Messuage and twenty Acres of Land held of the Manor of Swafling There was a special Verdict found the substance of which was viz. That the Land in question was Copy-hold held of the said Manor of Swafling in the County of Suffolk and that Henry Warner and Elizabeth his Wife in right of the said Elizabeth were seized thereof for Life Remainder to John Ballat in Fee That the Custom of the said Manor was that if any Customary Tenant doth surrender his Estate out of Court that such Surrender shall be presented at the next Court of the said Manor and publick Proclamation shall be made three Court days afterwards for the Party to whose use the Surrender was made to come and be admitted Tenant and if he refuseth then after three Proclamations made in each of the said Courts the Steward of the said Manor issueth forth a Precept to the Bailiff thereof to seise the Copyhold as forfeited They find that Henry Warner and his Wife and John Ballat made this Surrender out of Court to the use of Robert Freeman and his Heirs who died before the next Court and that John Freeman an Infant was his Son and Heir That after the said Surrender three Proclamations were made at three several Courts held for the said Manor but that the said John Freeman did not come to be admitted Tenant thereupon the Steward of the said Manor made a Precept to the Bayliff who seized the Lands in
an Inn-keeper or common Carrier 't is usual to declare secundum legem consuetudinem Angliae for 't is not a Custom confined to a particular place but 't is such which is extensive to all the King's People The word Consuetudo might have been added 1 Inst 182. but it imports no more than Lex for Custom it self is Law If the Custom of Merchants had been left out the Defendant had then pursued his Covenant for if a Man agrees to pay Mony to such a person or his Assigns and he appoints the payment to another a tender to that person is a good performance of the Covenant But the Court were of Opinion that this was not a good Plea Panton versus the Earl of Bath A Scire Facias to have Execution of a Iudgment obtained in the Court of Oliver late Protector of England and the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging Where the Pleading is good in substance tho' there is a small variation it will not hurt and in reciting the Iudgment 't is said that it was obtained before Oliver Protector of England and the Dominions thereunto belonging leaving out the word Territories And upon a Demurrer Mr. Pollexfen held this to be a variance Yelv. 212. Orde versus Moreton and like the Case where a Writ of Error was brought to remove a Record in Ejectment directed to the Bishop of Durham setting forth that the Action was between such Parties and brought before the said Bishop and seven other persons naming them and the Record removed was an Ejectment before the Bishop and eight others so that it could not be the same Record which was intended to be removed by the Writ E contra E contra It was said suppose the word Scotland should be left out of the King's Title would that be a variance The Iudicature in this Case is still the same and the Pleading is good in Substance and of that Opinion was the whole Court Hyley versus Hyley HYley had Issue W. Where the Reversion in Fee shall pass in a Will by the words viz. Remaining part of my Estate his eldest Son who had Issue Peter Charles John He by Will devised 1000 l. to his eldest Son and several parcels of Land to other Legatees Then he gave to Peter Lands in Tail Male To John a Mansion House now in question in Tail Male He devised another House to his Grandson Charles in like manner And all the rest and remaining part of his Estate he devised to his three Grandsons equally to be divided amongst them that only excepted which he had given to Peter Charles and John and to the Heirs of their Bodies whom he made Executors Then by another Clause he devised viz. That if either of his Executors die without Issue then the part or parts of him so dying shall go to the Survivor or Survivors equally to be divided John the youngest Grandson dyed without Issue and the question was whether the Reversion of his House shall be divided between his surviving Brothers or descend to his Heir And it was adjudged that the Exception in the Will did comprehend the Reversion in Fee and that it did not pass but without such an Exception it had passed * Allen 28. as where a Man devised his Mannor to another for years and part of other Lands to B. and his Heirs and all the rest of his Lands to his Brother in Tail it was held that by these words the Reversion of the Mannor did pass Anonymus NOTA. An Infant having entred into a Statute brought an Audita Querela to avoid it he was brought into the Court and two Witnesses were sworn to prove his Age and then his Appearance and