Carr. The Tenant in Dower before the value inquired of and Damages found brought a Writ of Error and by the opinion of the whole Court a Writ of Error would not lie for the Judgement is not perfect untill the value be inquired upon The Demand in Dower was of the third part of two Messuages in three parts to be divided and the Judgement was to recover Seisin of the third part of the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to hold to him in severally by Meets and Bounds and adjudged naught because they are Tenants in common and the Judgement ought to be to hold to him together and in common but if it had been in three parts divided it had been good Actions in Ejectment ALlen versus Nash Hill 5. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and a special Verdict upon a Surrender of Copy-hold Land which was to the use of the second Son for Life after the Death of the Tenant and his Heirs and it was adjudged not to be good in a Surrender for though it be good in a Will yet Implication is not good in a Surrender and in Copy-hold Cases a Surrender to the use c. this no use but an Explanation how the Land shall go if the Lord grant the Land in other manner then I appoint it is void if there be found joynt-Joynt-tenants and one Surrender to the use of his Will it was a Breach of the Joinder and the Will good EYer versus Bannaster Trîn 16. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and declared upon a Lease made by Ed. Kynaston to which the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Plaintiff alleadges a Challenge that the Wife of the Sheriff is Cosin to the Plaintiff and desires a Venire facias to the Coroners and the Defendant denied it and so a Venire was made to the Sheriff and at the Assises the Defendant challenges the Array because the Pannell was arrayed by the Sheriff who married the Daughter of the Wife of the Lessor and note the first Challenge was made after the Issue joyned and at the Assises the Defendant challenged as above and a demurrer to it and Hutton held that a Challenge could not be after a challenge except it were for some cause that did arise after the challenge made and that the party ought to rely upon one cause of challenge though he had many causes observe the Defendant could not challenge the Array untill the Assises but Husband held that a Challenge might be upon a Challenge but this challenge was adjudged naught by all the Judges HIll versus Scale Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 5. 18. the Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firmae and declares upon a Demise made to the Plaintiff by J. C. bearing date the first of January anno 15. and sealed and delivered the twelfth of January following to hold from Christmasse then last past for two years the Jury found a speciall Verdict and found the Lease and a Letter of Atturney to execute the Lease in this manner that the Lessor was seised of the Land in Fee and being so seised he made signed and sealed an Indenture of a Demise of the said Tenements and found it in haec verba this Indenture c. and they further found that the Lessor the said fifth day of January did not deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff as his Deed but that the Lessor the said fifth day of January by his writing bearing Date the same Day gave full power and authority to one C. to enter into all the premises and to take possession thereof in the name of the Lessor and after possession so taken to deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff upon any part of the premises in the name of the Lessor and find the Letter of Atturney in haec verba To all c. whereas I the said J. C. by my Indenture of Lease bearing date with these Presents have demised granted and to Farm let c. for and during the Term of two years c. and they further find that the said C. such a day as Atturney to the Lessor by vertue of that writing did enter into the Tenements aforesaid and took possession thereof to the use of the Lessor and immediately after possession so taken the said C. did deliver the said Indenture of Demise upon the Tenements as the Lessors Deed to the Plaintiff to have c. and the doubt was because the Lessor in the Letter of Attorney and said that whereas he had demised and if it were a Demise then the Letter of Attorney was idle but notwithstanding the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff WEeks versus Mesey An Ejectione firmae brought against two and one of them was an estranger and was in the house and the principall would not appear and the other appeared and pleaded non informat and the Court was acquainted with the proceedings and the Plaintiff prayed an habere facias possessionem and the Court told the Plaintiff that by that Writ and recovery he could not remove him that had Right when a Lease is made to bring an Ejectment of Land in divers mens hands then they must enter into one of the parcells and leave one in that place and then must he go unto another and leave one there and so of the rest and then after he hath made the last Entry there he sealeth and delivereth the Lease and then those men that were left there must come out of the Land and this is a good executing of the Lease and Pasch the ninth of James the Court held that an Ejectment would not ly of Common pasture or of Sheep-gate BEamont versus Cook Trin. 13 Jacobi An exception taken in Ejectment because the Originall was teste the very same day that the Ejectment was made and adjudged good by the whole Court and one Goodhall brought an originall in Ejectment against Hill and three others and the Plaintiff counts against three of the Defendants and no simulcum against the fourth and this matter was moved in arrest of Judgement And the Judgement was stayed by the whole Court COronder versus Clerk Hill 10 Jacobi rotulo 3315. Action upon an Ejectment brought the Jury found it specially upon a Devise the words of the Will were to my right Heires Males and posterity of my name part and part like the question was who should have the Land and the Court held the Land must go to the Heire at the Common Law and not according to the words of the Will because they cannot consist with the grounds of Law a Will must be construed in all parts the brother cannot have it by the Devise because he is not Heir and the Daughters cannot for they are not Heirs and posterity and therefore neither of them could have it because they are not Heirs and posterity because they that take it must be Heir and posterity
that it was collaterall warrantry where in truth it was a lineall warranty and it was held naught because the warranty was in Law a lineall warranty the Case was that Land was givenby Feoffment made to the use of the Feoffer for life remainder in Tail Tenant for life dies Tenant in Tail had Issue a Son and two Daughters and the Father and Son joyn in a Feoffment with warranty and after the Father and Son die without issue and the Daughters bring a Formedon and this is a lineall warranty PIt versus Staple Trin 14 Jac. rotulo 112. Formedon in le discender against three which plead non-Tenure and issue thereupon joyned and found specially that two of them were Lessees for life the remainder to the third person and whether the three were Tenants as is supposed by the writ was the question and the better opinion was that it was found for the Demandant for the Tenants should have pleaded severall Tenancy and then the Demandant might maintain his writ but by this generall non-Tenure if any be Tenant it is sufficient but in some Cases the Precipe may be brought against one who is not Tenant as a morgagor or morgagee COmes Leicester versus Comit. Clanriccard In Formedon upon a Judgement given in part for the Demandant and part for the Tenant the Tenant brought a writ of Error and had a Supersedeas upon it and afterwards the Demandant prosecuted a writ of Seisin and delivered it to the Sheriff and he executed the writ and immediately afterwards the Tenant delivered the Supersedeas to the Sheriff and the Tenant moved the Court and prayed a writ of restitution and it was granted him because the Tenant had done his indeavour and had not delayed the prosecuting the writ of Error COmes Clanriccard Francisca uxor Ejus Demandants versus R. S. milit vicecomit Lyple for three messuages c. which R. late Earl of Essex and Frances late wife of the said Earl by Fine in the Court of the Lady Elizabeth late Queen of England before her then Justices at Westminster levied and gave to William Gerrard Esquire and F. Mills Gentleman and the Heires of the said W. for ever to the use of Elizabeth Sydney Daughter and Heir of P. S. Milir and the Heirs of the Body of the said E. comming and for default of such issue to the use of the said F. then wife of the said Earl and the heirs of the said Fr. and which after the death of the said Eliz. ought to revert to the said Fr. by form of the gift aforesaid and by force of the Statute in such case provided because the said Eliz. died without Heir of her Body The Tenant pleaded in abatement of the writ because the writ ought to revert to the woman alone and it should have been to the Husband and wife and upon a demurrer Judgement was that he should answer over the writ may be either to revert to the Husband and wife or to the wife alone and herein the Tenant vouch two vouches and one is Essoined and an idem dies given to the other and Serjeant Harris demanded of the Court if he should Fourcher by Essoin because the Statute of Westminster the first is that Tenants Parceners or Joint Tenants shall not fourcher in Essoin therefore they two should not fourcher by Essoin but the Court held that before appearance it could not appear to the Court whether they were Tenants or not and therefore before appearance they shall have severall Essoins and Westminster the first is expounded by Gloucester the tenth which is that two Tenants shall not fourcher after appearance and at the day of the adjournment of the last Essoin the Tenant was Essoined and such Essoin was allowed and adjudged by the whole Court and the reason hereof seemed to some to be because the Tenant might be informed of the Vouchee that he vouched was the same person or no for he might be onother person for if he should be an estranger and demand the place and the Demandant could not hold him to the warranty the Demandant should loose his Land and they held that upon severall Processe to wit upon the view and upon the summons to warranty which are divers Processes the Tenant ought to be Essoined and the Court held that this Essoin was at the Common Law if the Tenant and the vouchee at the day given to the Tenant and the vouchee make default Judgement shall be given against the Tenant to wit a petty Cape and nothing against the vouchee SHotwell versus Corderoy In Formedon the Tenant prayes in aid â—nd the prayee in aid and Tenant vouch and the Vouchee was essoined and adjourned and at that Day the Attorney of the Tenant without the Prayer in aid cast an Essoin and an Idem dies given the Prayee in aid and it was quashed for they shall not have severall Essoines but joynt Essoines A Formedon brought of Lands in A. B. C. The Tenant pleads a Fine of all by the name of the Mannour and Tenements in A. B. And it was objected that he said nothing to the Land in C. but the Courtheld that by the name of the Mannor the Land in all the Villages would pass and the Demandant may if he will plead as to the Land in C. that it was not comprised in the Fine Hill 7. Jacobi rotulo 76. vel 69. Formedon in the Discender the Writ was general that J. L. gave to T. L. and the Heirs Males of his Body upon the Body of D. V. Widow lawfully to be begotten which D. the said T. afterwards took to Wife and which after the Death of the said T. c. Son and Heir Male of the Body of the said T. upon the Body of the said D. lawfully begotten to the said J. L. younger Son and Heir of the said J. L. Son of the said T. ought to descend by form of the Gift aforesaid c. and whereof he saith that the said T. was seised c. and 2 Eliz. of the said Tenements did infeoff the Plaintiff in Fee to the use of the said T. L. and his Heirs c. and note in the Count no mention made of the Marriage If a Gift be made in tail to D. and his Heirs Males the Remainder to A. in tail D. discontinues in the Life of A. and D. dies without Issue and the Heir of A. brought his Writ as the immediate Gift to A. his Ancestor who never was seised in his Life and for that cause the Writ was naught but if A. had been seised of the Land then it had not been necessary to have shewed the first Gift to D. by the opinion of the whole Court Actions upon the Statute of Hue and Cry NEedham versus Inhabitant Hundredi de Stoak Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 534. Action brought upon the Statute of Hue and Cry by the Servant who was robbed in his own name and part of the Goods
sides they shall recover costs and dammages LEe versus Edwards Trin. 19 Jacobi rotulo 470. The Case was in Replevin a Copy-holder claims Common in another mans Land the Lord infeofleth the Copy-holder of his Copy-hold Land whether he hath now lost his Common and held that he had but if a Copy-holder hath Common in the Lords waste and the Lord inseofeth him of the Copy hold with all Commons the Common is not gone Oabel versus Perrot Hill 9 Jacobi rotulo 2734. Tenant in Tail hath power to make a Lease for 89 years if three persons live so long and reserving the old Rent due and payable yearly and he maketh a grant in Reversion for years and whether that be good or no was the Question there being a Lease for life in possession the second Lease was for 89 years if three live so long for the matter in Law the Court held the Lease good but for want of an averment of the life of c. the Plea was not good ROberts versus Young Hill 9 Jacobi routlo 1835. the Defendant in a Replevin pleads that he offered amends and doth not shew that he offered it before the impounding of the Cattle and adjudged an ill Plea and the offer of amends cannot be made to him that maketh cognisance BAcon versus Palmer Trin. 12 Jacobi rotulo 3947. A Copy-holder in Replevin prescribes to have Common of pasture appurte nant to the Copy-hold the other party pleads an Extinguishment of Common because the Lord had inclosed Land lying in another field in which field and in the other field the Lord had Common by cause of vicinage and note that in Common for cause of vicinage if one inclose part it is an extinguishment of all the Common SHarp versus Emerson Mich. 12. Jacobi The Defendant makes avowry for Homage Fealty and Rent the Plaintiff prayes in aid and hath a Summmons in aid and at the return of the Summons the Prayee in aid was Essoined and after the Ession the Defendant moved the Court that the Homage might be put out of the Avowry which was entred with by consent of parties was raised out of the Will ARundell versus Blanchard and Jackson Pasch 13 Jacobi rotulo 2037. The taking in Replevin was supposed to be at Southwark and one of the Defendant pleads non cepit and the other Bailiff of the Governors of the possessions revenues and good of the Free-Grammar-School of c. for the Parishoners for the Parish of Saint Olaves in Southwark in the County of Surrey and the Advowry was made for damage fesant the Plaintiff prescribed for a way belonging to his house in the Parish of Saint Olaves in Southwark and the Venire facias was of Southwark in the Parish of Saint Olaves in Southwark and exception taken to that and held good because one Defendant had pleaded non cepit and another exception was because he had not shewed when the Corporation begun and held an idle exception for one need not shew when they were incorporated another exception was because the name of one of the Jury was mistaken because in the Return of the Venire it was to Lisney of Croydon and in the Pannell of the Habeas Corpus it was written to John Lisney of Croydon and because in sound it is all one and the Sheriff made oath that he was the man that was returned in the Venire facias the Return was amended in Court and Judgement given by the whole Court for the Plaintiff PAin versus Mascall Hill 12 Jacobi rotulo 3400. The Lord avows the taking of one Mare as for Rent behind so for the fourth part of a Releif and doth not expresse the same due for the releif and for the Rent the Plaintiff pleads tender and demurres for the Releif because he had not expressed the same and because he had distrained one thing for the Rent and Releif pretending that if one cause passe against him and another for the Avowant that he could not have a Return habend but the Court were of a contrary opinion but if two men shall distrain one and the same Mare for two severall causes and one hath Judgment for himselfe and the other for himselfe In this case no return habend can be made of the Mare BRown versus Goldsmith Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 607. A Court of Pipowders is incident to a Fine and a Court Baron to a Mannor And a Court Baron cannot be separated from a Mannor for it is a wealth to a Mannor the like of a Court of Pipowder to a Fair by the grant of a Mannor with cum pertinencijs the Court passes for it is an incident inseparable to the Mannor and a man cannot grant his Court but he may grant the profits of his Court. MAgistri socij Collegij Emanuel is in Cambridg The writ was adjudged naught in replevin because they had distrayned in their proper names for a Corporation as Maior and Comonalty cannot distrain in their own persons but by their Bayliff The Court held that the Sheriff could not take a Bond in replevin but must take pledges according to the old custome JVid versus Bungory Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 3059. The Defendant shews that one was seised of Land in fee and held it by Knights service of a Mannor and for the rent of two Cocks and two Hens and the Lord grants the third part of the Mannor to another who avows for the seruice and the Cocks and Hens and held he could not alone avow for that joynt service but the other should joyn with him WEnden versus Snigg Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 1137. In replevin the question was upon a Lease for life made to three to have and to hold to them the said A. B. and C. and every of them for the term of their lives and the longest liver of them successively one after another as they are writ in order And the question was whether this was a remainder or no and it was held to be a remainder upon the reading of the Record but if the grant had been only successively not saying as they are named in the writing it had been naught because he could not tell who should begin THorold versus Hadden Trin. 11. Jac rotulc 451. In replevin a Juror was returned by the name of Payly and in the distress the name was T. P. and in the Pannell he was written Baily and tryed by that name of Baily and moved in arrest of Judgment for the mistaking of the name And the Court held that if the right name was sworn yet notwithstanding the mistake it was good for if the name in venire was not mistaken all was good and the Sheriff ought to amend his misprision and the Court demanded if any one could swear that Paly was sworn and one then present in Court made oath that Paly was sworn and the Court ordered that it should be amended
any private Prison And it seemes if any do against this Statute that an action of false Imprisonment lies For every one ought to be committed to the Common Goal to the intent that he may be dilivered at the next Goale delivery and also if any be committed to any of the Counters in London unlessthat it be for debt that an action of false Imprisonment lieth for that for these are private Prisons for the Sheriffes of London for Debt only Note in Debt for ten pound the Defendant confesseth five pound and for the other five pound pleades that he oweth nothing by the Law and at the day the Plaintiff would have been nonsuited And it was agreed by all that if he be nonsuited that he shall loose all as well the debt confessed as the other Note the yeare of the Reigne of the King was mistaken in the Record of nisi prius but the Record which remaines in the Court was very well and it was amended For insomuch that it was a sufficent and certaine Issue this was sufficent Authority to the Justices of nisi prius to proceed but nothing being mistaken but the yeare of the Reigne this shall be amended for it is only the misprision of the Clark see Dyer 260. 24 25. 9. Eliz. 11. H. 6. Note also if Tenant in Dower be disseised and the Disseisor makes a Feoffment the Tenant in dower shall recover aâ—l their dammages against the Feoffee for she is not within the Statute of Glocester chapter 1. By which every one shall answer for their time Hillary 8. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Reyner against Poell See Hillary 6. Jacobi fol IN second deliverance for copy-hold in Brampton in the County of Huntington the case was copy-hold Lands were surrendered to the use of a woman and the Heires of her Body and she took a Husband the Husband and the Wife have Issue 2. Sonnes and after Surrenders to themselves for their lives the remainder to the eldest Son and his Wife in fee the Husband and the Wife dye the eldest Son dies the youngest Son enters and Surrenders to the use of a stranger And the sole question upon which they relied if the Wife was Tenant in tayl or if she had fee simple conditionall and it was argued by Nicholls that the Wife was Tenant in tayl and to prove that he cited 2. cases in Littleton where it is expresly mentioned who may be Tenant in tayl see Sect. 73. 79. And who may have a Formedon see in the discender sect 76. And he grounded that upon reason for that that it cannot be denied But that fee simple might be of copy-hold according to the custome and as well as fee simple as well it may be an estate tayl for every greater containes his lesse and he said that this is grounded upon the reason of other cases as if the King grant to one to hold Plea in his Court of all actions of debt and other actions and then one action of debt is given in case where it lieth not at the common Law yet the Grantee may hold Plea of that But if a new action be framed which was not in experience at the time of the grant but is given after by Statute the grant shall not extend to that and to the Objection that copy-hold is no Tenement within the Statute of gifts c. As to that he saith that that shall be very well intended to be within the Statute as it is used and 4. H. 7. 10. A man makes a gift in tayl by deed the Donee hath an estate tayl in the deed as well as in the Land so Morgan and Maxells case Commentaries 26. And so of Office Honour Dignity and copy-hold also and Dyer 2 and 3. Phil And Mary 114. 61. It is found by speciall verdict that copy-hold Lands have been devisable by copy in tayl and so it is pleaded 2 and 3 Eliz. Dyer 192. b. And when a lesser estate is extracted out of a greater that shall be directed and ordered according to the course of the Common Law and for that the Wife shall have plaint in nature of a Cui in vita and 15. H 8. b. Title Tenement by copy of Court Roll it was said for Law that tayl may be of a copy-hold and that Formedon may well ly of that in descender by protestation to sue in nature of a Formedon in descender at the Common Law and good by all the Justices for though that Formedon in descender was not given but by Statute Yet now this Writ lieth at the Common Law and shall be intended that this hath been a custome time out of mind c. And the Demandant shall recover by advise of all the Justices and the like matter in Essex M. 28. H. 8. And Fitz. affirms that in the chamber of the Dutchy of Lancaster afterwards and also he saith that when custome hath created such Inheritances and that the Land shall be descendable then the Law shall direct the discent according to the Maximes and Rules of the Common Law as incident to every estate discendable and for that shall be possessio Fratris of a copy-hold estate 4. Coke 22. a. Brownes Case b. And there 28. a. Gravener and Tedd the custome of the Mannor of Allesley in the County of Warwick was that copy-hold lands might be granted to any one in fee simple and it was adjudged that a grant to one and the Heires of his Body is within the Custome for be that Estate Tayl or Fee simple conditionall that is within the Custome So he may grant for life or for yeares by the same Custome for Estate in Fee simple includes all and it is a Maxime in Law to him that may do the greater it cannot be but the lesse is lawfull and over he said that in all cases where a man was put to his reall action at the Common Law in all these cases a copy-holder may have plaint with protestation to prosecute in â—…re of the same action and to the objection that there cannot be an Estate tayl of copy-hold Land for that that the Tenant in tayl shall hold of him in revertion and shall not be Tenant to the Lord to that he said that this Estate may be created as well by Cepit extra manus Domini as by Surrender and then there is not any reversion or remainder but it is as if Rent be newly granted in tayl but he said there may be a reversion upon an Estate tayl as well as upon an Estate for life and he did not insist upon the Custome but upon this ground that if the Custome warrant the greater Estate which is the Fee simple the lesse shall be included in that And he did not argue but intended that it would be admitted that discent of copy-hold Land shall not take away entry nor Surrender of that nor shall make discontinuance so prayed Judgement and â—…rne Harris the youngest Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that it shall be