Inspection were recorded he was bound in this Case with two other persons for 1600 l. and had no more than 200 l. for his share Lydcott versus Willows IN Ejectment A special Verdict was found viz. Devise of an Hereditament carries the Reversion in Fee that the Testator being seized in Fee of certain Houses in Bedfor-Bury and in Parker's Lane did by Will devise his Houses in Parker's Lane to charitable Vses then he gave several specifick Legacies to several persons named in the said Will and then he devised his Houses in Bedford-Bury to Edward Harris and Mary his Wife for their Lives then follow these words viz. The better to enable my Wife to pay my Legacies I give and bequeath to her and her Heirs all my Mesuages Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in the Kingdom of England not before disposed of c. The Question was whether this Devise would carry the Reversion of the Houses in Bedford-Bury to his Wife Adjudged that it did not but that it ought to go to the Heir of the Testator who was Plaintiff in this Case It being found that Harris and his Wife were dead and that the Wife who was Executrix had sufficient Assets to pay the Legacies without the Reversion But Iustice Powel was of another Opinion for that the word Hereditament imports an Inheritance and if it had devised thus viz. the Inheritance not before disposed of the Reversion had passed Afterwards a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer-Chamber upon this Iudgment 2 Vent 285. and according to the Opinion of Iustice Powel the Iudgment was reversed Nota. A Rule of Court was made that no Certiorari should go to the Sessions of Ely without Motion in Court or signing of it by a Iudge in his Chamber But Mr. Pollexfen insisted that the Sessions there did not differ from other Courts and Franchises for the inferior Courts in London are of as large a Iurisdiction as any and yet a Certiorari goes to them and so it ought to go to Ely for 't is the Right of the Subject to remove his Cause hither Their course in the Royal Franchise of Ely is to hold the Sessions there twice a year viz. in March and September in which two Months the Iudges are seldom in Town and if this Court should deny a Certiorari the Court of Common Pleas would grant it Attorney General contra This Franchise of Ely is of greater Priviledge and Authority than any inferior Court for it hath many Regalia though 't is not a County Palatine A Certiorari will not lie to the Grand Sessions nor to a County Palatine to remove Civil Causes 't is true it lyeth to remove Indictments for Riots and this Franchise being truly called Royal hath equal priviledge with a County Palatine and therefore a Certiorari will not lie But no Rule was made Osborn versus Steward TRespass Distress for an Heriot where it may be taken The Case upon the Pleadings was this viz. A Lease was made of Land for 99 years if Margery and Dorothy Upton should so long live reserving a yearly Rent and an Heriot or 40 s. in lieu thereof after the death of either of them Provided that no Heriot shall be paid after the death of Margery living
the Neglect in this Case was in the Servant the Action may be brought against all the Owners for it is grounded quasi ex contractu though there was no actual Agreement between the Plaintiff and them And as to this purpose 2 Sand. 345. Hob. 206. Hutt 121. 1 Mod. 198. 't is like the Case where a Sheriff levies Goods upon an Execution which are rescued out of the hands of his Bailiffs this appearing upon the Retorn an Action of Debt will lie against him though there was no actual Contract between the Plaintiff and him for he having taken the Goods in Execution there is quasi a Contract in Law to answer them to the Plaintiff 2. As to the second Point it was ruled that Not-Guilty was a good Plea to any Mis-feazance whatsoever and that a Plea in Abatement viz. that the rest of the Owners super se susceperunt simul cum Defendente absque hoc quod Defendens super se suscepit tantum had been no more than the general Issue 3 Cro. 554. Vering versus More but he hath not pleaded thus Iustice Dolben agreed that the Action ought to be brought against all the Proprietors it being upon a Promise created by Law but he was Opinion that this Matter might have been pleaded in Abatement Gold versus Strode AN Action was brought in Somersetshire and the Plaintiff recovered and had Iudgment and died Intestate Gold the now Plaintiff took out Letters of Administration to the said Intestate in the Court of the Bishop of Bath and Wells and afterwards brought a Scire Facias upon that Iudgment against the Defendant to shew Cause quare Executionem habere non debeat He had Iudgment upon this Scire Facias and the Defendant was taken in Execution and escaped An Action of Debt was brought by the said Gold against this Defendant Strode who was then Sheriff for the Escape and the Plaintiff had a Verdict It was moved in arrest of Iudgment and for Cause shewen that if the Administration was void then all the dependencies upon it are void also and so the Plaintiff can have no Title to this Action Now the Administration is void because the entring upon Record of the first Iudgment recovered by the Intestate in the County of Middlesex where the Records are kept made him have bona notabilia in several Counties and then by the Law Administration ought not to be committed to the Plaintiff in an inferior Diocess but in the Prerogative Court Curia The Sheriff shall not take advantage of this since the Iudgment was given upon the Scire Fac. and the Capias ad satisfaciendum issuing out against the then Defendant directed to the Sheriff made him an Officer of this Court and the Iudgment shall not be questioned by him for admitting it to be a Recovery without a Title yet he shall take no advantage of it till the Iudgment is reversed 'T is not a void but an erronious Iudgment and when a person is in execution upon such a Iudgment and Escapes and then an Action is brought against the Goaler or Sheriff 8 Co. 141. and Iudgment and Execution thereon though the first Iudgment upon which the party was in execution should be afterwards reversed yet the Iudgment against the Goaler being upon a collateral thing executed shall still remain in force The Ca. Sa. 21 E. 4. 23. b. Cro. El. 164. Moor 274. 2 Cro. 3. 1 Rol. Abr. 809 God b. 403. 2 Leon. 84. was a sufficient authority to the Sheriff to take the Body though grounded upon an erronious Iudgment and that Execution shall be good till avoided by Error and no false Imprisonment will lie against the Goaler or Sheriff upon such an Arrest Coghil versus Freelove In the Common-Pleas DEBT for Rent was brought against the Defendant as Administratrix of Thomas Freelove her late Husband deceased Debt for Rent incurred after an assignment by an Administrator for the privity of Contract is not determined by the death of the intestate 2 Vent 209. in which Action the Plaintiff declared That on the 1st of May 21 Car. 2. he did by Indenture demise to the said Thomas Freelove one Messuage and certain Lands in Bushey in Hertfordshire Habendum from Lady day then last past for and during the term of 21 years under a yearly Rent that by virtue thereof he entred and was possessed That on the 7th of March 1685. the said Thomas Freelove died Intestate and that the next day Administration of his Goods and Chattels was granted to the Defendant and that 78 l. was in arrear for Rent due at such a time for which this Action was now brought in the Detinet The Defendant confessed the Lease prout c. and the death of the Intestate and that the Administration was granted to her but saith that before the Rent was due she by Articles made between her of the one part and Samuel Freelove of the other part did assign the said Indenture and all her right title and interest thereunto and which she had in the Premisses unto the said Samuel Freelove who entred and was possessed that the Plaintiff had notice of this Assignment before he brought this Action but nothing was said of his acceptance To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joined in Demurrer And Iudgment was given by the Opinion of the whole Court for the Plaintiff against the Authorities following Viz. Cro. Eliz. 555. 'T is true in Overton and Sydal 's Case it was resolved that if an Executor of Lessee for years assign his Interest Debt for Rent will not lye against him after such Assignment the reason there given was because the personal privity of the Contract is determined by the death of the Lessee as to the Debt it self and for the same reason the Executor shall not be lyable to the Rent after the death of the Lessee if such Lessee doth make an assignment of his Term in his life-time My Lord Coke mentioning this Case 3 Co. 24. a. in his third Report affirms that it was resolved by Popham Chief Iustice and the whole Court that if an Executor of a Lessee for years assign his Interest Debt will not lye against him for Rent due after such an Assignment Pop. 120. but my Lord Popham himself in Reporting that very Case tells us he was of another Opinion which was that so long as the Covenant in the Lease hath the nature and essence of a Contract it shall bind the Executor of the Lessee who as well to that as to many other purposes represents the person of the Testator and is privy to his Contracts T is true my Lord Popham held in that Case that the Action did not lye but because it was brought by the Successor of a Prebendary upon a Lease made by him in his life-time who being a single Corporation the personal Contract was determined by his death But the same Case reported by others Moor 251.