Mannor held in cheife and of other Mannors and Lands held of a Common person in socage and had Issue foure Sonns Thomas William Humphrey Richard And by his Deed 12 Eliz. covenants to convey these Mannors and Lands to the use of himself for his life without impeachment of wast and after his desease to the use of such Farmors and Tenants and for such Estates as shall be contained in such Grants as he shall make them and after that to the use of his last will and after that to the use of VVilliam his second sonn in tayle the Remainder to Humphrey his third Son in tayle the Remainder to Richard the fourth Sonn in tayle the Remainder to his own right Heires with power of Revocation and after makes a Feoflment according to the covenant and after that purchases eight other acres held of another common person in socage and after makes revocation of the said Estates of some of the Mannors and Lands which were not held by Knights service and after that makes his Will and devises the Land that he had purchased as before and all the other Land whereof he had made the Revocation to Thomas his eldest son the Heirs Males of his body for 500. years provided that if he alien and dye without Issue that then it shall remaine to William his second sonne in tayle with the like proviso as before and after dyed and the Jury found that the Lands whereof no revocation is made exceeds two parts of all his Lands Thomas the eldest sonne enters the 8. Acres purchased as before and dyes without Issue male having Issue a Daughter of whom this Defendant claimes these eight Acres and the Plaintiff claims them by William the second Son And Dodridge the Kings Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff intending that the sole question is for the 8. acres purchased and if the devise of that be good or not by the Statute of 34. H. 8. And to that the point is only a man which hath Lands held in cheife by Knights service and other Lands held of a common person in Socage conveys by act executed in his life time more then two parts and after purchases other Lands and devises those if the devise be good or not And it seems to him that the devise is good and he saith that it hath been adjudged in the selfe same case and between the same parties And this Judgment hath been affirmed by writ of Error and the devise to Thomas and the Heirs males of his body for 500. years was a good estate tayle and for that he would not dispute it against these two Judgments But to the other question hee intended that the devise was good and that the Devisor was not well able to doe it by the Statute of 34. H. 8. And hee intended that the statute authoriseth two things 1. To execute estates in the life time of the party for advancement of his Wife or Children or payment of his debts and for that see 14. Eliz. Dyer and that may be done also by the common Law before the making of this statute But this statute restrains to two parts and for the third part makes the Conveyance voyd as touching the Lord But the statute enables to dispose by Will a parts where he cannot dispose any part by the Common Law if it be not by special Custome but the use only was deviseable by the common Law this was altered into possession by the statute of 27 H. 8. and then cometh the statute of 32. and 34. H. 8. and enables to devise the Land which he had at the time of the devise or which he purchased afterwards for a third part of this Land should remain which hee had at the time of the devise made and if a third part of the Land did not remain at the time of the devise made sufficient should be taken out of that but if the Devisor purchase other Lands after hee may those wholly dispose And for that it was adjudged Trin. 26. Eliz. between Ive and Stacye That a man cannot convey two parts of his Lands by act executed in his life time and devise the third part or any part so held by Knights service and also he relyed upon the words of the statute that is having Lands held by Knights service that this shall be intended at the time of the devise as it was resolved in Butler Bakers Case That is that the statute implies two things that is property and time of property which ought to be at the time of the devise But here at the time of the devise the Devisor was not having of Lands held by Knights service for of those he was only Tenant for life and the having intended by the statute ought to be reall enjoying and perfect having by taking and not by retaining though that in Carrs Case cited in Butler and Bakers Case rent extinct be sufficient to make Wardship yet this is no sufficient having to make a devise void for any part Also if the Statute extend to all Lands to be after purchased the party shall never be in quiet and for that the Statute doth not intend Lands which shall be purchased afterwards for the Statute is having which is in the Present tence and not which he shall have which is in the Future tence and 4. and 5 P. and M. 158. Dyer 35. A man seised of Socage Lands assures that to his Wife in joynture and 8. years after purchases Lands held in cheife by Knights service and devises two parts of that and agreed that the Queen shall not have any part of the land conveyed for Joynture for this was conveyed before the purchase of the other which agrees with the principall case and though to the Question what had the Devisor It was having of Lands held in Capite insomuch that he had Fee-simple expectant upon all the estates tayl he intended that this is no having within the Statute but that the Statute intend such having of which profit ariseth and out of which the K. or other Lord may be answered by the receipt of the profits which cannot be by him which hath fee-simple expectant upon an estate tayle of which no Rent is reserved and also the estate tayle by intendment shall have continuance till the end of the world and 40. Edw 3. 37. b. in rationabili parte bonorum it was pleaded that the Plaintiff had reversion discended from his Father and so hath received advancement And it seems that was no plea in so much that the reversion depends upon an estate tayle and upon which no Rent was reserved and so no advancement So of a conveyance within this Statute ought such advancement to the youngest sonne which continues as it is agreed in Binghams Case 2 Coke that if a man convey lands to his youngest sonne and he convey that over to a stranger in the life time of his father for good consideration and after the Father dies this
appears by 9 Edw. 4. 33. 37 H. 6. 32 H. 6. 1. Ed. 4. 2. 50. Ed. 3. And he conceived that the burying is not any Administration nor the taking of the goods into his custody to preserve them no more then in Trover and Conversion when a man takes the goods for to preserve them And he agreed that where a man intitles himselfe to goods by Administration committed by any but by the Bishop he ought to pleade specially that he which committed it had power to doe it But here it is not so but only conveiance and for that need not here such precise pleading of that insomuch it is only execution of Administration and for that it is good without intitleing the Arch-Deacon And he agreed that an Executor of his owne wrong may pay Debts due to another and shall be discharged And he agreed also that the Confession of one Executor shall bind his Companion and that Judgement shall be given upon that for the Plaintiff And they all agreed that the pleading that the Defendant hath no goods besides the goods which do not amount c. it was not good and for these causes they all agreed that Judgement ought to be given to the Plaintiff Trinity 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Tyrer against Littleton 9. Jacobi Rot. 299. IN Trespasse for taking of a Cow c. Upon not guilty pleaded by the Defendant the Jury gives speciall Verdict as it followes that is that the Husband of the Plaintiff was seised of eighty Acres of Land held of the Defendant by Harriot service that is the best Beasts of every Tenant which died seised that he had at the time of his death and that the Husband of the said Defendant long time before his death made a Feoffment of that Land in consideration of marriage and advancement of his Son to the use of his Son and his Heires with such agreement that the Son should redemise to his Father for forty yeares if he so long lived and that after the marriage was had and the Son redemised the Land to his Father and the Father injoyed that accordingly and paied the Rent to the Lord and after died and that the Plaintiff had no notice of his Feoffment and that the Husband at the time of his death was possessed of the said Cow and that the Defendant took it as the best Beast in name of Harriot and also found the Statute of 13. Eliz. of fraudulent conveiances to deceive Creditors and so praied the direction of the Court and this was agreed by the Plaintiff aforesaid Nicholls Serjeant first that all conveiances made upon good consideration and Bona Fide are by speciall Proviso exempted out of the Statute of 13. Eliz. chap. And he conceived that this is made upon good consideration and Bona Fide and for that it is within the said Proviso and also he said that as upon the Statute of Marlebridge there is fraud apparent and fraud averrable as it appeares 12. H. 4. 16. b. Where in ward the Tenant pleads that his Father levied a Fine to a stranger the Lord replies that this was by Collusion to re-enfeoff the Heire of the Tenant at his full age and so averred that to be by Collusion to out the Lord of his Ward and this is fraud averrable But if the Tenant had enfeoffed his Tenant immediately in Fee-simple this is apparent without any averment and the Court may adjudge upon it And so upon the Statute of 27. Eliz. chap. 4. it appears by Burrells Case that the Fraud ought to be proved in Evidence or confessed in pleading or otherwise this shall not avoid conveiance for it shall not be intended 6 Coke 78. a. and see 33. H. 6. 14. b. Andrew Woodcocks case upon which he inferred that this is but a fraud averrable if it be a fraud at all and of this the Court could not take notice if it be not found by the Jury and he said upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. Of Devisees as it appeares by Knights Case 8 Coke and 12. Eliz. Dyer 295. 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the Circumstances which are found in the speciall Verdict are sufficient to satisfie the Court that it is fraud for as well as the Court may give direction to the Jury upon Evidence that it is fraud and what not as well may the Court Judge upon the special matter being found by special Verdict at large as in 9 El. Dyer 267. and 268. that is the special matter being found by special verdict at large as in 9 El. Dyer 267. 268. that is the speciall matter is found by Inquisition upon Mandamus and leave to the Court to adjudge if it be fraud or not and in 12 El. 294. and 295. 8. the speciall matter was found by Jury upon Eligit directed to the Sheriffe and by him returned to the Court And in Trinity 27. Eliz. between Saper and Jakes in Trover the Defendant pleades not guilty and gives in Evidence as assignement of a Tearme to him with power of revocation And the Court directed the Jury that this was fraudulent within the Statute of 27. Eliz. to defraud a purchasor and in Burrells Case 6. Coke 73. a. before the fraud to the Court upon Evidence to the Jury and the Court gave direction to the Jury that it was fraud and that upon the Circumstances which appeares upon the speciall Evidence And so in this case he conceived that insomuch the circumstances appear by the Verdict that the Jury may very well adjudge upon it and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Coke cheife Justice that the Statute of 13. Eliz. Doth not aid the Defendant insomuch that the Feoffment was made for good consideration and for that shall be within the said Proviso for if that shall be avoided at all that shall be avoided by the Statute of Marlebridge which is ouly affirmance of the Common Law and this is the reason that not withstanding the Statute speakes only of Feoffment by the Father to his Son and Heire apparent yet a Feoffment to a Cosin which is Heire apparent is taken to be within the Statute and in the 24. of Eliz. in Sir Hamond Stranges Case It was adjudged that if the Son and Heire apparent in the life time of his Father purchase a Mannor of his Father for good consideration this is out of the Statute and so it was adjudged in Porredges Case also he said that the Law is an Enemie to fraud and will not intend it being a conveiance made for consideration of a marriage to be fraudulent no more then if the Father had made a Feoffment to the use of a stranger for life the remainder in Fee to his Son and Heire the which is not within the Statute of Marlebridge as it is agreed in Andrew Woodcocks Case 33.
Prerogative of a Prince and is part of Law and stands with it and this is reasonable custome and so it hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench the reason is insomuch that the custome is the life of the Copy-hold upon which that depends and the party is but a Conduit to nominate the Tenant and when he is nominated and admitted then he takes by the Lord and that stands with the rules and reasons of the Common Law that is that a man devises that a marryed wife shall sell his Land and she may sell notwithstanding the Coverture for she upon the matter nominates the party and he takes by the Devise and by this reason she may sell to her Husband as it is agreed by the 8 of Assises And also by devise that Executor shall sell Executor of Executor may sell notwithstanding that he is not in Esse at the time of the Devise and so a Lease for life to one Remainder to him that J. S. shall nominate is good after nomination and then he takes by the first Livery as it is agreed in 10 H. 7. and J. S. Only hath the nomination and nothing passes to him and with this also agrees 43 Ed. 3. 19 H. 7. So if a man makes a Feoffment to the use of himself for life with diverse Remainders over and power to himself to make Leases for three lives this is good as it is agreed in Mildmayes Case and Whitlocks Case 8 Coke and yet the Estate doth not passe from him but out of all the Estates and he upon the matter hath only the nomination of the Lessee and of the lives for all the estates apply their forces to make that good and the 2 El. Dyer 192. 23. Custome that the Wife of the Copy-holder for life shall have her Widdows Estate is allowed to be a good custome and there an Estate for life upon the matter is raised out of the estate for life and annexed to it and this is by the Custome and the reason he conceived to be for that that Women should be incouraged to marry with their Tenants and by that the marriage with the Tenant and the custome in this Case doth bind the Lord and so 4 Coke there are divers customes by which the Lord is bound and the 8 Coke Swaines Case where the Copy-holder by custome hath the Trees in Case where the Lord himself hath them not so if the Lord sell the Waste yet the Copy-holder shall not loose his Common in that notwithstanding that the Estate of the Copy-holder be granted after the Wast is severed from the Mannor and it is agreed in Waggoners Case 8 Coke that custome is more available then the Common Law And for that this cnse hath been adjudged in this point between Crab and Varney by three or four Judges he would not further question it And for the second custome he agreed that one bare Tenant for life could not meddle with the Sale or falling of the Trees but here is a Copy-holder for life which hath Aut ority given by the Lord and the Custome to dispose the Trees and he saith that Bracton and the old Laws of England calls Copy-holders Falkland and saith they cannot be moved but in the hands of the Lord they ought to surrender and agreed that this is within the Rules of the Common Law for Consuetudo privat communem legem and the Law doth nor give reason of that for this is as a ground and need not to be proved for the reason of every custome cannot be shewed as it was sayd in Knightly and Spencers Case and he sayd that Mannors are divided into three sorts of Tenures The first holds by Knights Service and this is for the defence of the Lord and they have a great number of Acres of Land and pay less Services The second holds by Socage and this for to plow and manure the Demesnes of the Lord and they shall pay no Rent nor do other services and this was at the first to draw such Tenants to inhabit there and for that they have Authority to dispose and sell the Trees growing upon theit Tenements The third holds by base Tenure and these were at the Will of the Lord and these were to do Services and then these in many Cases have liberty for their Wives in some cases to dispose that for another life and to dispose the Trees and so it is in Ireland at this day where some give more and greater priviledge then others to induce Tenants to inhabite and manure their Land for there every day is a complaint made to the Councell for inticing the Tenants of the Lord and 14 Ed. 3. Bar 277. The Tenant preseribes to have the Windfalls and if the Lord cut the Trees that he may have the Lops and 11 H. 6. 2. The Keeper of the Wood prescribes to have Fee and 46 Ed. 3. is prescription to stint the Lord in his own Soyl and all these are for the Incouragement of Tenants to inhabit upon the Land and time of Ed. 1. Prescription 75. A stranger prescribed to have all the profit of the Land of another for a great part of the yeare and to exclude the giver of the Soyl 6 Ja. It was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Henrick and Pargiter that the Lord may be stinsted for Common in his own Laud and in the Book of Entries 563. It appears that by Custome Copy-hold granted Sibi suis was a good Fee-simple and the reason of all this is shewed in the 4. Coke amongst his Copy-hold Cases where it is agreed that the Life of a Copy-hold Estate is the customes and then if the Custome gives life to the Estate this gives life also to all the Priviledges which are incident to the Estate and the Lord is but the means to convey the Estate from one to another and as in 38 Ed. 3. A man hath a House as Heir to his Mother and after a stranger grants Estovers to him and his Heirs to be burnt in the same House these Estovers shall go to the Heirs of the Mother insomuch that they are incident to the House so of Priviledg incident to a Copy-hold Estate by the Custome and at the Common Law if Tenant for life hath cut the Trees he hath not forfeited his Estate for he was trusted with the Land and was not punishable till the Statute of Glocester and at this day if there be a mesne Remainder for life which remains in Contingency and that shall prevent that the Tenant shal be punished for this waste and to make innovation of this custome will be dangerous and for that he concluded that the Plaintiff shall be barred Warburton Justice agreed And the first Custome that is for the nomination of the Successor he conceived that it is good and that it is good by the Common Law and good by Custome by the Common Law as a Lease for life remainder to him which the Tenant for life shall
twenty yeares if the Husband and wife and the Issue male of their Bodies so long live and it was there adjudged that the Lease doth not determine during the lives of any of them for in this disjunctive it is referred to an Intiâ—e Sentence and is as much as if he had sayd if the Husband or the Wife or the Issue of their Bodies so long live Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Borough of Yarmouth THE King John by his Letters Patents granted that the Burrough of Yarmouth should be incorporated and the grant is made Burgensibus without naming of their Successors and also he granted Burgensibus teneri placita coram balivis and in pleading it was not averred that there were Bailiffs there and it was objected that the Burrough cannot be incorporated but men which inhabite in that but to that it was resolved that the Grant is good and the Lord Coke sayd that he had seen many old Grants to the Citizens of such a Town and Good and so that the Grant Burgensibus that the Bâ—rrough should be incorporated being an old Grant should have favorable construction but the doubt was for that that it was not averred that there were Bailiffs of Yarmouth and if a Grant to hold Pleas and doth not say before whom the Grant is voyd according to 44 Ed. 3. 2 H. 7. 21 Ed. 4. and for that it was adjourned But the opinion of all the Court was that the Grant made Burgensibus was good without naming of their Successors as in the case of Grant civibus without more Note that Executors or Administrators shall not finde speciall Bail for the Debt of the Testator though that the debt be for a great sum as three thousand pound or more for it is not their Debt nor his Body shall not be lyable to execution for that 43 Ed. 3. Suit was commenced hanging another Writ it is a good Plea though that the Writ was returnable in the Common Bench and the last Suit was begun in a Base Court but if so be and doth not appeare to this Court that the Plaintiff begun suit in a base Court for the same Debt for which the Suit is here begun Attachment shall be awarded see 2 H. 6. 9 H. 6. but this ought to appear to the Court by Affidavit c. Hillary 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Chapman against Pendleton IN second deliverance the case was this A man seised of a house and fifty Acres of Land held by Rent fealty and Harriot service enfeoffs the Lord of three Acres parcell of the Land and after infeoffs the plaintiff in this Action of three other Acres and upon this rhe sole question was if by this Feoffment to the Lord of parcell Harriot service is extinct or not Harris Serjeant conceived that the Harriot remaines for he sayd that it is reserved to the Reversion of the Tenure but it is not as anuall Service but casuall and it is not like to rectify for that it is incident to every service And by 43 Ed. 3. 3 It is no part of the service but Improvement of the service And Bracton in his Tractate De Relevijs 2 Booke 2 7. saith that Est alia prestatio vocata Harriot c. Que magis fit de gratia quam ex Jure and it is not like to a releife see the Booke at large and he agreed that if the Tenant had made fifty severall Feoffments to fifty severall men that every of them shall pay a severall Harriot as it appears by Bruertons Case 6 Coke 1. a 34. Ed. 3. Harriot 1. 2 Ed. 2 Avowry 184. 〈◊〉 Ed. 2. Ibidim 206. 11 Ed. 3. Avowry 101. 24 Ed 3. 73. a 34 Assise 15. 22. Ed. 4. 36. 37. 29 H. 8. Tenures 64. But he grounded his Argument principally upon Littleton 122. 223. Where it is sayd that the reason why Homage and Fealty remaine if the Lord purchase part of the Tenancy is for that that they are of annuall Services and it seemed to him that Littleton is grounded upon 7 Ed. 4. 15. Extinguishment 2. 8 Ed 3. 64. 24. Ed 3 B. Apportionment last case which accords the reason and upon this he concluded that for that that the Harriot is not annuall it shall not be extinct by the Feoffment but remaines but he agreed if a man makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and parcell of the Land comes to the Lord the Rent shall be apportioned if it be by Lawfull means as it appears by 6 R. 2. F. Quid Juris clamat 17. Plesingtons Case and 24 H. 8. Dyer 4. 1. Rushdens case by which c. Nicholls Serjeant that it hath been agreed that it is intire service and that then he concluded upon that that it shall be of the nature of other intire services as it apperrs by 2 Ed. 2. Avowry 184. and 34 Ed. 3 F. Harriot 1. 5. Ed. 2. Avowry 206. And he agreed that in the case of Littleton the Homage and Fealty remain and the escuage shall be apportioned but this is not for the reason alledged in Littleton that is for that that they are not annuall services but for that that the Homage is incident to every Knights service and as the Lord Coke sayd fealty is incident to every service in generall and the Tenant shall make Oath to be faithfull and loyall to his Lord for all the Tenements which he holds of him and the reason for which the Escuage shall be apportioned is for that that it is but as a penalty which is inflicted upon the Tenant for that that he did not make his services as it appears by the pleading of it and shall be apportioned according to the Assesment by Parliament and by 22 Ed 4. It appears that this purchase by the Lord is as a release and if the Lord release his services in part this extincts the services in all and he sayd there is no difference where an intire service is to be payd every third or fourth year and where it is to be payd every year as to that purpose and yet in one case it is annuall and in the other it is casuall and yet in both cases if the Lord purchase parcell of the Land of the Tenant all the intire services shall be extinct and gone though that they are to be performed every third or fourth year by which c. Foster Justice that the Harriot is entire service and for that though that it be not annuall it shall be extinct by purchase of parcell of the Tenancy by the Lord as if a man makes a Feoffment with warranty and takes back an Estate of part the warranty is extinct as it appears by the 29. of Assise so if a man hold his Land by the service to repaire parcell of the fence of a Park of the Lords and the Lord purchase parcell of the Tenancy the Tenure is extinct as it appears by 15 Ed. 3. And it is
agreed in the 21 H. 7 In Kellawaies Reports by Frowick that there is no difference between Harriot and Releife and Releife shall be extinct and so he concluded that the Harriot is extinct Danyell Justice accordingly and he said that this purchase shall be as strong as release And if the Lord hath released the service intire for part it shall be extinct for all and if Tenant holds by Suite to the court of the Lord and the Lord purchase parcell of the Tenancy the Suit is extinct as it appeares by 27. H. 7. and Fitz. Na. Bre. And so concluded that the Harriot service is extinct by the purchase aforesayd Warburton accordingly And saith that in Littletons Case the Homage and Fealty shall remain for they are personall services and for that shall remaine intire and of Rent shall be an apportionment by the Statute of Westminster 3. De quia emptores terrarum But for other intire services by the purchase of the Lord be they annuall or casuall and they are extinct and 21 Edward 4 was a Suite for a Hawke which was kept back twenty yeares and so for Suit if the Tenants make a feoffment to diverse they shall make but one Suit but they all shall make contribution to the Suit but if the Lord purchase parcell he cannot make contribution And though that the Homage and Fealty are personall services the Horse and Hawke are of the nature of land so the Harriot is of his goods and if the Tenant hath no goods the Lord shall loose it and for that he concluded as above Walmesley accordingly And he said if a Tenant hold by intire services of two Lords and one purchase parcell of the Tenancy all the intire services shall not be extinct but the other Lord which did not purchase shall have them for Res inter alios acta nemini nocere debeat To which Coke cheife Justice agreed and he said if Harriot custome be due peradventure it shall not be extinct by purchase of parcell of the Tenancy for that is personall and it is not Issuing out of land but for intire services which are Issuing out of land he said there is no difference betwixt annuall services and casuall services which are intire and so he concluded as above Coke cheife Justice accordingly and he said there is no difference between annuall intire services and casuall so that they are services to be paid at the death or alteration of every Tenant or otherwise but he said there is no doubt but that Rent service shall be apportioned though that the Lord purchase parcell be that in the Kings case or of a common person and this by the common Law without the aid of any Statute for there is not any Statute that shall aid that if it be not remedied by the Common Law and he said that some Intire services may multiply as if a man holds by payment of a payre of gilt Spurrs or of a Hawke or a Horse or others such like and makes a feoffment of parcell the Feoffee shall hold by the same intire services But if the Tenant hold by personall services as to cover the Table of his Lord or to be his Carver or Sewer at such a Feast or such like these personall services cannot multiply if the Tenant makes a feoffment of part for by this the Lord may be prejudiced for peradventure at his house he will not include them but he may distrain every of them to make the service And he saith the reason for which Knights service shall be apportioned is for that it is for the publick good and for the good of the Common Wealth But so are not the other personall services and in the principall case he conceives that if the Tenant had made a feoffment first to a stranger and after the stranger had infeoffed the Lord that by that all the intire service shall not be extinct for by the feoffment of the estranger was severence of the services and he holds by a Harriot as well as his Feoffor and for that nothing shall be extinct but the Harriot due by that parcell of which the estranger was infeoffed and he agreed with Walmesley that a Harriot custome shall not be extinct where the custome is that every Tenant shall pay a Harriot for there it is paid in respect that he is Tenant and custome shall not be drowned by unity of Tenancy and Signiory And for that he concluded that the Harriot for that that it was intire service though that it were casuall and not annuall that yet it shall be extinct and Judgement was given accordingly Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Michelborne against Michelborne UPON a motion made for consultation upon Prohibition awarded It was said by the Lord Coke that no Subject of the King may trade with any Realme of Infidells without licence of the King and the reason of that is that he may resinquish the Catholick faith and adhere to Infidelisme and he said that he hath seen a licence made in the time of Ed. 3. where the King recited that he having speciall trust and confidence that his Subject will not decline from his Faith and Religion licenced him ut supra And this did rise upon the recitall of a licence made to a Merchant to trade into the East Indies Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Reade against Fisher IN debt the Defendant exhibits his suit in the Court of Requests and there the Plaintiff in that Court denied that the debt was paid and the Court of Request awarded an Injunction and upon Information of that this Court awarded a Prohibition to inhibit the Suit there Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Mors against Webbe IN Replevin the case was this A man was seised of two Virgates of Land and prescribed that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estates he hath in the said Virgates of Land have used to have common in the feilds c. That is when the feilds are fallow all the yeare and when they are sown with Corn or otherwise severall when the Crop is mowed and removed for two Horses four other Beastes and a hundred and twenty Sheep as appertaining to the said two Virgates of Land The Defendant traverseth the prescription and upon this they are at Issue and the Jury found that there is such prescription But further they say that the Plaintiff made a Lease of six Acres parcell of the said two Virgates of Land in one of the feilds of c. with the Common of that thereunto belonging for the Tearme of ten years and the Beastes for which the Replevin was brought were in another feild of c. And if the prescription be suspended or remaines they praied the advise of the Court and it was agreed that common appendant and appurtenant was all one to the severance for if such a Commoner grant parcell of that Land to which the Common
which was Obligamus nos vel quemlibet nostrum adjudged to be joint and severall at the Plaintiffs Election Action of Debt upon an Obligation to perform an award and the breach assigned for exhibiting a chancery Bill and adiudged no Breach Action of Debt for Tithes the Defendants time ended before the Coâ—n carried yet held good for the Plaintiff An Action will lie against a stranger that shall carry away the Corn before the Severance Dower may be brought against the Heir or Committee of the Ward Nota. He in Reversion received after Default made by Tenant for Life Return of the Sheriff adjudged insufficient being too general No Writ of Error lies untill the value be inquired upon Implication not good in a Surrender though it be in a Will Challenge because the Sheriff married the Daughter of the Lessors Wife and held no cause Nota. How to execute a Lease to try a Title the Land being in many mens hands Originall against four and count against 3. without a Simulcum and held naught The intent of a will must be certain and agreeable to Law Nota. How to execute a Lease by Letter of Atturney A Venire facias of the Parish adjudged good A mistake of the Cursitor in the Originall amended after Triall Nota. Though the Defendants Plea be naught yet the Plaintiff shall not recover because he shewed not any Title by his replication The question is upon the Statute of 32 H. 8 upon Feoffements made by Husbands during the coverture A verbal averment shall not overthrow a will The mistaking of the Town not hurtfull in a Will Property of Goods cannot be in obayance Difference between Prescription and Custome Copihold Land cannot be demised for three years without license or custome Record of Nisi prius amended by the Roll. Concord with satisfaction a good Plea in Eiectment Misconveyance of process what it is and helped by the Statute A feme covert cannot make a Letter of Atturney to deliver a Lease upon the Land When a demand shall be made to the person and when upon the Land A Lease made to three for their lives with a Covenant that the Land should remaine to the survivor of them for ninety yeares a good interest in the survivor A precise Verdict makes the Declaration good which otherwise is naught A demand of Rent to avoid a Lease upon a condition ought to be in the most open place After an Imparlance cannot plead in abatement 22 H. 6. 6. Foxlies Case 5 Rep. 111. The day of a Copihold of Court roll traversed and adjudged naught Houses in London passe by the delivery of a bargain and sale without inrolment An Ejectment will not lye de aquae cursu A Servant is a sufficient Ejector if he dwell with the pretended owner He that is a Purchaser of Copihold hath nothing in it nor can he surrender to another before admittance How an Abatement shall be traversed 1 E. 4. acr 1 E. 4. 9. acr The Bill amended after a Writ of Error brought and before the Record was removed Where the Prenomen destroyesthe quantity inthe declation Where words in a Declaration shall be voyd rather then the Declaration shal be voyd Nonage shall be tryed where it is alleadged and not where the Landlyes Essoin lies in a writ brought by Journes account although he was essoined upon the first Writ By Deed an implicationbe intended Nota. By the Name of a Mannour the Land in all the Villiages will pass Nota. Action brought by the Servant in his own name part of the Goods being his Masters Nota. Nota. The Record of Nisi prius amended upon motion The Process in Partition Error in Partition upon the first Judgement Defendant pleads he had brought a Writ for the same land and adjudged no plea. Process in a Quare Impedit Exception taken to the Venire and over-ruled Severall Quare impedits may be brought against severall men Admittance of a Resignation by fraud takes not away the Kings Title The state is determined by the death of Tenant in Tail A presentment by words good Nota. A subsequent debt to the Qu. related to award an assurance made upon good consideration The King hath lost his presentation by the Clerks death Defendant pleads another writ depending against the said Bishop good The Bishopsplea shall not prejudice the Incumbent Nota. Liberty to make Leases A devise for years in confidence the condition must goe to the estate and not to the use The scisin of rent reserved upon a Feosment within the time of limitation not to be traversed Nota. The beast of a stranger shall not be distreined for rent except they have been upon the land some time Demand not necessary in a Replevin for rent Nota. Exctâ—tion to the advowry too late after judgment entred Replevin not within the statute of 3. Iac. Iudgment arrested for that the plea was naught Nota. Nota. The Plea naught for want of amendment Amends made to the Bailiff not good If one inclose part it is an Extinguishment of Common for cause of vicinage Avowry amended after Entry by consent One of the Juroâ—s names mistaken in the Pannell of the Return and amended upon the Sheriffes Oath that he was the same man If two men distrain one Mare and both have Judgement no Return Court Baron in order to the Mannor Nota. Nota. A lease for life to three to hold successively naught The pannell of the Habeas Corpus amended upon Oath Nota. Atturnment not necessary for a Copy-holder Demand necessary for a Nomine pene Common Appurtenant and purchase part the Common is gone but not if Appendant Nota. Nota. Demand of Rent service upon the Land sufficient Nota. A Commoner may take the cattell of the Lord damage fesant Judgment arrested for not shewing in what place the Messuage did lye to which the Common did belong Common when the field and acres unsown the sowing of parcell shal not debar him of his common in the residue When a Deed is perfected and delivered as a Deed one agreement after pleaded in defeasance thereof and when the agreement is parcell of the Original contract it may be pleaded The Defendant in his Demurrer â—nswers not the whole Declaration and Judgement reversed The mistake of the day of an Act by way of Bar not prejudiciall A confession after an issue joyned refused A Constable cannot detaine one but for Felony Marshalsey hath no authority to hold plea in debt except both are of the Houshold Judgment before a wrong Officer erroneous The Court could not mitigate damages in trespass which was locall The Defendant justifies the imprisonment by the command of the Maior of London and naught Just of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest in his absence without warrant in writing If a servant be beaten dye the Mr. shall not have an action for the losse of his service Declaration shall not abate for false Latin A man cannot prescribe to be a Justice of the Peace If
Plaintiff SMith versus Bolles Sheriff of London Pasc 9. Jac. rotulo 1353. In case for that the name of the Sheriffs were omitted on the venire fac And for that cause one Judgement given for the said Smith was reversed by Writ of Error And for that Misprision Smith brought such Action of the Case HArris versus Adams If thou hadst had thy Right thou hadst been hanged for breaking of Paches House the words not actionable Thou art a Thief thou hast stollen the Town-beam meaning the Town of Wickham Serjeant Hutton of opinion the Action would lie STephens Attourney versus Battyn for words Thou hast cozened M. Windsor of his Fee and I will sue thee for it in the Star-chamber for that thou didst not come for Windsor Judgement for the Plaintiff Trin. 11. Jac. BRadley versus Jones Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 3390. The Plaintiff brings his Action upon the Case for unjust vexation The Defendant had exhibited Articles against the Plaintiff to have the good Behaviour against him and took his Oath before Doctor Cary one of the Masters of the Chancery and afterwards the Defendant ceased prosecution there and obtained from the Kings Bench a Supplicavit to have the good Behaviour there And the Court was of opinon that the Action would lie because he prosecuted in the Kings Bench and not in the Chancery But the Court said that if he had prosecuted in the Chancery though the Articles had been scandalous yet no Action would have lyen for a man shall not be punished for mistaking the Law for he may be misadvised by his Counsel BRooks versus Clerk Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 307. Action brought for these words His Son Brooks hath deceived me in a Reckoning for Wares And his Debt-book which he keepeth for Sale of Wares in his Shop is a false Debt-book and I will make him ashamed of his Calling Hubbart and Nichols against the Plaintiff and Warburton for the Plaintiff Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 2147. Action of the Case brought for a Nusance for building the Defendants House so near the Plaintiffs that a great part of it superpends And the Plaintiff in the conveying his Title shews a Lease for years made to him if the Lessor should so long live and doth not aver the Life of the Lessor but saith that by vertue of the Demise the Plaintiff hath been and then was thereof possessed and adjudged sufficient MOrton versus Leedell Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 1783. Action of the Case for these words He meaning the Plaintiff is a lying dissembling Fellow and a mainsworn and forsworn Fellow And Judgement for the Plaintiff after divers motions THomas Attourney versus Axworth Pasch 11. Eliz. rotulo 352. Action of the Case for these words This is John Thomas his writing and he hath forged this Warrant meaning a Warrant made by Buller Sheriff of that County upon a Capias prosecuted out of the Court of Common Pleas by M. H. against the Defendant and directed to the Sheriff ROw versus Alport Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 1527. Action upon the Case brought for suing in the Admiral Court for a thing done upon the Land and not upon the high Sea BRay versus Ham Trin. 13. Jac. rotulo 1994. Action of the Case for these words Thou art a cozening Knave and thou hast cozened me in selling false Measure in my Barley and the Countrey is bound to curse thee for selling with false Measure and I will prove it and thou hast changed my Barley which I bought of thee And the Plaintiff sets forth in his Declaration that he was Bayliff to W. C. and H. C. of certain Lands in P. for three years and during the said time had the care and selling of divers Corn and Grain growing upon the same Land and after Triall and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie but the Court were of a contrary opinion and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff BRown versus Hook Pasch 13. Jac. rotulo 234. Action of the Case for these words Brown is a good Attourney but that he will play on both sides And it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that those words would not bear an Action but the Court held they were actionable but did not give Judgement because the Plaintiff did not shew in his Declaration that the words were spoken of himself STober versus Green Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 1â—91 Action of the Case for these words Thou didst keep and sell by false Weights and in 24. s. bestowing thy Weights were false two Ounces and thy Man will be a Witness against thee and I will prove it The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff occupied one Shop and kept unlawfull Weights and by such Weights sold by reason whereof he said these words Videlicet Thou didst keep and sell by unlawfull Weights and in 24. s. bestowing thy Weights were false an Ounce and three quarters and thy Man c. And traversed the words in the Declaration and it was adjudged a naughty Traverse for that the words in the Bar and justified by the Defendant are actionable AGar versus Lisle Mich. 11. Jac. rot 318. Action of Trover brought in York-shire the Defendant justifies for Toll at Darnton in Durham and traverse c. The Court doubts of his Traverse being onely for the County of York whereas it ought to be any where else generally And Hobart said the Bar was nought because in the justification no conversion was sufficiently alleadged And note that if a man doth a thing which is allowable by the Law as to distrain Cattle and impound them that is no conversion but if he work them it is a conversion AVstin versus Austin Trin. 10. Jac. rotulo 3558. In Troyer the Defendant pleads that before the time that the Plaintiff supposes the Goods to come to the Defendants hands one S. A. was possessed of the Goods and amongst other Goods sold them to the Defendant but kept them in his own hands and afterwards sold them to the Plaintiff by reason whereof the Plaintiff was possessed and afterwards looses them and they came to the Defendants hands who converts them as it was lawfull for him to do The Plaintiff demurs and it was held a naughty Bar for it amounts to a Non cul And Cook doubted whether the Court should compell the Defendant to plead Non cul or award a Writ of Injury And a Writ of Inquire was awarded ALlyns versus Sparkes al. Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 1606 Action of the Case brought for stopping up the Plaintiffs way and the Plaintiff declares that one H. B. was seised of the Mannour of M. of which two Acres were customary Land and that the Lord of the Mannour had for himself and his customary Tenants for the said two Acres a certain high-way in by and thorow c. And that the Lord of the Mannour granted the said two
pair of Stones in your Mill and pay a Rate for them then if you put on another pair of Stones new Tithes must be paid in kinde If one in Fee make a Lease for Life and after granteth a Rent-charge if the Grantors Cattle come upon the Ground I may distrain them although I cannot distrain the Tenant in Possession but the Grantor cannot avoid it If the condition of a Bond be to discharge a Messuage of all Incumberances then one may plead generally that he did discharge it of all Incumberances but if it be to discharge it of such a Lease then I must shew how If a man devise his Trees to his Executors to pay his Debts the Executor must in convenient time cut down the Wood. And so if a man sell his Trees the Vendee must sell them in a convenient time If I grant you out of my Mannour 10. l. per ann and recite but five pounds the Recitall shall not diminish the Grant And so if I grant you ten pounds out of my Mannor and recite 20. l. this shall not inlarge it If I infeoff two of Land habendum to me in Fee and habendum to the other in Fee they are Tenants in common In the Court of Wards one Dymack was a Purchasor by Bargain and Sale and before inrolment D. dies and after his Death the Indenture was inrolled the Question was whether his Son shall be in Ward for the Land and it was adjudged that he is Heir to the Land and is in by the Statute of 27 Eliz. of Bargains and Sales and not by the Statute of Uses My Lord Hobard held that if an Executor pay a Bond made upon a usurious Contract it shall be a Devastavit in the Executor and if he be bound to present one to a Church and he present one upon a Simonaical Contract the Bond is broken Hill 10. Jac. Resolved if one make a Lease of a Mannour reserving Rent and afterwards the Lessor grants the Reversion of forty acres thereof now if an Action of Debt be brought by the Grantee he may aver the rate of the Acre and if the Defendant plead Nil debet per patriam the Jury shall rate the value and although the value be found less by the Jury then the Plaintiff surmiseth yet the Plaintiff shall recover after the proportion For Acts in Law no Attornement is necessary as if a Lease made for years reserving a Rent which is assigned to a Woman for Dower she shall have the Rent without Attornement In Cambels case upon an Elegit returned that the Lessor was seised in Fee and that by vertue of the Judgement the moity was delivered to the Plaintiff and for the Rent reserved upon the Lease for years before Judgement If a man top a Tree under the growth of 21. years and suffer the body to grow and afterwards when the boughes are grown out again he doth lop and top it again I shall pay no Tithes although the Tree was not priviledged at the first cutting by the opinion of the whole Court If a Debt be recovered in a Court of Record that Debt cannot be assigned over to any man by the opinion of the whole Court Mich. 10. Jac. Pasch 14. If Money be to be paid upon proof made there the triall shall be the proof to be made before but if it be to pay Money within 3. Moneths after proof there proof must be made first but if it be upon proof before A. then proof being made before A. this extending proof shall tie the party but Warburton held the contrary and he resembled this to a surmise to have a prohibition which is no binding proof for the Jury may pass against the proof in the surmise when a Bond is to pay Money upon proof this is a legal proof by Law if it be laid generally to be paid by proof if it were by proof before two Justices or two Aldermen this shall be intended a sufficient proof when the Action shall be brought upon the Bond and if the Defendant say that due proof was not made then they shall say that before the two Justices c. it was proved by testimony before them and then the Judges shall judge whether it be a sufficient proof or not If I devise Lands to my Executors for three years for the payment of my Debts this is Assetts in the Executors hands but if I devise my Land to be sold for the payment of my Debts it is no Assets before it be sold Mich. 9. Jacobi It was held in the Common Pleas by the whole Court that in the Kings case the consideration of the Money paid is never to be proved Likewise in a common case of Bargain and Sale in consideration of Money paid where in truth none was paid yet it is good and the Bargainee is not tied to prove the Payment for the Bargainer may have an Action of Debt If a Legacy be granted out of Leases and a Suit in the Spiritual Court for this shall not be prohibited but otherwise it is if it were out of Fee Simple Lands HE le versus Frettenden Resolution upon two Cases upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes Videlicet A man possessed of Corn sels it and before two Witnesses sets out his Tithes and afterwards privately takes away his Tithes and the Parson sues him upon the Statute of treble Damages for not setting forth of Tithes and the Defendant proves by Witnesses that he set forth his Tithes yet this Fraud is helped for the words are without fraud or deceit In the second case one secretly sels his Corn to one who was not known and afterwards the Vendee commands the Vendor to cut the Corn which he doth and takes away the whole Corn without setting forth his Tithes and the Question was who should be sued for the Tithes and the Court held the first Vendor should be sued for it was fraudulent If a man be found guilty of Felony and after receives his Pardon he shall not be Legalis home to pass upon a Jury If a Venire facias be against an Arch-bishop the Venire facias shall be Tam milites quam alios liberos c. because he is a Lord of the Parliament If a man be obliged in a Statute staple his Copy-hold Land is not extendable but it is upon a Statute of Bankrupt If a man have Common in three Acres and purchase one of the three Acres his Common is extinct If a man of the Cinque Ports shall come to London he may be there arrested and shall not have the Priviledge of the Cinque Ports Difference between those things which are in the Prender and such things that are in the Render for if I take not such things as are in Prender according to my Prescription it is void If I have Estovers in Woods to be taken every other year if I
omit to take them every other year I cannot take them in the third year But for Rent and such other things that are in the Render I ought to have it when ever I demand it as it best pleases me And note that in such case one prescribed for eight Loads of Wood to be cut and taken as appertaining to a Messuage which was held naught by the whole Court for the Prescription should be laid for Estovers to be imployed upon Repairs of the said Messuage or to be spent in it for a man cannot prescribe to have a Prescription to come and cut down my Wood which is as much as I that have the Free-hold can do For the claim to take and sell my Wood cannot be good And the Court held it a good Prescription to prescribe to have Common every other year although you shew not the Commencement as to shew what time of the year when it begins If a man hath Common of Pasture in divers Closes and parcels of Ground where he hath some Land of his own there and in all other cases where one is to prescribe he need not to make his Title to every peice but to say he hath Common in loco in quo c. in t alia and need not to speak of the rest of the Land in the residue of the Feild because he hath Land of his own Common appendant belongeth to arrable Land not to Pasture Land If two Issues be joyned and in the awarding the Venire facias these words Videlicet Quoad triandum tam exit istum quam praedictum alium exit superius junct were omitted and after a Verdict such Default was moved in Arrest of Judgement and the Exception over-ruled and held good notwithstanding that omission The whole Court were of opinion that local things shall not be made transitory by laying the Action in a forrain Shire as for Corn growing in one Shire and an Action of Trover brought in another COmes Cumbr. versus Comitem Dorset It was moved by the Defendant that whereas the Plaintiff had prosecuted a Distring Jur. and onely eleven of the Jury appeared and the Inquest remained to be taken for want of Jurors and that at such time neither Plaintiff nor Defendant desired a Tales and afterwards the Defendant in another Terme prayed a Tales of that Writ which the Plaintiff had prosecuted and the Court denied to grant it because he prayed not a Tales when the Distress was retorned and if he would have a Tales he must purchase anew a Plur. distring and if then the Jury fill not the Defendant may pray a Tales and the Court ought to grant it And note upon the first Habeas Corpus the Defendant shall not have a Tales but in Default of the Plaintiff IF the Chamberlain of the County Palatine of Chester make an insufficient Return to the Court of Common Pleas upon a Writ issued out of that Court the Sheriff shall be amerced because the Sheriff is the Officer responsible to the Court. The King hath power to make and create a Leet anew where none was before A Distress is incident of Right but in a Court Baron a Prescription must be laid to distrain J. Rogers versus Powell My Lord Cook held that the Surrender of a Copy-hold in Tail is not any Discontinuance and Justice Foster of the same opinion In Doctor Husseys case in a Ravishment de gard wherein the Judgement is penal the Habeas Corpus was denied by the Court to be amended being a blank Writ after a Verdict but was adjudged Error For the Proviso in the Statute of Jeofailes 18 Eliz. excepts Actions upon penal Statutes One Jury was impannelled of the Town of Southampton and called to the Bar and made Default and the men of that Town shewed to the Court a Grant made to the Inhabitants of that Town that no Return should be made of the men of that Town to be of any Jury and prayed the Allowance of their Charter and the Court appointed them to plead their Charter and it was done accordingly TRier versus Littleton A special Verdict was found whether Fraud or not Fraud and the Jury did not finde the Fraud expresly but they found Circumstances that the Deed might seem thereby to be fraudulent but the Court will not adjudge it Fraud where the Jury do not expresly finde the Fraud for the Judges have nothing to do with matter of Fact and so by the whole Court no Fraud Tenant for Life Remainder for Life Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee the first Tenant for Life suffereth a Recovery the Remainder in Tail is barred although the second Estate for Life be no party Baron Feme seised of the Wives Land for Life of the Wife Remainder to the Husband and Wife in Tail and afterwards the Husband doth bargain and sell the Land by Deed inrolled and a Precipe is brought against the Bargainee and he voucheth them in Remainder this is a good Recovery to barr the Estate Tail If an Information be brought against three upon the Statute of Maintenance and two of them appear and the third doth not appear the Plaintiff may declare against the two that do appear before the other appears for it is but a Trespass and Contempt as in Trespass and Conspiracy but it is otherwise in Debt upon a joynt Contract for there the Plaintiff cannot declare against one untill the Process be determined against the other by the opinion of the whole Court If Judgement be entred in Trespass of Oct. Hillarii the Writ to inquire of Damages may bear teste of any other Return of that Terme besides of Octab. Hillarii for the Terme is as one Day and so hath been adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the upper Bench but it is otherwise held in the Common Pleas. If a Bargain and Sale be void in part it is void in all If an Officer or priviledged person of the Court of Common Pleas sue another priviledged man of any other Court whatsoever yet he of the Common Pleas that first sued shall force the other priviledged person to answer in the Common Pleas but if a priviledged man be sued with another as Executor no Priviledge lies Summons and Severance lies between Executors Plaintiffs and if one of the Executors be outlawed or excommunicated he may be demanded and if he comes not shall be severed by an award without Process after he hath appeared and the other shall proceed without him but if he had not appeared then Summons and Severance shall issue out against him FLetcher versus Robson An Extent upon a Statute Merchant issued out against Robson the Cognisor and the Sheriff returned that the Cognisor was possessed of divers Goods and seised of Lands which he delivered to the Cognisee and that the Cognisee accepted of the Land and because the Sheriff did not return that he had not any other Lands Goods or Chattels it was