But if any wrong be done in this Case the Party must Appeal so no Writ of Restitution was granted Rex versus Guardianum de le Fleet. AN Inquisition being found to seize the Office of Warden of the Fleet into the King's Hands Inquisition quashed the Court of Chancery assisted with three Iudges was moved that it might be Quashed The Exceptions taken were viz. 1. 'T is found that the Defendant was Warden of the Fleet but doth not say what Estate he had therein whether for Life or years or in Fee c. 2. The Offences which are the causes of the Forfeiture are laid to be committed at the Fleet by suffering Escapes and by Extortion and 't is not found where the Fleet is scituate so there being no Visne those Offences cannot be traversed 3. 39 H. 6.32 They do not find the Escape to be sine licentia contra voluntatem of the Warden the Debts being unpaid 4. Admitting it to be a Forfeiture the Office cannot go to the King but it shall go to the next who hath the Inheritance The Opinion of the Court was that there are two things which entitle the King to this Office neither of which were found by this Inquisition 1. An Estate in the Party offending 2. A cause of Forfeiture of that Estate Now here was no Estate found in the Warden but only that the Office was forfeited by suffering of Escapes c. If this had been an Office of Inheritance ◠Co. 95. then it ought to be found that such a person was seised in Fee c. and so what Estate soever he had in it ought to be expresly found But as this is found 't is void because it doth not answer the end for which the finding of Offices was provided which is to entitle the King to the Offenders Estate An Indictment is but another sort of Office and here being no Estate found 't is much like an Indictment which finds no Offence therefore it must be quashed It might have been objected that no Man can tell what Estate the Warden had in this place and that not being known no Office could be found for the King But this Objection runs to the finding of all manner of Offices in general whose very nature is to find an Estate and to divest the subject thereof and vest it in the King Besides in this Case one of the Indentures by which the Office was granted to the Warden must be enrolled in the Court of Common-Pleas This cannot be helped by a Melius Inquirendum 3 Cro. 895. 9 Co. 95. Keilw 194. which never will support a defective Inquisition and this is such because it doth not appear that the Defendant had any Seisin or Estate in the Wardenship of the Fleet. Barker Mil ' versus Damer Hill 1 Rot. 635. AN Action of Covenant was brought by Sir William Barker who was Defendant in a former Action against Mr. Damer wherein he declared that William Barker his Father was seised in Fee of the Land in Question being in Ireland and made a Lease thereof to one Page for 31 years under the yearly Rent of 200 l. in which Lease Page did Covenant for himself his Executors Administrators and Assigns to pay the Rent to Mr. Barker his Heirs and Assigns That William Barker the Father by Lease and Release convey'd the Reversion to Sir William Barker the now Plaintiff that the Term was vested in the Defendant and assigns the breach for non-payment of the Rent The Defendant pleaded to the Iurisdiction of this Court that the Lands in the Declaration mentioned lay in Ireland where they have Courts of Record c. and so properly triable there To this Plea the Plaintiff demurr'd and the Defendant joyned in Demurrer The single Question was whether an Assignee of the Reversion can bring an Action of Covenant against the Assignee of a Lessee in any other place than where the Land is Those who argued that he may said that this Action being brought upon an Express Covenant is not local but transitory 2 Inst 231. Noy 142. 2 Cro. 142. ibidem Sid. 157. 2 Roll. Ab. 571. 1 And. 82. for debitum contractus sunt nullius loci and if it is a duty 't is so every where therefore it hath been adjudged that upon a Covenant brought in one County the breach may be assigned in another Tremain Serjeant Contra. E contra He admitted that Debt upon a Lease for years upon the Contract it self and Covenant between the same Parties are transitory Actions and may be brought any where but when once that privity of Contract is gone as by assignment of the Lessee or the death of the Lessor Latch 197. and there remains only a Privity in Law there the Action must be brought in the County where the Land lieth the reason is Hob. 37. because the Party is then chargeable in respect of the possession only Therefore it was held that where an Assignee of a Reversion of Lands in Sommersetshire brought an Action of Debt in London Cro. Car. 184. Jones 83. Dyer 40 b. upon a Lease for years made there reserving a Rent payable at London which was in arrear after the Assignment that the Action was not well brought for it ought to have been laid in Sommersetshire where the Lands were because the privity of Contract was lost by the assignment of the Reversion and therefore the Party to whom that assignment was made ought to maintain the Action upon the privity in Law by reason of the Interest which he had in the Land it self and that must be in the County where it lieth Curia There is a difference between an Action of Debt for Rent brought by an Assignee and an Action of Covenant for the first is an Action at the Common Law which hath fixed the Rent to the Reversion and therefore such an Action must be maintained upon the Privity of Estate which is always local But an Assigneé of a Reversion could not bring an Action of Covenant at the Common Law 1 Sid. 402. 3 Cro. 580. 1 Sand. 240. 32 H. 8. c. 34. for 't is given to him by a particular Statute viz. of 32 H. 8. but the Statute did not transfer any Privity of Contract to the Assignee but the intent of it was to annex to the Reversion such Covenants only which concerned the Land it self as to repair the House or amend the Fences and not to anner or transfer any collateral Covenants as to pay a Sum of Mony for that is fixed by the Common Law to the Reversion 'T is true At the Common Law an Assignee of a Reversion might have maintained an Action of Covenant for any thing agreed to be done upon the Land it self Privity of Contract is not thereby transferred so as to make the Action transitory but it must be brought upon the Privity of Estate for if a Man doth covenant to do any collateral thing not in the