he be Lord or Free-holder The best badge of truth is the usage of taking the profit of the Trees 11 H. 4. rot 80. Where the Court ex officio should inquire and that omitted the Court may supply it but where an Attaint lyeth that is not to be supplied as in a Valore Maritagii the value is the point of the Writ and if that be omitted by the Jury never to be supplied by Writ Cheyneys case Valore Maritagii and intrusion were at the Common Law before the Statute and the Statute doth but inlarge the Common Law for by the Statute the Judgement is otherwise then at the Common Law It is vain to plead the Execution of a Writ of Seisin upon a Recovery but to plead that he did enter MIch 10. Jac. If I purchase Land by a name and alleadge it to be in a wrong Parish or Shire it is good notwithstanding the mistake by the Court. A stranger shall be bound by a Law made for the publique good but he must come within the place where it was made The King cannot grant precedency in publique things as to go by Water or by passage on the Land as by Coach if a Bond bear Date Super altum mare then it must-be sued onely in the Admiral Court otherwise it cannot be sued there Every Bishop hath his Cathedral and Councel and the Councel and Bishop there decide matters of Controversie the Prebends have their names from their affording of help to the Bishop and in time of the vacancy of the Bishop the Arch-bishop is Guardian of the Spiritualties and not the Dean and Chapter TRin. 14. Jac. rotulo 1810. Birtbrook versus Battersby Exception raken after Triall The Action was laid in Westmerland and the Jurata written at the end of the Record was Ebor. ss ura Inter c. and recites the Day of Triall in the County of York and the place where the Triall was at York and prayed that it might be amended and it was granted to be amended by the whole Court INt. Bullen Jarvis The Venire facias was made in this Form Videlicet Liberos legales homines de B. and it should have been De vicineto de B. and it was notwithstanding held good and amendable by the Roll for it shall be intended that the Jurors are inhabiting in the Town of B. although the Sheriff returns the Jurors of other places and none of them be named of B. and the Venire facias was returned by A. B. Ar. without naming him Vic. and it was amended by the Court. GRiffin versus Palmer Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 924. Issue taken whether the Lands contained in the Fine were ancient Demesne or not pretending they were parcell of the Mannour of Bowden in the County of Northampton which was pretended to be ancient Demesne and the Doomesday Book was brought into the Court and by that Book it appeared that the Mannour of Bowden was in the County of Leicester and not in the County of Northampton but the Councel affirmed that the Mannour was both in the County of Leicester and Northampton but it valued not for the Doomsday Book was against the Plaintiff The Court was moved to amend a Venire facias which was Album Breve but the Court would not grant it although the Sheriffs name was put to the Pannell but if the Sheriff upon the Venire facias had returned that the Execution of that Writ did appear in a certain Pannell annexed to that Writ and had not put his name to the Writ of Venire facias but to the Pannell in such case the Court would have amended the Venire facias Lessee at will cannot grant one his Estate if one occupy with Tenant at will this is no Disseisin to the Lessor If a Tenant for seven years suffer Trees to grow above the age of 21. years they are Timber and it is waste to cut them Tenant at will shall pay his Rent when he holdeth over his terme but Tenant at sufferance shall not pay any Rent If a man holdeth over his terme and pay his old Rent he shall be accounted Tenant at will If one being sick giveth Notes to make his Will and after by infirmity of sickness he becometh so weak that his memory faileth him and these Notes are made into a Will this is a good Will otherwise it is if he become lunatique after the Notes given MIch 15. Jacobi One Warter was committed to the Fleet by the Lord Treasurer of England and the Prisoner was brought to the Common Pleas by Habeas Corpus which was returned and no cause of the Commitment expressed and for that cause the Prisoner was set at liberty and bailed TRinity Terme 15. Jacobi Hanson one of the Attorneys of the Common Pleas delivers a Note to the Sheriffs Clerk of the names of divers Jurors that were to be returned and of divers others that were not to be returned in a case concerning one Butler and for this Offence he was put out of the Roll of Attorneys In Spilmans case if I have Estovers in Land and cut down Estovers and a stranger taketh away the Estovers I shall have an Action against him that taketh them away although he have there Common of Estovers also If the Husband sow the Ground and die the Executors and not the Heir shall have the Corn but if the Father sow the Land and dieth or the Heir sow the Land and the Wife recover Seisin in Dower she shall have the Corn. The setting open a Shop on the Sabbath day is punishable by Statute Law and so is a House of Bawdry and not to be dealt with by the high Commissioners So long as the Land is occupied by him that hath the Fee-simple which did formerly belong to the Order of the Cistercians it shall pay no Tithes but if he let it for years or life the Tenant shall pay Tithes HIll 11. Jac. rotulo 90. A Recovery was had upon a Writ of Entry in le post for a common Recovery between Hartley and Towers in the County of Bucks the Attorney who prosecuted the Recovery by negligence did not file the Writ of Entry which was prosecuted orderly and all Fees paid when the Recovery was passed And in Easter Terme 14. Jac. it was moved that the Writ of Entry might be filed and it was granted although the Tenant was dead the Writ of Entry was returnable Octabis Purificationis MIch 14. Jacobi My Lord Hubbard Justice Warburton and Winch held that when there were but three Judges of the Common-Pleas they might argue Demurrs and if two of them were of one minde and one of the other the Judgement should be given according to their opinions My Lord Cook said that for the Body of the Church the Ordinary is to place and displace in the Chancell the Freehold is in the Parson and it is parcell of his Gleab Tpespass will
lie by the Heir for pulling down the Coat-Armor c. of his Ancestors set up in the Church A Pew cannot belong to a House Fraud shall never be intended except it be apparent and found and that conveyance which at the time of the making was good shall never by matter ex post facto be adjudged to be fraudulently made for before primo Eliz. at the Common Law A conveyance made for natural affection without valuable consideration is not to be avoided none shall avoid it but such as come in upon valuable considerations Lands devised to one in Tail upon condition that he shall not alien and for Default of such the Remainder to R. in Tail this is a Condition and no Limitation by the whole Court and the Heir at the Common Law may enter for the Alienation Matters of instance which are between party and party as for Tithes and Matrimony are not to be dealt withall by the high Commissioners if they proceed inverso ordine that cannot be holpen in the Common Pleas but by superior Magistrate if they be Judges of the cause If one in Norfolk come within another Dioces and commit Adultery in another Dioces during the time of his residence he may be cited in the Dioces where he committed the Offence although he dwell out of the Dioces by Cook Warburton and Winch. If the King grant Lands to A. and his Heirs Males and doth not say of his Body he is but Tenant at will Tamen quaere A Deputy of an Office for Bribery cannot make his Master be punished corporally but pecuniarily equity shall not barr me of the benefit of Law Note the Probate of Wils and Administrations did not belong to the Ordinary originally but to the Common Law If two Aliens be at Issue the Inquest shall be all English but if between an Alien and Denizen that Inquest shall be de medietate Linguae 21 H. 6. 4. A Judgement given against a dead person is not void but Error 28. Ass 17. A Juror was committed to the Fleet For making his Companions stay a whole Day and a Night having no reason for it and without the Assent of any of the rest of his Fellows and after was bailed but not untill the Court was advised 8 E. 3. 75. In a Writ of Estate Probanda every Juror ought to be of the Age of 42. years If I grant Land to one and his Heirs in the Premises of the Deed Habendum to him and the Heirs of his Body he shall have the Land in Tail and the Fee-simple after the State in Tail when the Estate is certain in the Premises the Habendum shall not controll it If one make two Executors one of seventeen years of Age and the other under Administration during the minority is void because he of seventeen years old may execute the Will of Administration during the minority in such case be granted and the Administrator brings his Action the Executor may well release the Debt Pigot and Gascoins case If a Record go once to Triall and warning given if the first Attorney be alive the Plaintiff is not tied to give warning again but if the Attorney be dead he is If no place of Payment be in a Will which appointeth Money to be paid there must be a Request to pay the Money for he is not bound to seek all England over for him otherwise it is if it were by Bond. In every case where the Plaintiff might have Judgement against the Defendant there if the Plaintiff be non-suit the Defendant shall have his Costs if the Plaintiff be non-suit TRin. 11. Jac. In cases of remitting causes from the inferior Judge the Arch-deacon cannot remit the cause to the Arch-bishop but he must remit it to his Bishop and he to the Arch-bishop It was held by the Court that one might distrain for a Legacy In a special Verdict the Plaintiff must begin to argue first OLive versus Hanmer A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement by Nil dicit for want of a Warrant of Attorney and the Record certified and a Certior are to the Clerk of the Warrants and Error assigned for want of a Warrant And the Court was moved that a Warrant might be filed and it was granted and a Warrant filed accordingly Pasch 12. Jac. An Action was brought against Baron feme and an Attorney appeared for the Husband alone and the Court held it was the Appearance of Baron feme in Law PAsch 12. Jacobi Sheriff versus Whitsander One Judgement was confessed in Trin. 42. Eliz. rotulo 504. And afterwards in Trinity Terme 43. Eliz. the Defendant brought a Writ of Error bearing Date the 12. of May Anno 43. and upon that Writ the Record was certified 25. May and afterwards Error was assigned in the upper Bench for want of a Warrant of Attorney by the Defendant And Mich. 43. 44. Eliz. the Warrant of Attorney was received and entred upon Record by Order of Court of Common Pleas. And the like was Pasch 2. Jac. rotulo 1956. Int. Bathgrone and Smith and the like Mich. 1. Jac. rotulo 1306. Inter Smith Kent CRane versus Colpit Question was whether the Attornement of an Infant be good or not and by the whole Court it was held good by three Reasons First he gives no Interest Secondly it is to perfect a thing Thirdly he is a Free-holder IT was held in the case of Gage an Attorney who as an Administrator brought an Action of Priviledge that his Priviledge ought not to be allowed And after a Bill was filed against Drury an Attorney as Executor and held that the Bill would not lie but in both cases the Suit should be by Original BEarbrook versus Read The name of Confirmation must stand for Sir Francis Gawdy was christened Thomas and confirmed Francis by that name he must be called SIr Henry Compton was sued for Cloathes of his Wife bought without his command or privity and the whole Court were of opinion that if the Wife should buy Merchandises and thereof make Cloathes and wear those Cloathes although the Husband know nothing of them yet he shall pay for them PAsch 10. Jac. The Court was moved to know whether the Wife of a Bankrupt can be examined by the Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupt and they were of opinion she could not be examined For the Wife is not bound in case of high Treason to discover her Husbands Treason although the Son be bound to reveal it therefore by the Common Law she shall not be examined An Infant shall not be examined If an Administration be granted to one during the minority of two Infants and one of them dieth the Administration continueth still Actions of Debt LOvelace versus Cocket Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 1001. Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for the Paiment of Money at a
matter of form For if the Jury finde a prior grant of the Queen to the Plaintiffs Lessor although it be at another Court it is sufficient and so by consequence the day is not materiall in substance which mark But Williams Justice and the rest held the traverse to be naught for by that the Jury should be bound to finde the Copy such a day by such a Steward which ought not to be and that it was matter of substance not helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. DArby versus Bois Hill 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for an House in London and upon not guilty pleaded The Jury found a speciall Verdict And the case was Tenant in tail of divers Messuages in London 7 January 44 Eliz bargains and sels the said Houses to J. S. and delivers the Deed from off the Land the 8. of January the same yeer Indentures of Covenants were made to the intent to have a perfect recovery suffered of those houses and the ninth of January after a Writ of right is sued in London for those Messuages returnable at a day to come And the tenth of January the same yeer the Tenant in tail makes livery and seisin to J. S. of one of those Houses in the name of all And the other Messuages were in Lease for yeers and the Lessees did not atturn And the question was if the Messuages passed by the bargain and sale or by the livery And it was adjudged that they passed by the bargain and sale And Yelverton took a difference between severall Conveyances both of them Executory and where one of them is executed presently as in Sir Rowland Heywoods Case where divers Lands were given granted leased bargained and sold to divers for yeers the Lessees were at election whether they would take by the bargain and sale upon the Statute of 27 H 8. or by the demise at the Common Law But otherwise it is if one be executed at first for then the other comes too late as it is in this Case for by the very delivery of the bargains and sale the Land by the custome of London passes without inrollment for London is excepted and this custome was found by the Verdict And therefore it being executed and the Conveyance being made perfect by the delivery of the Deed without any other circumstances the livery of sesin comes too late for it is made to him that had the Inheritance of the Messuage at that time And the possession executed hinders the possession executory for if a bargain and sale be made of Land and before inrollment the bargain takes a deed of the said Land this hinders the inrollment because the taking of the livery did destroy the use which passed by the bargain and sale which was granted by the Court. And another reason was given because it appeared that the intent of the parties was to have the Land passe by the bargain and sale because it was to make a perfect Tenant to the Precipe as appears by the subsequent acts as the Indentures Covenant and the bringing the Writ of Right c. All which will be made frustrate if the livery of seisin shall be effectuall and when an Act is indifferent it shall be taken most neer to the parties intents that may be if a man hath a Mannor to which an advowson is appendant and makes a Deed of the Mannor with the appurtenances And delivers the Deed but doth not make livery of seisin yet now although the Deed in it self was sufficient to passe the Advowson yet because the party did not intend to passe it in Posse but as appurtenant if the Mannor will not passe no more shall the Advowson passe alone as it was agreed 14 Eliz in Andrews Case Which mark And the whole Court gave Judgment accordingly that the Defendant who claimed under the bargain sale should enjoy the Land CHalloner versus Thomas Mich. 6. Jacobi A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement given in Ejectment in the Courâ— of Carmarthen and Yelverton assigned the Error because the Ejectment was brought de aquae cursu called Lothar in L. and declares upon a Lease made by D. de quidam rivulo aquae cursu And by the opinion of the whole Court the Judgement was reversed for rivulut seâ— aque cursus lye not in demand nor doth a precipe lye of it nor can livery and seisin be made of it for it cannot be given in possession but as it appears by 12 H. 7. 4. the Action ought to be of so many Acres of Land covered with water but an Ejectment will well lye by if a stang for a precipe lies of them and a woman shall be indowed of the third part of them as it is 11. E. 3. But if the Land under the water or River do not pertain to the Plaintiffe but the River onely then upon a disturbance his remedy is onely by Action upon the Case upon any diversion of it and not otherwise Which observe VVIlson versus Woddell Mich. 6. Jacobi The Grand-father of the Plaintiffe in an Ejectment being a Copy holder in fee made a surrender thereof to L Woddell in fee who surrendred it to the use of Margery I. for life who is admitted c. But L Woddell himself never was admitted The Grandfather and Father dye the Son who is Plaintiffe was admitted and enters upon the Land Margery being then in possession and the Defendant then living with her as a servant in those Tenements and this was the speciall verdict And Judgment was given for the Plaintiffe And the Court was of an opinion that the Defendant was found to be a sufficient Trespassor and Ejector though he be but a Servant to the pretended owner of the Land because the Verdict found that the Defendant did there dwell with Margery And in such case he had the true title and had made his entry might well bring his Action against Master or Servant at his election And perhaps the Master might withdraw himself that he could not be arrested And secondly it was adjudged that the surrender of J. S. of a Copy-hold is not of any effect untill J. S. be admitted Tenant And if I. S. before admittance surrender to a stranger who is admitted that that admittance is nothing worth to the estranger For J. S. had nothing himself and so he would passe nothing and the Admittance of his grantee shall not by implication be taken to be the admittance of himself for the admittance ought to be of a Tenant certainly known to the Steward and entred in a Roll by him and it was held that the right and possession remained still in him that made the surrender and that is descended to his Heir who was the Plaintiffe And they took a difference between an Heir to whom the Copy descended for he may surrender before admittance and it shall be good because he is by course of the Law foe the custome that makes him Heir
by the whole Court held to be a condition but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff for doublenesse in the plea. BRown versus Dunri Hill 15. Iac. rotulo 1819. The Defendant made cognizance c. as Bailiff M. Walker Widow Administrator c. R. W. for one rent charge of 6 l. granted by one Warner to the said R. and M. his wife for life of the VVife And the said R. by the said writing granted c. That if it should happen the said yearly Rent to be behind and not paid in part or in all by the space of ten dayes next after any Feast c. being lawfully demanded that then c. the said Warner c. ten shillings nomine paene for every default and that then it should be lawfull to the said W. and M. and their Assigns to enter into the premises and distrain as well for the rent as for the nomine paene and shews that the rent was behind in the life of the Husband and that he dyed intestate and that administration was committed to the woman and made cognisance for the rent due at such a Feast in the life of the Husband and being then behind and the issue was that the Grantor was not seised and after a tryall diverse exceptions were taken one was for that a demand was not alledged another was that the cognisance was made as Bailifle to the Administrator when as the woman by the survivorship should have the rent Another was that it is not alledged that the rent was behind by ten dayes next after the Feast and the exceptions upon debate at diverse dayes were over-ruled First the demand is not necessary for the Distress is a sufficient demand as it was adjudged in Iaces case The second was because the cognisance as Administrator are void idle and superfluous and for the ten dayes it was good because that predicto tempore quo c. It was behind and adjudged by the whole Court for the Advowant SLoper versus Alen Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3002. Replevin upon the taking of 40. Sheep the issue was that the Sheep were not levant and couchant and found by a speciall verdit that twenty Sheep were levant and couchant and that twenty Sheep were not levant and couchant and it was held upon the reading of the Record that the Plaintiff should have his Judgment BVrton versus Cony Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 2044. The Defendant avows for a rent charge granted to him for life by his Father issuing out of all his Lands in such a Town to have and to hold to levy and yearly to take the said annuity or annuall rent of c. during the naturall life of the said P. at two Feasts in the year to wit c. by equall portions the first payment to be made at the first and next Feast of the said Feasts which should next happen after the term of 8. years ended and determined specified and declared in the said will And if it should happen c. And averres in the avowry that there is not any term of years specified and declared in the said Testament before recited And note that in the premises of the Deed it is recited thus in fulfilling the Will or Testament of me the said T. bearing date such a date I have given c. And the Court held that the grant was present if no term was contained in the will and Judgment was given for the Advowant But after Judgment was entred upon Record an exception was taken because it was not averred that the Grantor was dead and it was allowed for a good exception but it came to late judgment being entred HEyden versus Godsulm Judgment for the Defendant who avowed for rent reserved upon a Lease for years and it was moved that the Plaintiff who brought the writ of Errour upon that Judgment ought to find bayle upon the writ of Errour by the Statute of 3. Iacobi and it was held by the greater number of the Judges that the Plaintiffe should not find bayle for Replevins are not within the Statute TVrny versus Darnes Trin. 17. Iac. rotulo 2887. Demurrer in a replevin upon a traverse of Lands when as the parties have not agreed of the quantity of Land The Avowry was that C. was seised of one Messuage two Barns one Mill c. and 100. acres of Land with the appurtenances in W. and held them of c. by fealty rent c. and suit of Court c. And the Plaintiff prayed in aide and he joyned and alledges that he was seised of 70. acres of Land with the appurtenances in his demesne as of Fee and held them of G. by fealty and rent c. and suit of Court and traverses that he held the Tenements of the said G. as if his Mannor of W. in manner and form as c. and a speciall demurrer and one cause was because he denies not the seisin of the said services but only denies and traverses the tenure and therefore they pretended that the plea contained double matter and was a negative pregnant and secondly whether the Seisin or Tenure be traversable and the Plea was held good by Hubberd and Warburton RIchards versus Young Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 104. vel 1700. A Replevin brought for taking of Cattel at Aller in a certain place called Land Mead the Defendant avows as Bailiff of Sir John Davies the Kings Serjeant containing four Acres for damage fesant the Plaintiff pleads in Barr that Henry Tearl of Hunt was seised of the Mannor of Aller whereof one Messuage c. was parcell and customary Land and devisable by Copy of Court Roll and that within the said Mannor there was a Custome that every customary Tenant of the said Messuage hath been used to have Common of Pasture in the said place called Land Mead rhe Issue was without that that within the said Mannour with the appurtenances whereof c. is and time out of mind was a custome that every customary Tenant of the laid Messuage c. had Common of pasture in manner and form c. and Serjeant Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no custome alledged because it did not appear in the pleading that the place where the taking was supposed to be was within the said Mannor and no custome of the Mannor could extend forth of the Mannor but he ought to prescribe in the Mannor and note he ought to have pleaded that the place in which c. was parcell of the Mannor and then the Plea had been good In a Replevin upon an Avowry for Rent the Plaintiff for part pleadeth payment for the other part an Accord the one Issue is found for the Paintiff and the other for the Defendant the Plaintiff shallrecover his costs and damages and the Defend shall have Judgement of Return habend and no costs and damages I think otherwise it is if the Avowries be severall then on both
Winch held that the Plaintiffe should not be barred for the Misnomer and for the second he held that his house was within the Statute of Chaunterys and so the interest in the King H. 6. And so the Lease made by the Master of the Hospitall void Dyer 246. 287. And Warburton held the Plaintiffe should be barred upon both points SWynerton versus Mills Hill 14 Jacobi rotulo 2049. In a Replevin the Defendant a vows for a rent charge reserved by a Copiholder who is seised in Fee and made a Lease by the license of the Lord reserving Rent at foure Feasts or within one and twenty days being lawfully demanded and afterwards the Copiholder surrendred one moity in Fee to a stranger and afterwards surrendred the reversion of the other moity to another to which the Termer atturned and so avowed for Rent The Plaintiffe pleaded in Barâ— that he was seised of a Close adjoyning to the place in which c. and put therein his Cattell and that they escaped by fault of inclosure and issue taken upon that And after a Verdict by default those exceptions were taken to the Avowry in Arrest of Judgement First because it appeared by the Advowry that the Copiholder had surrendred a Reversion which could not be because a Copiholder is a Tenant at will and so could not have a reversion for he cannot make a Lease for yeers without the license of the Lord but this exception was over-ruled by the Couâ—t Secondly because there was no Atturnment alledged in the first surrender And it was held no exception because the Rent for which he avowed was reserved by the Copiholder by the second surrender to which the Termer had atturned And also the Court said that an Atturnment is not necessary for a Copiholder because there is no time when the Terme should atturn For before the surrender he cannot atturn and after the surrender and admittance it is too late And the Copihold estate is like an estate raised by uses or devise in which an Atturnment is not necessary As also in an estate raised by Fine and the like an Atturnment is not necessarie for if the Termer will not atturn he is compellable by Law as by a Quid juris clamat but a Copiholder hath no means to make the Termer atturn if he refuse And thirdly in the conclusion of the Advowry he doth not say that the Rent was behind such a day and one and twenty dayes after at least and this exception was disallowed because the distresse is a sufficient demand of the Rent and it appears that the day of the taking of the distresse was one and twentie dayes after the Feast at which the Rent was due and Judgment was given for the Advowant and note that a Covenant to distrain is idle for a man may distrain of common right HOwell versus Sambay Mich. 13 Jacobi rotulo 2009. In Replevin the Defendant a vows for a Rent charge and a Nomine pene granted by Tenant in tail generall and one Fine levied afterwards and the use expressed the Plaintiffe replies and saies that the Grantor had only an interest for life and so makes inducement and traverses the use of the Fine The Defendant demurrs And held by the Court that the Grantee was not seised in tail nor to the use of the Fine And it was said that in this case that it was necessary for the Advowant to plead the Fine with the estate tail for if the Tenant in tail grant a Rent charge and dye no Fine being levied and the estate tail discends the issue in tail is not chargable with the Rent And note the Advowry was as well for the Rent as for the Nomine pene and no speciall demand was alledged in pleading the Rent and it was adjudged by the Court a naughty advowry as to the Nomine pene but good for the Rent as it hath been adjudged in one Mildmaies Case COtterell versus Harrington Pasch 6. Jacobi rotulo 545. In a Replevin the Defendant avows for an Annuity for 20 d. granted for yeers payable upon demand and alledges a demand the Plaintiffe demands either of the Deed and by the Deed it appeared that for a hundred and ten pound one Rent of twenty pound was granted for eight yeers and another for 20 l. for two yeers if E. R. and T. should so long live the Plaintiffe pleads the Statute of Usury and sets forth the Statute and a speciall usurious Contract If it had been layed to be upon a loan of Money then it was Usury but if it be a bargain an Annuity it is no usury But this was alledged to be upon a lending VVOod versus Moreton Hill 6 Jacobi rotulo 1802. In Replevin the Defendant advows to have Common Appendant out to his house and Land the Plaintiffe saith that he had Common Appendant to his House and Land And the Defendant to avoid the Common saith that the Commoner sold to the Plaintiffe five Acres of the Land to which the Common is appendant pretending that he should not have Common for that Land being but parcell of the Land to which the Common was appendant Common Appurtenant cannot be to a House alone purchasing of part of Common Appendant doth not extinguish the Common otherwise it is of Common Appurtenant And it was pretended to be Common Appurtenant because it is to a House and Land whether by severance his Common is gone and held to be common Appendant and Judgment given for the Plaintiffe MOrse versus Well Replevin for Common of Pasture the casewas that the Father was seised of two yard Land with Appurtenances and had Common of Pasture for four rother Beasts three Horses and sixty Sheep and he demised part of the said two yard Lands in being And whether the Common should be apportioned and if it should be apportioned whether the Prescription failed because the issue was taken that he and all those c. had Common in the said two yard Land A Release of Common in one Acre is a Release of all If I have Common Appurtenant and purchase part the Common is gone but otherwise it is of Common Appendant And note this Common was Common Appendant and the purchasing of Common Appendant doth not extinguish the Common and Judgment was given for the Commoner by the whole Court HVghes versus Crowther Trin. 6 Jacobi rotulo 2220. In a Replevin a Lease for years made to Charles H. and the said A. T. to have and to hold from c. for sixty years if they live so long Charles dyed in this case Judgment was given that the Lease was ended by the death of Charles but otherwise it had been if it had been for life BIcknall versus Tucker Trin. 9 Jacobi rotulo 3648. in a Replevin the case was whether a Fine with five years will bind the Copy-holder in remainder there was a Copy-hold granted to three for lives to have and to hold successively the
to have distrayned the Cattell of the Lord damage fesant and observe his BRaxall versus Thorold Trin. 8. Jac. In Replevin for the taking of 4 Oxen at Coringham in the County of Lincoln in a place called Dowgate leys Sept. 6. Jac. The Defendant says the place contained four acres in Coringham magna which was his Free-hold and justifies the taking damage fesant The Plaintiff in his bar to the Avowry that the place where c. lies in a place called Harrerart quarter parcell of a great Common Field called E. in Coringham aforesaid and that the Plaintiff the said time and long before was seized of one Messuage and of 14. acres of Land Medow and Pasture with the appurtenances to the said Messuage belonging and that the Plaintiff and all they whose estate the Plaintiff had in the Tenements ought to have common and so prescribed to have common for him his Farmers Tenants c. for all comunable cattell levant couchant upon the Tenements c. And upon issue taken upon the Common it was found for the Plaintif and alledged in arrest of Judgment that it did not appear by the Barre to the Avowry in what place the Messuage and Land to which the Common did appertain did lie to wit whether it did lie in Coringham or in any other place or County and thisof necessity ought to have been shewed in certain because the tenure ought to be both of the place where the House and Land did lye and of the place where the Land did lye in which the Common was claimed and therefore of necessity ought to have been shewed incertain and shall not of necessity be intended to be in Coringham where the Common is For a Common may be appendant or appurtenant to Land in another County And the trvall shall be of both Counties and Judgement was arrested by the whole Court TRuelock versus Riggsby Mich. 8. Jacobi In Replevin for the taking of six Kine in a place called Brisley hill in Radley in the County of Berks the Defendant as Bailiff of one Read makes Conisance that the place where c. contains fifty acres and is parcell of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where c. is parcell and showes that E. 6. was seised of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where is parcell and granted it by Letters Patents to R. Leigh and divers other Lands by the name of the Coxleyes c. and amongst other particulars in the Patent the King granted Brisley hill in Barton and deduces the Free-hold of the Mannor of which the place In which c. is parcell to Read and he as Bailiff to him took the Kine damage Fesant the Plaintiff replies and shows that one Hide was seised of a Messuage and divers Acres of Land in Radley and that he and those whose estate he hath for himself his Farmers and Tenants used to have Common in the said place called Brisley hill in Radley when the said Feild called Brisley hill in Radley was fresh and not sowed all that yeare with their Cattell Levant and Couchant and when the Field was sowne with Corne and when the Corne was carried away untill it was referred and so justifie the putting in of six Kine using his Common because the Feild was not sown with Corne at the time to which the Defendant pleads and saies that part of the Feild called Brisley Hill in the Avowry named was at that time sown with Corn c. and the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for two reasons The first was because the Defendant in his Avowry referres the taking of the Cattell to another place then that set forth in the Avowry which is not in question and in which the Plaintiff claims no Common for the Plaintiff may claim Common in Brisley hill in Radley and the place named in the Defendants Avowry to which he referres his Plea is Brisley hill in Barton for Brisley hill in Radley is not named in the Avowry by any speciall name but onely by implication by this name the place in which c. and for that reason the rejoinder doth not answer the matter in the replication The second cause was because the Plaintiff claims Common when Brisley hill in Radley was unsown with Corn and the Defendant to that although his Plea should referre to the same Brisley yet hath he given no full answer for he saith that parcell of the said Feild was sowed with Corn and the Court held that sowing of parcell of the Feild shall not hinder the Plaintif from using his Common in the residue for that may be done by covin to deceive the Plaintiff of his Common for the Plaintif claiming his Common when the Field that is the whole Feild is sown shall be barred of his common by sowing of parcell of it notwithstanding that parcell be sowed the Plaintif shall have his common by the opinion of the whole court GOdfrey versus Bullein Mich. 8 Jacobi Bullein brought a Reple vin against Godfrey for the taking of six Beasts in such a place in Bale in the County of Norfolk the Defendant as Bailif of R. Godfrey makes conisance because before the time and at the time in which c. the said R. Geffrey was seised of a Court Leet in Baile of all the inhabitants and râ—â—dent within the Precinct of the Mannor of Baile to be holden within the Precinct of the Mannor as appertaining to his Mannor and shews how that he had used to have a Fine of ten shillings called a Leet Fine of all the cheif pledges of his Leet and if they failed to pay the Steward had used to amerce them that made default in payment shewed how that at a Court holden within the Mannor such a day it was presented that the Plaintif in the Replevin being an inhabitant in B. and resident within the Precinct of the Mannor made default in payment of the said Fine of ten shillings being then one of the cheif pledges of the Court by reason whereof he was amerced at five pounds which being not paid the Defendant took the Beasts and the Issue was whether Bullein at that court was a chief Pledge or no and the Venire to try his Issue was onely of the Mannor and found for the Plaintif and damages and costs to thirty pounds given against Geffrey upon which he brought a Writ of Error in the late Kings Bench and adjudged Error and the Judgement reversed for the Venire facias should have been both of Bail which was the Village as of the Mannor for although the Court be held within the Mannor yet the Leet it self is within the village of Baile and the Plaintiff was an inhabitant and resident within the village which village is within the Precinct of the Mannor and though Fleming cheif Justice held that nothing was in question but whether the Plaintiff was cheif pledge at the Court held within the Mannor or no and so nothing within the
village is in question or could come in Issue yet it was resolved by the whole Court but him that those of the village of Bail might well know whether the Plaintif being an inhabitant within the village in which the Leet was were a chief Pledge at the Court or no for to have cheif pledges doth properly belong to a Leet which Leet is within the village and therefore they of the Mannor cannot have so good knowledge of the matter as they of the Mannor and village together and therefore they all ought to have been of both as in the Case of Common or a way from one village to a house in another village this ought to be tried of both villages and so also of the Tenure of Land in D. held of the Mannor of Sale the triall must be as well of the village where the Land lies as of the Mannor of which the Land is holden as it was adjudged Hill 45. El. in the then Queens Bench in the Case between Lovlace and and Judgement was reversed and see 6 H. 7. and Arundels case in my Lord Cooks Reports BVrglacy versus Ellington Burglacy brought a Replevin against Ellington for the taking of his cattell c. the Avowant pleads that one W. B. was seised of the place in which c. in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seised died by reason whereof the Land descended to one Crist. his Daughter and Heir who took to Husband the Avowant the Plaintiff in his Barr to the Avowry confesses that W. B. was seised and that it descended to C. who took to Husband the Avowant but he further said that the 16 of April primo Jac. the Husband and Wife by their Deed indented and inrolled did bargain and sell the same Land unto one Missenden and a Fine levied by them and that M. the 30 of James bargained and sold it to F. M. in Fee and he being so seised licensed the Plaintiff to put in his cattell the Avowant replies if in the said Bargain and Sale made by the Husband and Wife a Proviso was contained that if the said Ellington should pay one hundred pounds a year after then c. and pleaded the Statute of 13 Eliz. of usury with an averment that the profits of the Land were of the value of twelve pounds by the year the Plaintif rejoyned that true it is there is such a clause in the Indenture but he further said that before the sealing of the Indenture it was agreed by word that the said Ellington should have and receive the profits and not the Plaintif and thereupon the Avowant demurres and the Case was thus Ellington bargains his Land to M for the payment of one hundred pounds a yeare after to be paid and that the Bargainee should have the profits the bargainor enters as upon a void Sale because of the statute of usury for by the Proviso â—he is to have the hundred pounds and ten pounds for the forbearance and by the Law he is to have the profits and the which did amount above ten pounds by the hundred the bargainee to avoid the usury pleaded an agreement by word before the sealing of the Bargain and Sale and the question arising upon this was if the Bargainee might plead this verball agreement for the avoiding of the Deed which did suppose the contrary and Moore of Lincolns â—nne counsell was of opinion that he could not put that maxime that every thing must be dissolved by that by which it is bound and his whole argument depended upon that and he cited divers Cases as 1 H. 7. 28. 28 H. 8. 25. 1 Eliz. Dier 16. 9. Rutlands Case 5 Rep. and Cheyney 6 Case there but the whole Court without any argument were of opinion that he might plead the verball agreement and avoid the usury and first they all agreed that when a Deed is perfected and delivered as his Deed that then no verball agreement afterwards may be pleaded in destruction thereof as it is in the Cases put but when the agreement is parcell of the Originall contract as here it is it may be pleaded and secondly otherwise it would bring a great mischief being the custome so to do by word but if it had been expressed within the Deed that the Bargainee should have the profits and that it was delivered accordingly that no agreement or assignment of the profits could now avoid it for it is an usurious contract and therefore the whole court gave Judgement for the Plaintif that he might well plead the agreement Actions of Trespass and Battery JOhnson versus Turner Trin. 44 Eliz. Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintifs house and the taking and carrying away his goods the Defendant justifies all the Trespasse the Plaintif as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods and the matter therein contained demurres upon the Defendants Barr the Defendant joins in demurrer in this form to wit because the Plaintif aforesaid as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods is sufficient demands Judgement and Judgement given in the Common Pleas for the Plaintiff and a Writ to inquire of Damages upon which Damages are assessed for the breaking of the House and taking the goods and whether the subsequent words to wit and the matter therein contained go to the whole matter in the Barr to wit to the carrying of the Goods away also for when the Defendant joyned in Demurrer with the Plaintiff he joyned specially to wit to the breaking of the House and taking the Goods but nothing of the carrying them away and so as to the carrying of them away nothing is put into Judgement of the court yet the Writ to inquire is for the whole and the Judgement also and the carrying of the Goods away being parcell of the matter and for which greater Damages are adjudged and that being not put into the Judgement of the Court by the Demurrer therefore the Judgement is erronious for there is a discontinuance as to the carrying of the Goods away which is part of the matter and this businesse concerned Mr. Darcy of the privy chamber concerning his patent for Cards PVrrell versus Bradley Pasch 1 Jacobi The Plaintif declares in Trespass wherefore by force and Arms such a day the Defendant did assault him and one Mare price six pounds from the person of the Plaintiffe then and there did take and Yelverton moved for the Defendant in arrest of Judgement and the Declaration was not good for the Plaintif did not shew any property in the Mare for he ought to have that it was his Mare or the Mare of the Plaintif for as it is laid in the Declaration the words may have two intendments that the property of the Mare was to the Defendant and then the taking was lawfull or that the property was in the Plaintif and then the taking was wrongfull and it being indifferent to whether it shall be taken most strongly against the Plaintif for his
John W. was seised of three hundred Acres of Land in R. aforesayd of which the place in question called G. is parcell and that 30 H. 6. the sayd John Whithing reciting that whereas N. de la moore 31 E. 1. the Plaintiffs Ancestor Son and heire of H. de la Moore grants to William de la Moore Corsum aque which runs from W. thorow the middle of the Land of the sayd M. And shews further that by meane discents it discends to the Defendant c and so justifies The Plaintiff replies if W. S. was seised of the place where c. and made a Lease thereof to him for yeares and traverses that the three hundred Acres of Land were parcell and Issue joyned upon that and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Defendant had not made any answer to the Plaintiff and so no Issue joyned for the Plaintiff layes the Trespass in G. in L. the Defendant sayes he was seised of three hundred Acres of which the place c. was parcell but he conveys no title to himselfe but by a course of water thorow the middle of the Land of M. but whose Land that was it doth not appeare and is another thing and therefore an Issue upon that which the Defendant doth not claime is voyd and although Issue be joyned yet it is not helped by the Statute of Jeofailes of 18 Eliz. or 32 H. 8. for it is as no Issue when it is of a thing not in question but if the Issue had been of a matter in question although ill joyned yet it is ayded as Nichols Case is 5 Rep. 43. upon payment pleaded without Deed And Doddridge and Crooke Justices agreed to that but Haughton seemed to incline that it was an Issue and so helped by the Statute FVller against Pettesworth Knight Mich. 11. Iacobi Fuller brought an Action of Trespass against Pettesworth and his Servant for breaking his Close and taking one Cow in D. in the County of B. One of the Defendants plead not guilty the Servant pleads that the Plaintiff holds of Sir Peter P. as of c. in the County aforesayd and for services behinde by the command of his Master he seised the Cow c. The Plaintiff traverses c. and one Venire facias was awarded out of both the Villiages and being found for the Plaintiff it was new moved in Arrest of Judgement by Finch of Grays Inne that two Venire facias ought to have been awarded because the Issue is of things in severall places for if there be severall Issues in one place one Jury shall be onely Impannelled but if in severall places for severall things locall severall Juries shall be but the whole Court held that one Jury onely should be impannelled and one Venu onely should be awarded out of both the places and it is all one as if it had been in one place but it had been otherwise if in severall Counties as 41 Eliz. DAme Petts Case Mich. 11. Iacobi In an Action of Trespass brought by the Lady Petts upon not guilty pleaded the Jury being at Bar the matters following came in question upon the evidence by Haughton and the other Justices If A. be seised of a great Close where c. and a Stranger enter and occupy part of the Close yet notwithstanding A. continues the posaession of the residue whether this shall preserve his possession in the residue and he shall be judged to be in possession of that because it is an intire thing 5 E. 4. 2. and 8 E. 3. 13. Seisin of part of the services is the seisin of the whole and so is Bettisworths Case 2. Rep. The possession of the House is the possession of the Land for the Lessee against his Lessor of that which passes by one demise But if a stranger enter and sever part by metes and bounds nothing is wrought by the possession of the residue Another question was this A Lessee for yeares of ten Acres paying twenty shillings Rent the Lessee is outed of parcell yet he payed all the Rent to him in Reversion the Lessor having notice of the enter whether this protects the Reversion so that nothing is gained by the entry but the interest of the Lessee and shall be no disseisin And Yelverton at the Barr was of opinion that it should be no Disseisin Rithen Sect. 590. saith That so long as the particular Tenant continues his possession so long is the reversion in the Lessor for in such case as to the Lessor the Lessee shall be alwayes deemed in possession by force of the Lease and the reason why the Lessee shall be adjudged in posaession of all as to the Lessor is because the Lessor cannot have notice of the alteration of the posaession for when the Lessee by his owne Act or sufferance doth a thing in alteration of the posaession of which by common intendment the Lessor cannot have or take notice there the Law will not prejudice the Lessor And see for that Farmers Case in the third Rep. 79. If Tenant for life levy a Fine having Land in the same Villiage this shall not bind the Lessor if five yeares pass before he take notice of what Land the Fine is levied And the same Law if Tenant for life make a Feofment to one who hath land within the same Village levies a Fine and in this cafe if the Lessee hath continually payd all his Rent the Lessor cannot intend or suspect but that the Lessee is absolute Tenant of the whole and in Farmers Case it is sayd That if the Lessor levy a Fine the Disseisee is barred without claime for it is impossible but he to whom the wrong is done shall presently know it But if he that hath the particular estate by Grant or trust reposed in him shall secretly practice although he pay the Rent and continue posaession yet it is otherwise But the Reporters opinion was that if in the principall case no Rent had been reserved then the Reversion had been devested by the entry for there had been no act done to mislead or hinder the knowledge thereof and also although rent be reserved and all payd yet if he had express notice thereof the reversion had been devested And secondly if it should be a Disseisin a great mischeif would follow for if a discent should be it would take away the Lessors entry and yet no fault in them because in common presumption the Lessee alwayes continued Tenant but Cook of a contrary opinion for he said it could not be denyed but that the Lessee is out of the posaession and then it follows of necessity that the Lessor must be out of his reversion And as to notice to make his claime he must take notice at his perill 4 M. Dyer 143. b. But note that this is when the Law intends that he may take notice which it will not intend in this Case Haughton was of opinion that it was a
a Fee simple conditionall and not an Estate tayl and he said that the sole question was if the Statute of Westminster 2. conevrted and changed Fee simple conditionall of copy-hold into an Estate tayl for if it be not an Estate tayl within this Statute it shall not be an Estate tayl at all for Littleton saith before the making of the said Statute these Estates were Fee simple conditionall and for that cannot be by prescription also he said that copy-hold Estate was so base an Estate that at the Common Law a copy holder had no remedy but only in the Court of the Lord But as to Littleton who sayth that he may have a Formedon in discender to that he saith that the Heire which hath Fee simple conditionall may have it by the Common Law for this was at the Common Law before the making of that Statute of Westminster 2. As it appears by 4. Ed. 2. Formedon 50. 10. Ed. 2. Formedon 55. And by Bendlowes in the Lord Barkleys case in the Commentaries 239. b. by Benlose where it is said by him that a Formedon in discender was not at the Common Law but in a speciall case where an Assise of Mortdancester would not serve the Issue that is if a man had Issue a Sonn and his Wife died and after that he takes another Wife and Land was given to him and to his second Wife and to the Heires of their two Bodyes begoten and they have another Sonn and the Wife dies and after the Father dies and a stranger abates there he sayth that before the Statute the youngest Soon could not have an Assise of Mortdancester and for that he shall have a Formedon in discender which was no other but a writ founded upon his Case see 10 of Ed. 2. Formedon 55. And for that when Littleton speakes of an Estate tayl of copy-hold that ought to be understood of Fee taile which may be Fee simple conditionall and so Littleton may be reconciled 〈◊〉 will well agree with himself also it seems that Copy-hold is ouâ—â—f the intent and meaning of the Statute of Westminster 2. For at the common Law in ancient times this was base Estate and not more in reputation then villinage and also if such an Estate then might be created of that which shall be perpetuall and no means to barr it for surrender of that doth not make any discontinuance and Recovery was not known till 12. Ed. 4. and he saith that in ancient time the name of Copy-holder was not well known for in ancient time they were called Tenants in Villinage and Tenants by copy is but a new terme see Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 12. b. and the old Tenures fol. 2. and Bracton lib. 2. charter 8. In gifts made to servants calleth them Villaines and Sokemen and in the old Tenures it is said that the Lords may expell them and upon this he inferred that if it be so baseâ— Tenure though it be of Lands and Tenements yet they shall not be intended to be within the intent of the makers of the Statute of Westminster 2. and also by a second reason that is that it was not the intent of the makers of the Statute that this should extend to any Lands but only to those which are free Lands for the parties are called Donees and Feoffees and the will of the Giver should be observed according to the forme in the Charter of his gift manifestly expressed by which it appears that it ought to be of such Land of which a gift may be made and also the Statute provides that if the Donee levy a fine that in right it should be nothing by which also it appears as to him it seemed that it ought to be of such Land of which a fine may be levied And also for a third reason which was the great Inconvenience which would ensue upon it for then the Donees have no meanes to dispose of that nor give that for the advancement of his Wife nor her Issues and also the Lord shall loose his signiory for the Donee shall hold of him in Reversion and not of the Lord and it is resolved in Heydens Case 3 Coke 8. a. That when an act of Parliament alters the service Tenure Interest of the Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the custome of the Mannor or in prejudice of the Tenant there the generall words of such act shall not extend to Copy-holders see the opinion of Manwaod cheife Baron there and he agreed that admitting it shall be an Estate taile that then Surrender shall not make discontinuance and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiffe his Clyent see Hill and Vpchars Case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench and the principall case was adjourned untill the first Saturday of the next Tearme See Hillari 7. Jacobi in this Book in Replevin the Plaintiff was non-suited between the same parties See also Pasche 9. Jacobi 149. Hillary 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Wallop against the Bishop of Exeter and Murray Clark IN a Quare impedit the case was Doctor Playford being Chaplaine of the King accepted a Benefice of presentation of a common person and after he accepted another of presentation of the King without any dispension both being above the value of eight pound per annum if the first Benefice was void by the Statute of 21 H. 8. chapter 13. or not was the question for if that were void by the acceptance of the second Benefice without dispensation then this remaines a long time voide so that the King was intituled to present by Laps and presented the Plaintiff the Statute of 21 H. 8. provides that he which is Chaplain to an Earle Bishop c. may purchase license or dispensation to receive have and keep two Benefices with cure provided that it shall be lawfull to the Kings Chaplaines to whom it shall please the King to give any benefices or promotions spirituall to what number soever it be to accept and receive the same without incurring the danger penalty and forfeiture in this Statute comprised upon which the question was if by this last Proviso Chaplaine of the King having a Benefice with cure above the value of eight pound per annum of the presentation of a common person might accept another Benefice with cure over the value of eight pound also of the presentation of the King without dispensation the words of the Statute by which the first Church is made void are and be it enacted that if any parson or parsons having one Benefice withcure of Soules being of the yearly value of eight pound or above accept and take any other with cure of Soules and be instituted and inducted in possession of the same that then and immediately after such possession had thereof the first Benefice shall be adjudged in the law to be void See Hollands case 4. Cooke 75. a. This case was not argued but the point only opened by Dodridge Serjeant
But in this case before Attornement the Grantee hath nothing and after Attornement the particuler Estate being granted it shall be drownd in the reversion Harris Serjeant the words of the devise are that his Feoffees and all other Persons which after his Death shall be seised shall be seised to the same uses before declared and of one Acre he hath not any Feoffees for of that the Feoffment was voyd and yet it was agreed that the devise was good as Lyngies Case was in 35. H. 8 cited by Anderson in Welden and Elkintons Case Commentaries 523 b. And he argued that though that when a conveyance may enure in severall courses yet it cannot enure for part in one course and part in another course and for that this devise enures as a devise of Land for one Acre and declaration of the use of the Feoffment foâ—…her Acre for it is agreed in Sir Rowland Haywards Case 2. 〈…〉 a. 6. Coke 18. a. Sir Edward Cleeres Case and also in this 〈◊〉 the devisor hath made expresse declaration that the Land shall passe by the Feoffment and that the Will shall be but a declaration of the use of the Feoffment and for that nothing shall passe by the devise with which the Justices seemed to accord and cited a case to be adjudged in the Kings Bench 40. Eliz. where the Father gives and grants Lands to his Son his heires with warranty and makes a Letter of Attorney within the deed to make Livery and adjudged that that shall not enure as a Covenant to raise a use for that that it appeares by the Letter of Attorney that his intent was that that should enure as a Feoffment and not as any other manner of conveyance see 14 Eliz. Dyer 311. 83. Master Cromwells Case and so it was adjudged accordingly Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench Gargrave against Gargrave Katherine Gargrave was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Sir Richard Gargrave Knight and the case was this The Father of Sir Richard Gargrave was seised of divers Tenements called Lyngell Hall in Lyngell Hall and of a Moore called Kingstey Moore in another Town and the Tenants of the said Father of Sir Richard have used to have Common in the said Moore and the said Father so being of that seised demised the said Tenements to the said Katherine Gargrave for her Joynture by these words by the name of Hingell Hall and certaine Land Meadow and Pasture in certainty and with all â—ands Tenements and Hereditaments to that belonging or with that occupied and enjoyed now or late in the Tenure of one Nevill and Nevill was Tenant of the said premises and had Common in Kingsley Moore upon which the question was if the said Katherine by this demise shal have Common in the said Moore or not And Hutton Serjeant argued that the said Katherine shall have Common in the said Moore for he said that the said demise shall be expounded according to the intent of the partie 〈◊〉 as it is agreed in Hill and Granges Case Commentaries 270. b. Where a man makes a Lease for yeares of a house and all the Lands to that belonging and though it is there agreed that Land cannot be appurtenant to a house yet this word appurtenant shall be taken in the effect and sense of usually occupied with the Messuage or lying to the house by which it appeares that the words are transferred from the proper signification to another to satisfie the intent of the parties for it is the office of the Judges to take and expound the words which the common People use to expresse their intent according to their intent and for that shall be taken not according to the very definition insomuch that it doth not stand with the matter but in such manner as the party used them And for that this grant shall amount to a new grant of Common in the said Moor for as it seems common or feeding for Cattell may be granted and passe by the name of Tenements Hereditaments or at least shall be included and comprised within the words Tenements and Hereditaments and so shall be construed as a thing occupied and injoyed with the said Messuages see Hen. Finches Case 39. Coke And it was an expresse endorsment upon the demise that the said Katherine should not have Common in the said Moore but it was agreed by all that this was vaine and idle and nothing worth but he urged that this shall have a favorable construction for that it was for Joynture which shall have as favorable construction as Dower And so he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and of the other part Nicholls Serjeant argued that this shall not amount to a new grant for he said that they are not apt words to receive such construction for he said that this is no Tenement or Hereditament no Common but only a Feeding for the Cattell of the Lessee in the wast of the Lessor see 20. Edw. 2. Fitzherbert admeasurement and it cannot passe as a thing used with the said house for that was not in Esse at the time of the grant and there is not any apt word to make a new grant â—nd he cited 〈◊〉 Iudgement in Action of wast between Arden and Darcy where Ardon was seised of the Mannor of Curball and also of Parkhall and makes a conveyance of the Mannor of Curball to divers uses and at this time parcell of the Mannor of Curball was occupied with Parkhall as parcell of that and after made another conveyance of all his Lands in England except the Mannor of Curball And adjudged that the Parke which is used with Parkhall shall not be within the exception Coke saith that it was only feeding and not Hereditament for the Inheritance of both was in the Lessor but if it be granted of feeding it shall be intended the same like feeding that the Tenant hath as if the King grant such Liberties as the City of London hath and that shall be good and so it was adjourned Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Cannige against Doctor Newman IN an Information upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. chapter 13. Of non-residency it was found by speciall Verdict that Doctor Newman was Incumbent invested in the Rectory of Staplehurst in the County of Kent and that hee was also seised of a house in Staplehurst aforesaid scituate within twenty yards of the said Rectory and that the mansion house of the said Rectory was in good repaire and that Doctor Newman held that in his hands and occupation with his one proper goods and did not let it to any other and that he inhabited in the said Messuage and not in the Parsonage the Statute of 21 H. 8 chapter 13. Provides that every Parson promoted to any Parsonage shall be personally resident and abiding in at and upon his said Benefice and in case any such spirituall Parson keep not residence at his Benefice as aforesaid but absent himself willfully by the space
condition to re-enfeoff and she with her Husband makes the re-enfeoffment it is good so a Woman being Lessee for Life and with her Husband attorn upon a Grant of Reversion is good and shall binde the Wife after the Death of the Husband 3 Ed. 3. 42. 4 Ed. 3. Attornment 12. 15 Ed. 3. Attornment also this Estate was made to the Wife when she was sole and for that it shall be accounted her folly that she would take such a Husband that would forfeit her Estate but with that agreed the reason of the Booke of 20 H. 6. 28. Where a woman Tenant was bound by the ceasing of her Husband and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and so it was adjourned see another argument of this case in Michaelmas Tearm 9. Jacobi 1611. by Haughton and Nicholls Serjeants Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Pitts against Dowse IN an Ejectione firme upon not guilty pleaded The Case was this A man makes his Will by these words I bequeath all my Lands to my Son Richard except my Chauntery Lands And I devise all my Chauntery Lands to be devided amongst all my Children men and women alike except my Son Richard And if Richard die without Issue the remainder to A. My second Son the remainder to B. My third Son the remainder to C. My fourth Son the remainder to my next of blood and so from Heire to Heire And so likewise I would to be done upon my Chauntery Lands and Tenements in case all my aforesaid Children die without Issue Then I would the one halfe of my Chauntery Lands to remaine to the next of kin and the other half to the Hospitall of M. And the question was what estate the Heire of the eldest Son shall have in the Chauntery Lands and it was argued by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant that the Heire of the eldest Son shall have estate tayl in the Chauntery Lands the Devisor devises no estate to Richard his eldest Son in the Chauntery Lands nor limitts any estate of that in certaine and for that he seemed that the youngest Sons and Daughters shall be Tenants in Common for life and by this manner of Interpretation every part of the Will shall be for first he excludes Richard himselfe so that he shall have nothing in that and then by the Limitation to the younger Children to be equally divided between them makes them Tenants in Common see 28. H. 8. 25. Dyer 155. And he cited Lewin and Coxes Case to be adjudged Michaelmasse 41. and 42. of Eliz. Pasche 42. Eliz. Rot. 207. Where a man devises Lands to his two Sons to be equally divided and adjudged that they are Tenants in Common so devise to two part and part like and equally divided and equally to be divided is all one and for that there is no other words to make an estate of Inheritance it shall be an estate for life and the remainder shall be directed according to the estates limited of the other Land And he seemed that the words in the last sentence all my aforesaid Children shall extend to Richard his eldest Son as well as to the others and so all the Will shall stand in his force which may be Objected that Richard the eldest Son shall be excluded out of the Possession and for that see 6. Eliz. Dyer 333. 29. Chapmans Case and also he cited one case to be adjudged Trinity 37. Eliz. Rot. 632. betweene Bedford and Vernam where a man deviseth all his lands in Alworth and afterwards purchaseth other Lands in the same Town and afterwards one comes to him to take a Lease of this Land newly purchased which the Testator refused to Let. And said that these Lands newly purchased should goe as his other Lands And upon his Death bed adds a Codycell to his Will but saith nothing of his purchased Lands and adjudged that the purchased Lands shall passe and so concluded and praied Judgement Harris Serjeant that it is a new Sentence and Richard is excluded and it shall be a good Estate tayl to the youngest Children and foresayd Children shall be intended them to which the Chauntery Lands are limited see Ratcliffes case 3. of Coke adjudged that they shall be Tenants in Common by the devise to he equally divided and thall not be surviving but every youngest Children shall have his part in tayl though that the first words do not containe words of Inheritance yet the last words in case all my Children die without Issue declares his intent that they should have an estate tayl see the 16. of Eliz. Dyer 339. 20. Claches Case that when he hath disposed of part devised to Richard then disposeth of the residue and the sentence begins with And so likewise and that shall be intended in the same manner as he had disposed of the Lands devised to Richard for he hath devised the remainder otherwise that is to an Hospitall and so concludes and praies Judgement accordingly Coke cheife Justice saith that it was adjudged between Coke and Petwiches 29. Eliz. that if a man devise a house to his eldest Son in tayl and another house to his second Son in tayl and the third house to the third Son in tayl and if any of them die without Issue the remainder to the other two equally this shall be but for life for this enures to the quantity of the Land and not to the quality of the Estate And he said that Richard is excepted without question for it is but a Will and every of the youngest Sons therein shall have the Chauntery Land one after another and Richard shall have no part and the Chauntery shall have nothing till they all are dead and he likened that to Frenchams Case where Lands were given to one and to his Heires Males and if he died without Issue the remainder over the Issues Females shall not take though that it be if they die without Issue for expresse it makes to cease only and so it was adjourned Petoes Case PEto suffers a common Recovery to the use of himselfe for life the remainder to his eldest Son in tayl with diverse remainders over to the intent that such Annuities should be paid as he by his last Will or by grant declares so that they did not exceed the summ of sixty pound and if any of the said Rents be behind then to the use of him to whom the Rent shall be behind till the Rent be satisfied with clause of distresse Rent of twenty pound was granted to his youngest Son for his life the grantee distraines for the Rent and in Replevin avowes the Plaintiffe replâ—es that by the non-paiment the use riseth to the youngest Son by which it was objected that the Rent shall be suspended Quere if without demand or if the distresse shall be demanded or that the use shall not rise till after the distresse and to the distresse well taken and agreed by all that the Plaintiff shall take nothing by
cannot a Copy-holder which hath so base an estate And if this shall be so these mischeifes will insue That is that this base estate should be of better security then any estate at the Common Law for Fine shall not be a Barr of that for it cannot be levied of that also Recovery cannot be suffered of that for there cannot be a Recovery in value neither of Lands at the Common Law neither of Customary Lands for they cannot be transferred but by the hands of the Lord. And to Littleton he agreed and also 4 Ed. 2. which agrees with this where it is said that at Stebenâ—eath a Surrender was of Copy-hold Lands to one and the Heires of his Body but he said that that shall not be an Estate taile for then the Estate hath such operation that this setles a Reversion and Tenure betwixt the Giver and him to whom it is given but this cannot be of Copy-hold Land for this cannot be held of any but only of the Lord and to the others this Estate doth not lye in Tenure and yet he agreed that of some things which did not lye in Tenure Estate Tail may be but Land may be intailed but Copy-hold Estate is so base that an Estate tail cannot be derived out of it so that though that custome may make an Estate to one and the Heires of his Body yet this cannot be an Estate taile but Fee-simple conditionall and also he agreed that they might have Formedon in Discender but it is the same Formedon which was before the Statute as if Tenant in Fee-simple conditionall before the Statute would alien before issue but it was no Estate taile with the priviledges of an Estate taile before the Statute and to the other matter of Surrender that is the admittance of the parties which is an Estate taile that doth not conclude the Court as it appears by the Lord Barkleys Case in the Commentaries where the Estate pleaded severally by the parties is not traversed by any of them and so concludes and prayes Judgment c. And this case was argued again in Trinity Tearme next ensuing by Montague the Kings Serjeant for the Defendant and he said that there are three questions in the case First If Copy-hold land may be intailed Secondly Admitting that it may be intailed if Surrender makes discontinuance Thirdly If it shall be Remitter and to the first he seemed that it might be intailed and that it shall be within the Statute of Westminster 2. And first for the Antiquity of that he said that Littleton placed that amongst his Estates of Free-hold and hath been time out of minde and is a primitive Estate and not derived out of the Estate of the Lord and the Lord is not the Creator of that but the means to convey that after that it is cerated and what is created then shall have all the priviledges and Benefits which are incident to it and shall be nursed by the custome and is time out of minde and the Law alwaies takes notice of it and he cited 24 H. 4. 323. by Hankf Bracton Fitz. Na. Bre. 12 C. and Brownes Case 4. Coke which is not simply an Estate at the will of the Lord but at the VVill of the Lord according to the custome of the Mannor and when it hath gained the reputation of Free-hold then it shall be dircted according to the rules of the Common Law and 2. and 3. P. and Ma. Dier 114. 60. allow Copy-hold Estate to be intailed and he saith That no Statute hath more liberall exposition then the Statute of Westminster 2. 45. Ed. 3. Incumbrance shall not charge the Issue intaile also a Copy-holder shall have a Cui in vita also a Copy-hold is within the Statute of Limitation and so upon the Statute of buying of pretenced rights And it is alway intended when a Statute speakes of Lands and Tenements that Copy-hold Lands shall be within that And he saith That all the Objections which have been made of the contrary part are answered in Heydons Case but he relyed upon that that every reall Inheritance is within the Statute of Westminster 2. 4 Ed. 2. Formedon lyeth of Copy-hold Land 25 Ed. 3. 46. Estate tayle is of a Corrody and office which proves that Copy-hold is a reall Inheritance and for that shall be within the Statute 46 Ed. 3. 21. Gavelkinde Land may be intailed 6 Rich. 2. Avowry 2. 8. Rich. 2. 26. Copy-holder shall be charged with Fees of a Knight at Parliament 22 and 23. Eliz. Dier 373. 13. Lands in ancient Demesne were intayled and he said that the reason is that for that it is Inheritance and time hath applyed them to an Estate and so concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that Copy-hold Lands cannot be intailed for that is but a customary Estate and the Law doth not take any notice of it but onely according to Custome for there were no Estates tayle before the Statute for then all were Fee simple absolute or conditionall that is either implyed or by limitation which cannot be of an Estate tayle which is not within the Statute of Westminster 2. for no Actions are maintainable by that but those which are by the Custome and a Writ of false Judgment See Fitzherberts Natura brevium 12. 13 Ed. 3. F. Prescription 29. that it hath no Incidents which are incident to Estates at the Common Law without Custome as Dower See Revetts Case and so is Tenancy by the Curtesie and there shall be no discent of that to take away Entry and so of other derivatives And he seemed that it is not within the Statute for three reasons apparent within the Statute First That it is hard that Givers shall be barred of their reversions but in case of Copy-holds the Giver hath no remedy to compell the Lord to admit him after the Estate tayle spent but onely Subpena and in this Case the Lord may releive himselfe for the losse of his services for that the Statute provides no remedy for him Secondly That the Statute doth not intend any Lands but those of which there is actuall reversion or remainder and those which passe by Deed so that the will of the Giver expressed in the Charter may be observed and of which there may be a subdivision as Lord Mesne and Tenant for there shall be alwayes a reversion of the Estate tayle and the Donee shall hold of the Donor and not of the Lord. Also it seems that the Statute doth not intend to provide for any but those for whom the VVrit in the Formedon ordained by the Statute lyes and agreed that for Offices and such like Formedon lyeth if the party will admit Estate tayle to be discontinued Also the Statute intends those things of which a Fine may be levyed for the Statute provides that the Fine in his owne right should be nothing but by Copy-holder Fine cannot be levied and for that he shall not be within the
so these words of the Writ are not answered and so no Tenant is returned at all And it is not like to the Case in 2 H. 4. for there the Return was according to the Exigent of the Writ but here it is not so And to the first matter he intended and agreed that an Executor of an Executor may sue execution had by the first Executor insomuch that hee comes in in privity But he said that so it is not in this case and that there is no difference betwixt this case and the case cyted in Shelleys case that is that Administrator of Administrator shall not sue execution insomuch that he comes in peramount Administrator and accords with this Case 2 Eliz. in the Lord Dyer If two Joynt-Tenants are and one makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and dyes the Survivor shall not have the Rent insomuch that hee commeth in peramount him and to the other he intended that the speciall non-tenure is a good plea as well in Scire facias to have execution of damages as of Free-hold as in 24 Edw. 3. 31. and 5 H. 5. 1. and 9. H. 5. 11. It is resolved that in Scire facias speciall non-tenure is a good Plea and the books of 8 H. 6. 31. cyted before there is Joynt-tenancy pleaded to one part and speciall non-tenure to the other part by Lease for years and the question is if it might be pleaded a part And in 8 Edw. 4. 14. Is Scire facias upon Recovery by Writ of Right Patent in base Court and that the Defendant cannot plead release of the Lessor and so the joyning of the Mise may be forfeiture of his Estate And he said that it was adjudged in 16 Edw. 3. Scire facias 5. that scire facias to have execution of a Fyne shall not be sued against a Lessee for years but against him which hath the Free-hold but where Debt or Damages are to be recovered there it may be sued against him which hath only Lease for years insomuch that the possession is to be charged and so he concluded and prayed Judgement for the Defendants and it is adjourned Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Crogate against Morris THe case was this Copy-holder prescribes to have common in the Waste of the Lord and brings action of Trespasse against a stranger for his Beasts depasturing upon the Common there and Harris Serjeant argued that this action is not maintainable for two causes First insomuch that he is a Commoner for as it is said by Brook Justice 12. H. 8. 2. a. Commoner cannot have an action of Trespasse for the Common is not Common but after the Commoner hath taken that and then before that he hath taken that he hath no wrong nor damage but the damage is to the Tenant of the Land As if a Lessee for years be outed and he in reversion recovers in Assise hee shall not have damage insomuch that the damage was made to the Lessee and the 22 Assis 48. 15 H. 7. i 2. b. agreed that Commoner cannot maintain action of Trespas nor no other but the owner of the Soil but 13 H. 8. 15. by Norwich 15 H. 7. 6. 5 H. 7. 2. 24 Edw. 3. 42. Commoner may distrain and avow for doing damage 2. He intended that this action is not maintainable insomuch that every other Commoner may also have the action of Trespasse for if it be wrong to one it is wrong to every one of them and so the stranger shall be infinitely punished as in Williams Case 5 Coke 72. b. where it was adjudged an action of the Case doth not lye for the Lord of the Mannor to prescribe that a Vicar ought to administer the Sacraments in his private Chappell to him his Men-servants and Tenants within the Precincts of the said Mannor and adjudged that it doth not lye insomuch that then every of his Tenants might also have action and so the Vicar shall be alwayes punished So in 27 H. 7. 27. a. A man shall not have an action upon the Case for nusance made in the high way so it is 5 Ed. 4. 2. for trenching in the high way see 33 H. 6. 26. a. accordingly and so he concluded that the action is not maintainable and prayed Judgement for the Defendant Dodridge the Kings Serjeant to the exception which hath been made by the other party that the Plaintiff ought to averr that he hath Beasts which ought to Common there and that his Beasts have lost their Common that need not to be averred but it shall be pleaded by the other party for if he have distrayned the Beasts of a stranger doing damage he need to averr no more in this action and to the other matter and the two Objections which have been made by the other part First that the Commoner hath no right to the Common till he have taken it by the mouth of his Beasts to that he said that the Commoner hath right to that before that it be taken by such mouths of his Beasts and notwithstanding that it seems by the time of Ed. 1. That Commoner cannot grant his Common till he have Seisin of that yet 12 H. 8. is otherwise and that a Commoner may have an action the name implyes for he hath Common with others and a stranger which is no Commoner cannot do wrong but this is damage to him and he cyted Bracton 430. that there are two forms of Writs 1. Cursitory Writs 2. Commanding Writs The first of those which are formed and are of course and the others such of which there is no form but are to be formed by the Masters of the Chancery according to every particular Case So that there is not any Case but that the Law affords a Writ and remedy for that as in 28 Edw. 4. 23. Action upon the Case was framed against an Officer which gave priviledge to one as his servant which was not his servant and it is not like to the Case in 11 H. 4. 47. a. where a School-master brings an action upon the Case against another for erecting of a School in the same Towne to his damage but this was damage without Injury But here the Commoner hath received wrong and damage but yet he agreed that the Commoner could not have action of Trespass why he broke his Close for that is proper for the owner of the Soile But it hath been agreed to him that he might distrain them doing damage and the reason of that is insomuch that he hath received damage and amends may be tendered unto him in recompence of his damages without any regard to other Commoners as it is agreed in 24 Edw. 3. 42. And to the Objection that if one Commoner may have action then every Commoner may have the action and so the stranger shall be infinitely punished And to that he said it is a Publique losse and private and when the publique wrong includes private damage to any man there he
hath the Copy-hold Estate for life in remainder was the question And it was argued by Harris Serjeant that the Estate of Fines in the body of that binds all persons but onely some which have Infirmities and by the saving Rights Titles Claimes and Interests are saved But Title comes in the conditionall perclose of saving that is so that they pursue their Title Claime and Interest c. By way of Act or lawfull Entry within five yeares next after the said proclamations had and made So that in this case the principall matter to be considered is what thing is operated by the acceptance of the Bargaine and Sale for if by that the remainder of the Copy-holder be turned to right then insues that the Fine shall be a Barr And it seemes that this determines the first Estate for life and he agreed that it cannot be a surrender insomuch that there is a mesene remainder as it is 37. H. 6. 17. b. 4. H. 7. 10. But this Lease to commence at a day to come cannot be a surrender but shall be determined and extinct by acceptance of a new Lease as it is there and in 22. H. 7. 51. a. agreed and so it was adjudged in Hillary 30. Eliz. between Wilmottand Cutlers Case that if a Husband which was seised of a Copy-hold Estate in right of his Wife accept an estate for life this determines the copy-hold Estate which he hath in right of his Wife in possession So if Lessee for yeares accept an estate of one which hath no Estate yet this determines his Tearme as it was adjudged Hillary 31. Eliz. Rot. 1428. b. That if Lessee for yeares of a Lease made by the Ancester accept an estate of Guardian in Soccage this determines his Lease which he had of the Ancestor and upon that he concluded that in this case the acceptance of a Bargaine and Sale turnes the Copy-holder in remainder to a Right and then it appeares by Saffins Case 5. Coke 125. That he shall be bound though that he hath only Interest and so of Title also and he said that it appeares by Kite and Quarintons case 4. Coke 26. a. that a Right or Title may be of Copy-hold Estate for it is there said by Wray cheife Justice that it shall be with in the Statute of 32 H. 8. chapter 9. of buying of Titles and so concluded Dodridge the Kings Serjeant agreed that the sole question is if any thing be here done to turn the Copy-hold-Estate in remainder into a right for then he agreed that this shall be barred otherwise not and to that hee intended that the first Estate for life shall be sayd to be in Esse notwithstanding the acceptance of the Bargaine and Sale as to all estrangers and especially when it is to their prejudice as if Tenant grant Rent and after surrenders his estate now between the parties the Lease shall be extinct by the surrender but to the Grantee of the Rent it shall be sayd to be in Esse and if during his life he in Remainder also grants a Rent hee shall hold the Land subject to both the Rents though that the grants be both to one self sameperson so if he in Reversion grants his Reversion with warranty and after the Tenant for life surrenders and the Grantee be impleaded he shall never vouch during the life of the Tenant for life 5 H. 5. Comment 24 Ed. 3. And here also is a custome which preserves the Copy-hold Estate in Remainder and their particular Tenant cannot that prejudice and for that also it shall not be turned into a right as if a Copy-hold Estate be granted to one for life by one Copy and after the Lord grants another Estate for life by another Copy to another and then the first Copy-holder commits forfeiture he which hath the second estate cannot take advantage of that but the Lord shall hold it during the life of the first Tenant for no act made by the particular Tenant shall prejudice him in Remainder for otherwise many Inconveniencies would insue upon that as by secret conveyances or as if a grantee of a Rent charge grant that to the Tenant of the Land for his life the Remainder over the Remainder shall be good notwithstanding that the particular Estate bee extinct and drowned also he intended that the Copy-hold Estate is another thing then the land it self and for that the Fine shall not be a Barr no more then in Smith and Stapletons Case Com. Where a Fine levied of Land shal not be a Barr of Rent insomuch that it is another thing so in this case he intended that the fine shall not be a Barr of the Copy-hold Estate and concluded c. Wynch Justice was of opinion that the Fine shall not be a Barr to the Copy-hold Estate in Remainder for the acceptance of the Bargaine and Sale doth not determine the first Copy-hold Estate for life as to him in Remainder but only to the first Tenant and the Lord and betweene those he agreed that the Copy-hold Estate is determined as in Heydens Case by acceptance of a Lease for years and for that the Remainder shall not be turned to a Right and by consequence shall not be barred and for that he supposed that the reason that the Fine was a Bar in Saffins Case 5 Coke 123. b. was insomuch that the Lessor entered made a Feoffment and after levied a Fine and it is there agreed that the Feoffment turnes the Estate of the Lessee to a Right and for that the Fine shall be a barr and also there the Lease was by limitation of time to have a beginning but if a man makes a Lease for years to begin at a day to come and before the beginning of that makes a Feoffment or is disseised and Fine with proclamation is levyed yet he which hath future Interest shall not be barred for this is not turned to a Right and it was not the intent of the Statute of Fines to make a Barr of right where there was no discontinuance or Estate at least turned to right and this was the cause that at the Common Law Fine with Non-claime was no Barr but where they make alteration of possession and he cited Palmers case to be adjudged that a Fine of Land shall not be a barr for Rent where the case was Lessee for life Remainder for life of Rent The first Lessee for life of the Rent purchaseth Land and levies Fine of that and adjudged that this shall not binde them in Remainder of the Rent no more if he in remainder levy a fine that shall not prejudice the particular Tenant and so he concluded in this case that the Ramainder shall not be barred and that the Plaintiff shall have Judgment Warburton Justice accordingly and he argued that the Statute of Fines containes two parts The first to barr those which have present right and they ought to make their claim within five yeares after the Fine levied or otherwise they
this common being annexed to the Land though that the Estate be increased yet the common remaines his second reason was of the manner of conveiance and that was by confirmation and if that conveiance had been by Feoffment peradventure the common had been gone But a confirmation enures allwaies upon an Estate precedent and though that this somtimes inlargeth the Estate yet this doth not alter the Estate as to any priviledges annexed to it his third reason was of the matter of the confirmation and that is that he hath confirmed it with the appurtenances and this seemes to him admitting that the common had been extinct yet these words with the appurtenances amount to a new grant of a common as in the case of Corody in 22 Ed. 4. 17. and 18. If the King grant to one such a Corody as I. S. had he shall have so much bread and beere as I. S. had so here when he grants and confirmes that with the appurtenances this is with all such priviledges as I. S. had so here when he confirmes with the appurtenances this is with all the priviledges that the old Estate had and so this should be a grant of such common as was annexed to that and so it seemed to him for these reasons that the common remaines to which it was said by Davies of the other part that he agreed al the manners of Prescriptions but he denied that it was a locall Prescription that is to Land but only to an Estate and this proves well the words of the Prescription for the Copy-holder ought to prescribe that is that every customary Tenant within the Mannor c. So he hath his common in respect that he is customary Tenant and this is in respect of the Estate which he hath by the Custome and not in respect of the Land and that this shall not enure as a new Grant he cited a case to be adjudged Michaelmasse 43. and 44. Eliz. in the Kings Bench Rot. 367 Where in Trespasse the Defendant justifies the lopping of Trees in the wast of the Lord where the custome was that every Copy-holder might shride the Trees in the wast of the Lord and that he was a Copy-holder there and the Lord granted to him the Inheritance of his Copy-hold with all such Lands Tenements and Commons of Estovers pertaining to the Copy-hold and adjudged that insomuch that the Customary Estate was distroied this custome was not now annexed to the Land but being determined with the Estate cannot be said appertaining to it and for that the Justification ill and it seemed to him to be all one with the principall case and it was adjourned and after in Michaelmasse Tearme 8. Jacobi It was adjudged that the Common was extinct and not revived Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench Proctor against Johnson THE Case hath depended seven yeares in this Court upon a Writ of Error was this Two Joynt Tenants for yeares of a Mill one grants his Estate severally to another and dies the Grantee doth not enter yet The other reciting the Lease to him made and to his companion joyntly and that his companion died so that all belonged to him as Survivor as he intended grants all the Mill to Johnson and all his Estate Right and Interest in that And covenants that the Grantee there shall continue discharged and aquitted of all Charges and Incumbrances or other Act or Acts done by him and after binds himselfe in a Bond to performe all Grants Covenants and Agreements contained in the Indentures according to the intent and meaning of the parties and after the Grantee of his companion entered into the halfe and the question was If the Bond were forfeit or not and it was adjudged in the Common Bench that the Obligation was forfeited And the matter was argued this Tearm in this Court by Yelverton of Grayes Inne that the Bond shall not be forfeited for the Bond was with Condition to performe all Grants c. According to the true intent and meaning of the parties and then let us see what was the intent of the parties and suerly this appeares by the recitall in the Indenture and for that he said that all appeares to him as survivor as he conceived so that he was doubtfull of that and for that his meaning was that if he had all then to grant all and if he had but a moity then to grant but the moity and this proves well the words subsequent where he saith that he granted the Mill and all his Estate Right and Interest in that so that he did not intend to grant more then his Estate and these words subsequent qualifie the generall words precedent and so it seemes to him that the Obligation shall not be forfeited And Sir Robert Hitcham the Queens Attorney to the contrary and that the Bond was forfeited for he hath bound himself to perform all grants and he hath not performed his Grant for he granted all the Mill and then though but a moity passeth yet he shall forfeit his Bond if the moity be evicted and for that if a man which hath nothing in the Mannor of D. makes a Lease by Deed indented to J. S. and binds himself to performe all Grants though that nothing passes yet if he enter and be ejected he shall have Debt upon his Obligation and he cited one Yelvertons Case to be adjudged but did not tell when where a man which hath nothing in the Mannor of Dale covenants with J. S. to stand seised to the use of him and his Heirs at Michaelmas and before Michaelmas he purchases the Mannor of Dale and it was resolved that no use shall be raised at Michaelmas for he had not the Mannor at the time of the Covenant and also it was resolved that no Action of Covenant lies upon the Covenant but he sayd that it is a cleer Case that if he had entred into a Bond to perform all Covenants in the Indenture that the Bond shall be forfeited though that he could not have action of Covenant upon the Covenant and also he sayd that he well agreed the Case of the Lady Russell which was adjudged also but Nescio quando where a man made a Lease for years of the Mannor of Dale except one Acre the Lessee binds himself to perform all agreements and after the Lessee enters into the Acre this shall be no breach of the condition for this exception is no agreement for nothing shall be sayd an agreement in an Indenture but that which passeth in Interest and so he sayd that though that the Lessee cannot have an Action of Covenant in the principall Case insomuch that this is so speciall yet the Bond shall be forfeited upon these Words grants and agreements and the Covenant special doth not qualify the generall express grant and after four Justices that is Flemming the cheife Justice Willams Yelverton and Crooke were of opinion that the Bond is forfeited and this for the generalty of the
Lessee for years or life surrender before the performance of the condition the Fee doth never increase as it is 14. H. 8. 20. and the Lord Chandois Case 6 Coke But the Estate tayl remaines after the condition performed and then hath the Fee dependant upon the Estate tayl and that there is a necessity that there shall be an office as it was in Nicholls Case in the Com because of the right and that after the condition performed then the Fee shall vest Ab Initio and this corporates together partly by the Letters Patents and partly by the performance of the condition and so it is in Butler and Bakers case that it is not a Grant in futuro but one immediate Grant to take effect In futuro see 2. H. 7. for the execution of Chantrey and Grendons Case in the Com. and 2. H. 7. If the King grant Land to J. S. for life the remainder to the right Heires of J. R. which is in life the remainder is good as well as in case of a common person and so he seemed that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Walmesley Justice agreed that it shall be remainder and not reversion as if Lands begin to the Husband and the Wife and to the Heires of the Body of the Husband the Husband dies this is a remainder in the Heires Males and not a reversion for it cannot grow higher and it was not in the King as one distinct Estate before the Grant and Formedon in remainder lieth for it and though it be misrecited yet it shall be good and ayded by the Statute of Misrecitalls and grant of a thousand is suffered to convey the reversion of a thousand by the common Law and if the recitall were that it was a reversion depending upon the Estate tayl it was good without question and the King may grant five hundred reversions if he will and that the last Damus is ex certa scientia et mêre motu nostris Damus et concedimus that if the Patentee pay twenty shillings Tunc sciatis quod nos de ampliori gracia ea certa scientia et mero motu nostris concedimus c. and that the word Volumus will amount to a Covenant or a Release as 32. H. 6. The King by his Patent by these words Nolent that he shall be impleaded and this amounts to a release and so words which intends expresly words of Covenant may be pleaded as a Grant in case of the King as it is 25 Ed. 4 So is a common person license another to occupy his Land this amounts to a Lease of Land if the time be expressed so if a man grants to another that he shall have and injoy his Land to him and his Heires that by that Fee passeth And if the King grant reversion to begin at Michaelmasse the Grant is void for that it is to begin totally at Michaelmasse and doth not looke back to any precedent thing But if it relate to any precedent Act then that shall be good by relation and shall passe ab Initio see Com. Walsinghams Case 553. b. that in such case the performance of the condition divests the Estate out of the King and there is no difference in this case betwixt the King and a common person and agreed in the case of Littleton Where a man makes a Lease for yeares upon condition to have Fee that the Fee shall not passe till the condition be performed and with this agrees 2. R. 2. But if a man makes a Charter of Feoffment upon condition that if the Feoffee injoy the Land peaceably for fifteen years that the Feoffment shall be void In this case the Fee-simple determineth by the performance of the Condition and in this case the Fee passeth ab Initio by the Livery as in 10. Assise 18. Assise 1. 44. Assise 49 Assise And he agreed that the words Habeat et Teneat the Reversion passes and this is good Fee-simple and this refers to the first Damus et Concedimus and so concluded that he seemed that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Coke cheife Justice accordingly and he conceived that there are two questions upon the substance of the Grant And to the first objection that hath been made that is that reversion was granted and increase of an Estate cannot be of a reversion and in all these cases which have been put they are of an Estate in possession and so is the case of Littleton also and he agreed that it shall not be good if it be not good ab Initio that though there be not other words then Reversionem predictam That it shall be good And to the second point upon the former He conceived that the Grant is but a Grant and that the condition is but precedent Limitation when the Estate of Fee-simple shall begin and so it is said by Montague in Colthurst and Brinskins Case in the Com. And further he saith that there are four things necessary for increasing an Estate First that it ought to be an Estate upon which the increasing Estate may increase Secondly the particular Estate ought to continue for otherwise it is grant of a reversion in Futuro Thirdly That the Estate which is to increase ought to vest by the performance of the Condition for if there be disturbance that it cannot then vest then it can never vest Foutthly that both the Estates as well the particular Estate as the Estate which is to increase ought to have their beginning by one self same Deed or by diverse Deeds delivered at one self same time And to the first and to prove that he cyted 44 Ed. 3. Attaint 22. Lessee for yeares upon condition to have Fee granes his Estate the Fee doth not increase upon the performance of the condition for then it shall passe as a Reversion and so the particular Tenant surrenders his Estate as it is sayd 14. H. 8. For if the Privity be destroyed the Fee will never increase but there is no such â—ycity but that if the substance of the Estate remains though it doth not remain in such form as it was at the first Reversion the Estate may well increase as if Lands be given to the Husband and wife and to the Heirs of the Husband upon the Body of the Wife to be begotten the Wife dies and the Husband is Tenant after possibility of Issue extinct yet he may well perform the condition for the Estate remaines in substance and with this agrees 20 H. 6. Ayd and so it is if a Lease be made to two for years upon condition to have fee one dies the other may perform the Condition and shall have Fee-simple as it is agreed by 12. Assise 5. the reason is that the privity remaines and the Estate also in substance Thirdly As to that also it seems that it ought to vest upon the performance of the condition which is the time limited for the beginning of the Estate and if it do not vest
is appurtenant or appendant the Grantee shall have Common Pro Rata but if a commoner purchase parcell of the Land in which he hath Common appurtenant that this extincts all his Common And it was agreed that Common may be appendant to a Carve of Land as it appeares by the 6 Ed. 3. 42. and 3. Assise 2. as to a Mannor but this shall he intended to the Demesnes of the Mannor and so a Carve of Land consists of Land Meadow and Pasture as it appeares by Tirringhams case 4. Coke 37. b. And Common appendant shall not be by prescription for then the Plea shall be intended double for it is of common Right as it appeares by the Statute of Morton chap. 4. And the common is mutuall for the Lord hath Right of Common in the Lands of the Tenant and the Tenant in the Lands of the Lord And it was urged by Nicholls Serjeant that the Common shall be apportioned as if it were Rent and that the Lessee shall have Common for his Lease and then the Lessor hath no Common appurtenant or appendant to the two Virgats of Land and for that the Prescription was not good Coke cheife Justice if it had been pleaded that he had used to have Common for the said Beasts Levant and Couchant upon the said Land there had been no question but it should be apportioned for the Beastes are Levant and Couchant upon every part as one day upon one part and another day upon another part and for that extinguishment or suspention of part shall be of all as if a man makes a Leafe of two Acres of Land rendring Rent and after bargaines and sells the reversion of one Acre there shall be an apportionment of the Rent as well as if it had been granted and attornment And he agreed that if a man have Common appurtenant and purchase parcell of the Land in which he hath Common all the Common is extinct but in this case common appendant shall be apportioned for the benefit of the Plow for as it is appendant to Land Hyde and gain And in the principall case there was common appendant for it was pleaded to be belonging to two Virgats of Land and for commonable Beastes And he conceived also that the prescription being as appertaining to such Land that this shall be all one as if it had been said Levant and couchant for when they are appurtenant they shall be intended to Plow Manure Compester and Feed upon the Land And also he conceived that the right of Common remaines in the Lessor and for that he may prescribe for after the end of the Tearme shall be returned and in the intermin he may Bargain and sell and the Vendee shall have it and shall have common for his Portion And Walmesley Justice agreed to that and that during the Tearme the Lessor shall be excluded of his Common for his proportion Foster Justice agreed and that the possession of the Lessee is the possession of the Lessor but he conceived when the Lessor grants to the Lessee six acres of Land in such a feild where the Land lies and then the Beasts were taken in another feild And so they agreed for the matter in Law and also that the pleading was ill and so confesse and avoid the prescription But upon the traverse as it is pleaded the Jury shall not take benefit of it and Judgement was given accordingly Termino Pasche 7. Jacobi 1609 In the Common Bench. THOU art a Jury man and by thy false and subtill means hast been the Death and overthrow of a hundred men for which words Action upon the case for slander was brought and it seemed to Coke cheife Justice that it did well lye if it be averred that he was a Jury man and so of Judge and Justice for Sermo relatus ad personam intelligo debet de qualitate persone as Bracton saith and in the like Action brought by Butler it was not averred that he was a Justice of Peace and resolved that an Action upon the case doth not lye But Walmesley Justice conceived that an Action doth not lye for one Juror only doth not give the Verdict but he is joyned with his Companions and it is not to be intended that he could draw his Companions to give Verdict against the truth and false and subtill means are very generall Warburton Justice agreed with Coke and conceived that the Action well lies being averred that he was a Jury man as if one calls another Bankrupt Action well lies if it be alledged that the Plaintiff was a Tradesman and it is common speaking that one is a Leader of the Jurors and a man may presume that other Jurors will give Verdict and may take upon him the knowledge of the Act. Walmesley conceived that the Action did not lye for that the words are a hundred men which is impossible and for that no man will give any credit to it and for that it is no slander and for that Action doth not lye no more then if he had sayd that he had kild a thousand men But Coke Warburton Daniell and Foster agreed that the number is not materiall for by the Words his malice appears and for that they conceived that the Action doth well lye Pasch 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Denis against More ANthony Denis Plaintif in Replevin William More Defendant the case was this Two joynt Lessees for life were the Remainder or Reversion in Fee being in another person he in Reversion grants his Reversion Habendum the aforesaid Reversion after the death surrender or forfeiture of the Tenant for life it hapneth that the Lease determines for the life of the Grantee and Remains to another for life and resolved that this shall be a good grant of the Reversion to the first effect of Possession after the Deaths of the Tenants for life according to the 23 of Eliza. Dier 377. 27. And it shall not be intended to passe a future interest as if it were void of the other party and so was the opinion of all the Court see Bucklers case 2. Coke 55. a. and Tookers case 2. Coke 66. Upon a Fine the first Proclamation was made in Trinity Tearm 5. Jacobi And the second in Michaelmas Tearm 5. Jacobi And the third in Hillary Tearm 6. Jacobi where it should be in Hillary Tearm 5. Jacobi And the fourth and fifth in Easter Tearm 6. Jacobi And this was agreed to be a palpable Errrour for the fourth Proclamation was not entered at all and the fifth was entered in Hillary Tearm 6. Jacobi where it should have been in Hillary Tearm 5 Jacobi and it shall not be amended for that it was of another Tearm and the Court conceived that this was a forfeiture of the Office of the Chirographer for it was an abusing of it and the Statute of 4. H. 4. 23. and Westminster 2. Are that Judgement given in the Kings Court shall stand untill
Berwick Gaol for stealing of a Mare and other Beasts and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the words were not actionable and so it was adjudged for that he did not directly say the Plaintiff was a Thief but onely implied Hill 15. Iac. rotulo An Exception taken to a Declaration in Trover brought by an Administrator because he declares that whereas he was possessed of divers Goods and Chattels as of his own proper Goods and should have said as was pretended as of the Goods and Chattels of the intestate at the time of his Death but the Exception was over-ruled by the Court. Exception to an Action of the case brought and the Plaintiff declares that whereas the Plaintiff had delivered the Defendant unum statum salis Anglicae a Bushel of Salt pretending that statum had another proper signification but because it was shewed to the Court that statum by one Dictionary was Latine for a Bushel Judgement was given for the Plaintiff In Trover it is usual to prove no more but that you requested the Goods and the Defendant refused to deliver them this is a Conversion When a Justification arises upon a Sale then I need traverse no more but the place alleadged and not go to the whole County but where it is a transitory Trespass as for Battery taking of Goods and the like then the whole County must be traversed CAtford versus Osmond Mich. 16. Jac. rotulo 1063. Action of Trover brought for two Steers the Defendant being an Attourney of the Common-pleas justifies the taking as Under-sheriff by reason of Process from the Exchequer to levy of the Occupiers of the Lands of divers persons in a Schedule in the said Writ named the Debts therein specified and doth not recite the Schedule and he being Under-sheriff took the Steers in the Land of the Plaintiff which was lately one Stones who was Debtor to the King in 59. s. being behinde upon the Land and Exception was taken for that it was not directly alledged that the Land such a Day was the Land of the said S. The Writ commanded to levy the summs in the said Schedule mentioned and if they could not to take their Bodies and it was adjudged a good Warrant to levy of the Occupiers of the Lands that were the said S. 59. s. COles versus Flaxman Hill 14. Jac. rotulo 2175. Action of the case brought for disturbing the Plaintiffs Common The Defendant pretends Title to the Common by reason of Common appurtenant to certain customary Land of part of which he conveys a Title to himself but not of the whole and the Question was whether it were Common appurtenant or appendant and if appurtenant it could not be divided KEymes versus Moxham Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 559. Action of the case brought for a promise made at C. for the Delivery of a Mare which the Plaintiff delivered the Defendant to plow his ground in P. And shews the Defendant did so excessively and immoderately labor and work the said Mare that the Mare died The Defendant confesses the promise and that the Mare at the time of the Delivery was infirm and that he worked her moderately and traverses the excessive labouring of the Mare and after a Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that it was mis-tried because the Venn was of C. which was naught and there was no place alleadged where the excessive labouring was for the Venn ought to come from that place where the laboring was HArbin and his Wife versus Green Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 2263. Action upon the case brought for not grinding his Corn at the Plaintiffs Mill and shews that the Bishop of Salisbury was seised of four customary Mils called A. in his Demesne as of Fee in right of his Bishoprick and prescribes that all Inhabitants and Residents within the City of Salisbury holding any ancient Mesuages of the said Bishop in right of his Bishoprick were time out of minde used and ought to grinde all their Corn whatsoever spent in their houses or exposed to sale in the said City at the said Mils of the said Bishop and no where else without the licence of the said Bishop and to pay Toll therefore to the said Bishop his Successors Bishops or their Farmors for the time being and in consideration thereof the Bishop his Successors or Farmors for the time being of the said Mils time out of minde have been used and accustomed at their own charges from time to time to keep and maintain a Servant expert in grinding as well by night as day there attending to grinde their Corn as soon as conveniently might be and the Plaintiff shews that such a Day the Defendant was and yet is an Inhabitant in one ancient Mesuage in the said City held of the Bishop and so possessed intending to deprive the Plaintiff of the profit of his Mill did such a day grinde divers sorts of Corn in other Mils without the Bishops leave to his damage of c. The Defendant pleads Non cul The Jury finde the Defendant guilty for a longer time then the Plaintiff had interest in the Mill and gave Damages intire and upon a Motion in arrest of Judgement adjudged naught GResley versus Lother and his Wife Executrix of R. B. and declares that communication was had between the Testator in his life and the Plaintiff concerning a Marriage to be had and solemnized between one T. B. son and heir apparent of the said R. B. and Jane Daughter of the Plaintiff and heir apparent of John F. deceased the said Testator such a Day and Year in consideration that the Plaintiff at the special instance and request of the said R. B. then and there would agree that the said T. B. should marry the said J. promised to pay 20. l. and adjudged a good consideration GOwland versus Mason Hill 17. Jac. rotulo Action of the case for these words I charge him with Felony for taking of money out of the pocket of Henry Sparry and I will prove it and the Court was divided in opinion whether the words would maintain an Action or no. SMith and his Wife versus Stafford Executor of Stafford Hill 15 Jac. rotulo 906. Action of the case brought upon a promise made to the Woman when she was sole in consideration the Woman would marry the Testator he promises that if the Woman should over-live the Testator that then he would leave her worth 100. l. and they averr that she did marry him and after the Husband died and did not leave her worth 100. l. and the Defendant pleads Non assumpsit and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that by the Inter-marriage the Promise was drowned and released Three Judgeâ—…r the Plaintiff and one for the Defendant The like Observations in Actions of Covenant DRury versus Allen al. Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 926. Action of Covenant
Damages c. An Assise brought and the Grant was of the Herbage and Pannage c. and whether this were good or no some held it void for the incertainty of the Grant when it should begin Sir Edward Cook held the Grant good for if the King make a Lease for Life and granteth the Land without reciting the state to one for life this is a good Grant for Life of the Reversion to begin immediately after the Death of the Tenant for Life Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 35. An Assise brought for the Office of a Harald at the Funeral of the Earle of Exceter and the great Question was where the view should be made and it was alledged that it should be made in the place where he exercised his Office but the Court doubted of that but they were examined of the view made in the Abbey of Westminster being the place where the Funeral was performed and the Court were of opinion that in Dower where Tithes are demanded no view lies for of things that are invisible no view lies but the Tenant in such case shall be denied it SIr William Saint Andrew brought an Assise de Darrein Presentment against the Arch-bishop of York the Countess of Shrewsbury and F. H. for the Church of O. in the County of Nott. The Archbio p and H. appeared and the Countess did not appear and though the Countess made Default yet the Assise was not taken against her by Default but a re-summons was awarded against the Countess and the same Day given to the Arch-bishop and H. and a Habeas Corpora against the Recognisors And note the Tenants that appeared pleaded in abatement that a Writ of Quare impedit for the said Church was hanging in such a Court between the same parties and the Assise was brought afterwards and with this agrees the Register and it was adjudged a good Plea The Writ was returned in this manner Pleg de prosequend John Doo Richard Roo The within named Arch-bishop and Countess are attached and either of them is attached per Pleg H. S. N. J. And the within named H. hath nothing in the Sheriffs Bailywick by which he may be attached nor hath a Baily within his Liberty nor is therein found and the residue of the Execution c. and Judgement given that the Writ should abate and the like was in the Earle of Bedfords case where two Quare impedits were brought one after another and the last Writ abated J. Lovelace versus Baronissam Despencer R. Harvey Clericum Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 74. de Darrien Presentment for the Church of M. And the said H. being solemnly exacted came not and the Sheriff made a Return that he was summoned by J. O. and W. C. and therefore the Assise was to be taken against him by Default but the said Baromsh by T. her Attourney faith the Assise ought not to be so taken and confesses the said J. was the person last presented but conveys a Title to her self of the Mannour to which the presentation belongs and that being so seised the Plaintiff in the Assise by usurpation presents the Clerk in the Count whereupon the Defendant brought a Quare impedit and hanging the Writ the Clerk in the Count dies and the Plaintiff presented the Clerk that made Default who by vertue of that presentation is yet Parson of the said Church by which she is seised of the Advowson as in her former Estate and so she saith that the Presentation of the said J. by the said L. made ought not to prejudice her and a Demurrer upon this Plea and that the Assise should remain to be taken c. for want of Recognisors and the Sheriff was commanded to distrain them c. and Judgement given that the Plea was good but quaere of the Declaration whether sufficient because it was not alleadged that he that presented was seised of the Advowson Pasch 8. Jac. rotulo 31. An Assise brought for the Office of Clock-keeper of and it was held that it must be an ancient Office and because they could not prove that it was an ancient Office the Plaintiff was non-suit and the Plaintiff shewed a Grant of the same in E. 6. time but that was held no ancient time Pasch 6. Jacobi It was held by the whole Court that an Assise of Sadler to the Queen would not lie being granted to one by the King but was held void by the whole Court for the King cannot make an Officer to the Queen and by the Patent no place was expressed where he should injoy and exercise his Office and take the Profits and therefore the Jury could not have the view and for that cause an Assise cannot be taken and if the King should grant the Office of Usher to his Son the Prince an Assise would not lie An Assise brought against Demetrius the Plaintiff was non-suit and Demetrius moved to have Cost and it was denied by the whole Court because an Assise is not within the words of the Statute Audita Quaerela BIrd versus Kirton Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 3118. An Audita Quaerela brought and the case was this Bird and Milles were bound to Kirton and Kirton makes a Bond to Milles in the summ of 100. l. that if Milles be not sued upon the first Bond then that shall be void and it was alleadged that Kirton did both sue Milles and Bird and that he had no notice of the second Bond that he might have pleaded it and so pretends that the second Bond should be a Defeasance of the first and Judgement was given for the Defendant BEck brought an Audita Quaerela and surmises the matter following that Boon Administrator of C. brought his Action of Debt upon an Obligation and before Judgement that Administration was revoked and Administration granted to another and notwithstanding the Revocation he procured Judgement and the second Administrator released and the rest brought an Audita Quaerela upon that Release and the Court would not grant a Supersedeas because the Revocation was but matter in fait for that Revocation was not under Seal and the first Administrator might appeal Cases in Law and Notes IF a Writ of Covenant be brought against two and if one acknowledge the Fine before one of the Justices and the other acknowledge by Dedimus or before another Justice that Fine cannot be proceeded upon these two acknowledgements by the opinion of the Court. A Writ of Covenant was brought against three men and their Wives and onely two men and their Wives acknowledged the Fine and the other Husband and Wife never acknowledged and the Fine was sued as a Fine acknowledged by all and it was desired the Fine might be amended and the Man and Wife that did not acknowledge might be put out but the Court would not grant it If I make a Lease for years reserving Rent during the Life of A. and B. if one of them die
the Rent is gone If I make a Lease for Life reserving a Rent to me and my Executor neither the Executor nor the Heir shall have the Rent Justice Walmsley held this difference in making a Lease to two during their Lives if one die the other shall have it otherwise it is if it be made to one during the Life of two and one of them die in this case the Lease is ended and there is difference between a reservation of Rent and Lease for Reservation is according to the will and pleasure of the Lessor and Justice Walmsley said if a Lessee for years granteth a Rent to A. during the Life of B. and C. this Reservation is good although one should die which Sir Edward Cook denied and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff in Hills case If I make a Lease for years reserving a Rent and then I grant demise and to farm let Reversionem domus for years and the Rent to have and to hold the Reversion and the Rent from a time past if the Lessee cannot get an Attornement yet it is a good Lease in Reversion and shall take effect after the end of the first Lease habendum terram habendum reversionem est terra revertens and no difference If the Husband with his own money purchaseth for his Wives Joynture Land to them and the Heirs of their two Bodies the Remainder in Fee to the Wife and they have Issue two Sons and the Husband dieth and the Wife suffereth a Recovery to the use of the youngest Son the eldest Son notwithstanding shall have the Land by the Statute of Joyntures Hill 6. Jac. If I set-out my Corn and after take it away the Parson may sue me in the Spiritual Court or bring an Action of Trespass against me but if the Parson sue in the Spiritual Court a stranger for taking away the Tithes which were set out this is a Praemunire in the Parson Tenant at will shall pay his Rent when he holdeth over his terme but Tenant at sufferance shall not pay any Rent if a man hold over his terme and pay his old Rent he shall be accounted Tenant at will For one joynt Debt for one Contract you cannot plead Nil debet for part and demur for the rest for he pleads Nil debet and the matter in Law is reserved Licet saepius requisit is a sufficient Request upon a Bond because it is a Debt Unto an Action brought against a man upon a Bond pleads Denis age the case was this that when the Obligation was sealed and delivered the Defendant was of full age but at the time when the Bond bore Date he was under age and at the Assises the Judge there ruled that at the time of making the Bond was when the Bond was sealed and not when it bore Date The Court were of opinion that where a Bishop holds Land discharged of Tithes and he makes a Feofment of the Land the Feoffee shall be discharged of Tithes and the like if the King hath ancient Forest-land discharged of Tithes and the King grants this Land the Grantee is discharged of Tithes and it is a general Rule that he which may have Tithes may be discharged of Tithes If I let Land for years reserving Rent if I command one to put his Cattle into the Land I cannot distrain them for my commandement is a wrong and an Action of case will lie against the commandor If I make a Lease and bid the Tenants cut down the Trees yet I may have an Action of waste against my Lessee In Sir Cheydens case the commandment to take Possession was void unless he had commanded him to expell the Tenant and then he might joyn either to distrain or bring an Action of Debt for the Lease was made by him and two more 28 H. 8. If I make a Lease to the Husband and Wife covenant to do no waste or repair Houses and the Husband dieth and the Wife surviveth and holdeth in if the Wife commit waste or not repair the House no Action lieth against the Wife but to such a Lease the Wife is tied to pay the Rent or to perform a condition made by the part of the Lessor but not observe or perform Covenants of the Lessee Pasch 10. Jacobi The Court much doubted whether one that had a Park and was used to pay one Shoulder of Deer for all manner of Tithes and the Park is dis-parked should now pay Tithes in kinde or not For Wooll and Lamb no Action upon the Statute for not setting out of Tithes for they are no predial Tithes and no Action lies upon this Statute for small Tithes An Administration granted durand minori aetate execut is not within the Statute of 21 H. 8. And by the Civil Law the Judge may after Administration by him granted revoke it and grant it to another And if an Administration be granted to a Feme Covert yet she shall sue in their Court as a Feme sole One Briefly married an Administratrix and entred into Bonds for the Intestates Debts and afterwards the Wife leaveth her Husband and refuseth the Administration and it was granted to another and now B. prayeth a Prohibition for that he may be sued for Debts and denied by the Court untill he be sued This Administration was first granted by Doctor B. and after by him revoked and a new granted by him to the Wives Brother and afterwards he revoked that and established the first Administration and the Appeal A Feofment in Fee by Deed indented Rent reserved it is good but without Deed cannot reserve Rent If Land be devised by three upon condition to pay them 100. l. equally to be divided and one of them dieth his Executor or Administrator shall have the Money and so it is if one were bound to pay Money The Commissary granted Administration of the Intestates Goods to the Wife and did make a Divident of his Estate to some of the rest of his Kindred and this was-held not to be warranted by Law and more then the Ordinary could do because the Administratrix is chargeable to pay all Debts and Promises of the Intestate and to bring up his Children which she cannot do if the Goods be taken away Vbi delinquit ibi punietur If a Copy-holder of Inheritance accept a Lease for years of his Copy-hold the Copy-hold is gone by the opinion of the whole Court If a Legacy be granted of Land this shall not be sued for in the Spiritual Court but if one by Will devise Land to be sold for payment of Legacies this shall be sued for in the Spiritual Court by the opinion of the whole Court If two Fulling-mils be under one Roof and a rate-tithe paid for the Mils and after you alter these Mils and make one a Corn-mill your Rate is gone and you must pay Tithes in kinde or if you have but one
adjudged insufficient and a new Writ awarded but many held that in the case of a Cognisor it was well enough but not in the case of a Purchasor If one knowledge a Statute and after a Judgement is had against the Cognisor now against the Cognisor the Statute shall be preferred but not against an Executor If a man plead a Bond knowledged to the King in the Exchequer it must be averred to be a true Debt If a Debt be assigned to the King in this case no priority of Execution If one staul a Debt by 20. s. a year this shall not stay my Execution the Court were of opinion that an Extent would not be good at Barwick for the Writ runs not there If a Judgement be given in a Court of Record it shall be preferred in case of an Executor before a Statute But if a man acknowledge a Statute and afterwards confess a Judgement and if the Land be extended upon the Judgement the Cognisee shall have a Scire facias to avoid the Extent upon the Judgement otherwise in case of Goods for therein first come first served for if I have a Judgement against one and afterwards he acknowledgeth a Statute and by vertue of the Statute the Goods of him being dead were taken in the Executors hands then upon the Judgement a Scire facias was sued and afterwards a Fieri facias of the Testators Goods it was held that the Goods first extended were lawfully extended and shall be good A Judgement was had against Sir Fr. Freeman and an Extent came to the Sheriff and afterwards and before any thing was thereupon done one Fieri facias against the Executor upon a Judgement given before the acknowledging the Statute was delivered to the Sheriff and the Question was whether the Extent or Fieri facias shall be first executed And note if the Land be first extended upon the Statute and afterwards an Elegit upon a Judgement obtained before the acknowledging the Statute come also to the Sheriff the moity of the Land extended shall be delivered to the Plaintiff upon the Judgement HIll 15. Jac. The case of Villainage is within the Statute of Limitation and in the case of M. Corbet it was held that the Prescription of the Seisin of the Plaintiff and his Ancestors as Villain was more then needeth and the Issue thereupon taken was good by the whole Court after Exception taken thereupon and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff In every Elegit the Sheriff must return and set out the moity distinctly unless they be Tenants in common and in that case he must return the special matter An Extent issued out against one Greisley by the name of Greisley Esquire who was at the time of suing out the Writ made Knight and Baronet and it was naught and the Plaintiff prosecuted a new Writ MIch 10. Jacobi A Tenant by Statute Staple or Elegit that hath extended an Abbots Lease or a Lease made out of an Abbots Lease is not bound to shew it because he cometh in by Act of Law but any other that cometh in under the Lease must shew it by the opinion of the whole Court And note that in Hillary 10. Jac. two Inquisitions taken at several Dayes by several Juries upon one Statute Merchant were adjudged naught one was taken of the Land and the other for Land and Goods and Extent of the whole fourth part was naught for it should be of the moity of the fourth part and mark it was of a Lease which was but a Chattell and the Sheriff might have sold it as Goods but seeing he had extended it in this case he should receive benefit but as in a common Extent COmyrrs versus Brandling A Lessee that had a Lease of the value of 100. l. and after the Teste of the Elegit and before the Sheriff had executed the Elegit assignes his terme to one who assignes it over to the Plaintiff in the Scire facias and afterwards and before the last Assignement the Sheriff executes the Elegit and delivers the Lease to the Plaintiff tenend c. for satisfaction of the Debt which came to but 43. l. 6. s. 8. d. it was held by all the Judges that the Sheriff could not deliver the Lease at another value then what the Jury had found it at and the Sale made by the Sheriff is as strong as if it had been made in open Market and that all the Goods and Chattels are bound after the Teste of the Elegit and cannot be sold by the Owner after the Teste of the Writ If a later Extent be avoided by an ancient Extent after the ancient Extent is satisfied the later Extent shall have the Land according to his first Extent without any re-extent by the opinion of Serjeant Hutton if the Husband charge the Lease of the Wife and dieth the Wife shall hold the Land discharged HIll 12. Jac. The Earl of Lincoln against Wood the Earl of Lincoln did arrest Wood upon a Capias upon a Statute Merchant Wood being in Execution obtained in the Chancery an Audita Quaerela and did put in Bail there and had a Supersedeas and was discharged of his Imprisonment and the Audita Quaerela and Bail sent into the Common Pleas to be proceeded on The cause of the Audita Quaerela was grounded upon the performance of the Defeasons of a Statute and after this case was debated for the Bailment of Wood and held by the Court to be good it was allowed of If the Act for Dissolution of Monasteries had not given the Land to the King the Founders ought to have had them And if an Hospital or religious House is impeached upon the Statute of Superstitious uses it must be proved to be regular for they must be religious that are dissolved by E. 6. JOules versus Joules Alderman purchased Land of one against whom a Judgement was given long before the Purchase and the Vendor afterwards became unable to pay the Judgement and long after the Plaintiff in the Judgement purchased a Scire facias against the Defendant and had Judgement against the Defendant by Default and afterwards had an Elegit and by vertue of that the Sheriff extends the Land of Joules the Purchasor who prayes the aid of the Court because the whole Land was not extended but he was forced to bring his Audita Quaerela If I make a Lease for years reserving a Rent during my Life and my Wives Life if I die the Rent is gone because she is a stranger she shall never have the Rent because she hath no Interest in the Land if one of them die nothing can survive to the other and a Limitation must be taken strictly otherwise it is by way of Grant that shall be taken strongly against the Grantor If 2. Tenants in common joyn in a Lease for years to bring an Ejectment and count Quod cum dimisissent c.
that is naught for it is a several Lease of their Moities and you must declare Quod cum one of them demised one moity and the other the other moity and good If a Tenant in Socage hath Issue and die his Issue being under the age of 14. years the next Freind of the Heir to whom the Inheritance cannot descend shall have the Guard of the Land untill the Heir come to the age of 14. years and he is called Guardion in Socage and in pleading a Lease for Life you are never to alleadge the place where the Lease was made because it passeth by Livery which was executed upon the Land He that pleads a Demise ought to shew that the Lessee entred and he that pleads a Descent ought to shew that he entred and an Exchange is a good Plea in Bar but it shall never be adjudged a good Exchange except this word Escambium be used in the Charter of Exchange HOpkins versus Radford A Defendant shall take no benefit of his own wrong In Sir James Harringtons case the Original was returned Quinque Pasch and the issue joyned that day and the Venire facias returned that day and held naught by the Court upon the first motion A future Lease cannot be surrendred but drowned For things in Action a Deed of Gift is void as Debts without Specialty although he say Goods Chattels and Specialties but for other Debts by Specialty and Goods it is good and for the Debts in Action after the Death of the Party Administration is to be granted and the Administrator is to have the Goods RAiner versus Mortimer One had Judgement upon a Scire facias to have Execution and a Capias ad satisfaciendum returnable 15. Martini and that Writ was returned Album Breve and a Testatum thereupon and the Defendant taken and this matter was moved to the Court and a Supersedeas prayed that the Testatum issued out erroneously because the Capias was not returned and it was granted by the whole Court because the Capias was not returned One seised in Fee may bargain and sell grant and demise Land to others and their Heirs to the use of one for years because he hath a Fee-simple but Lessee for years cannot bargain and sell his Lease to the use of one for years If a Marriage is intended between two men and one of them in consideration that the other hath upon the Marriage assured Land to his Son he doth assume to pay to my Son such a Summ immediately after the Marriage if the Money be not paid the Son must have the Action and not the Father MIch 5. Jacobi 61. One Jury-man appear in Court and when he came to the Barr to be sworn he informed the Court that he was eighty years old and prayed to be dischargâ—d and the Court could not grant it nor pass him by and swear others without committing Error except the Parties would consent for it is Error to skip a Juror who is returned if he appear and therefore the Juror was drawn by the consent of the Parties TRin. 6. Jacobi Upon a Levari facias out of a Court Baron Goods cannot be sold without a Custome to sell the Goods and if Goods be attached by Pone out of a Court Baron the Defendant shall not lose his Cattle otherwise it is if it be a Process out of the Common Pleas then the Defendant loseth his Cattle for not appearing if you lay that you have a Court time out of minde to be held before a Steward you must shew what Pleas you have used to have Conusance of A Sheriff returned but 21. onely upon a Venire facias and at the Triall ten onely appeared and a Decem tales was awarded and tried and Verdict for the Plaintiff and this matter was moved in Arrest of Judgement for that the Sheriff had returned but 21. and the Court were of opinion that if 12. of them had appeared that it had been good notwithstanding but because 10. onely appeared of the principal therefore it was naught and Judgement arrested for that cause If a Juror be sworn of the principal and the Jury remain when the Jury comes again he shall be sworn again TRin. 6. Jac. rotulo 251. Dunnall versus Giles A special Verdict and the Question was a man being possessed of a terme devises the whole terme to A. for Life and if he dies within the terme to B. during the minority of C. and that C. when he comes to full age shall have the Remainder of the terme and held a good Devise To devise Land or Terme or Lease all one it is an Executory Devise If one surrender Land to the use of an Estranger that is to resty the use in Reversion for the Land is in him immediately If a man hath a Rent in esse you cannot grant that in Reversion after your Death but if I surrender to the use of one after my Decease is not good by his opinion of Warburton and Daniel If the Sheriff shall by vertue of a Fieri facias levy the Debt and Damages of a man and make a Return that the said Goods remain in his hands for want of Buyers the Property remains still in the Defendant although the Sheriff hath Possession of the Goods A Sheriff may sell Goods levied upon a Fieri facias out of his County In Watermans case the Issue was whether a Copy-holder in one Town had Common in Land lying in another Town and the Plaintiff shews that he is Lord of the Hundred of C. within which Hundred one of the Villages lie and prayes a Venire facias of the Town next adjoyning to the said Hundred and it was granted and tried and Exception to the Triall for that the Venire was not of both Villages An Alien born being no free Denizen may defend and bring a Writ of Error and it is no Plea to say that he is an Alien born Note by the Common Law the Lord of the Mannour may come and take away a Tree cut down upon the Copy-hold Land by his Copy-holder without laying a special Custome for it If there be an unlawfull Marriage as the Brother doth marry his Sister and they have Issue and one of them dieth before any Divorce had between them now after the Death of one of them the Issue cannot be bastarded as in Cordies case 39 E. 43. 22 E. 4. After a general Imparlance one cannot plead an Outlary in Barr to an Action of Trespass or Case but it must be pleaded in abatement except he be outlawed after the last Continuance for you shall plead nothing in Barr but what goeth to the pit of the Action now the Damages in Trespass or Case are not forfeited by Outlary as Debt because of the incertainty To the Owner of the Soil on both sides of the way of common right belong the Trees that grow in the Lane whether
Indenture the Covenant was for quiet injoying without let trouble interruption c. The Plaintiff assigned his Breach that he forbad his Tenant to pay his Rent this was held by the Court to be no Breach unlesse there were some other Act and the Defendant pleaded that after the time the Plaintiff said that he forbad the Tenant to pay the Rent the Tenant did pay the Rent to the Plaintiff LEvel versus Hall Pasch 9. Jac. rotulo 805. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to which the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff brought another Action upon the same Bond in London to which the Defendant there had pleaded Non est factum and it was there found that it was not the Defendants Deed and in London the Entry is upon such a Verdict that the Defendant shall recover Damages against the Plaintiff and that the Defendant should be without day c. but no Judgement that the Plaintiffe should take nothing by his Writ and therefore no Judgement to be barred in another Suit but barr the Plaintiffe for it is onely a triall and no Judgement and the Plea was adjudged naught by the whole Court MIch 15. Jac. Rotulo 2215. One made another his Executor and that Executor died and made another his Executor and the last Executor refused to own his first Will as to his goods and this matter was pleaded in his Action of Debt brought by an Administrator of the Goods of the first Executor pretending the Administration was void although the Executor refused to be Executor as to the Goods and the Court held the Administration void for the Executor cannot be Executor for part at his own Election and not for part and the Defendant pleaded that the Executor should not bring his Action as Administrator but as Executor WHerwood versus Shaw Mich. 44. and 45 Eliz. Shaw Executor of A. brought an Action of Debt against Wherwood Administrator of Feild upon a Bill made by Field to A. by which Feild doth acknowledge himself to have received of one P. forty l. to be equally divided between the said A. and B. to their use and upon a Judgement given in the Common Pleas Wherwood brings a Writ of Error and the Judgement was affirmed the matters moved were i. because the forty pounds was given to be equally divided between A and B. therefore they were Tenants in common of it and Shaw should have joyned B. in the Action with himself as Tenants in common are to joyn in personall action but over-ruled that in this case there were severall Debts to wit twenty pound to one and twenty pounds to the other as in case of ten pounds rent reserved upon a Lease to wit five pounds at the Feast of Michaelmas and five pounds at the Feast of the Annunciation yet it is but one Rent and this case is not to be resembled to the Cases of Interest as in the 20 Eliz. where Land or Lease be giuen to two equally to be divided for there they are Tenants in common The second thing moved was whether Debt or account did ly and adjudged that although no contract was between the parties yet when either money or goods are delivered upon consideration to the use of A. A. may have an Action of Debt and of that opinion was Mountain 28 H. 8. in Core and Woods Case and also there is a President of such Actions of Debt in the Book of Entries BRoad versus Owen Mich. 44 and 45 Eliz. The Plaintiffe brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 5 Eliz for Perjury against the Defendant the case was thus one Low was Plaintiffe against Brode in the high Court of Chancery and upon Bill and Answer such matter appeared to the Lord Keeper that he ordered that one Labourer should become party to the Bill against Brode and afterwards one Commission issued out of Chancery between Labourer and Brode to examine Witnesses by which Commission Owen the now Defendant was examined on the behalf of Labourer and did depose directly for Labourer against Brode by reason whereof one Order and Decree was made in the Chancery against Brode and for that cause Brode brought his Action of Debt against Owen upon the Statute of Perjury 5 Eliz. for one party grieved by the Oath and Deposition of another and Owen demurrs in Law and by the opinion of Gaudy and Yelverton Justices the Action would not lie for the words of the Statute are where a man is grieved and damnified by a Deposition in one Suit between party and party and in this Case it appeared that Labourer was no party to the Suit but came in by an Order and no Bill depending either against him or brought by him and so out of the Statute for it is penall and to be taken strictly and quaere if he in the Reversion joyn in aid and is grieved and prejudiced by an Oath and Deposition may maintain an Action of Debt upon this Statute for he may undoubtedly by the Common Law have an Attaint GReen versus Gascoin Pasch 1. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for an hundred pounds to which the Defendant pleads in Barr to the Action an Outlary against the Plaintiff and shews it incertain the Plaintiff replies Nul tiel record and the Defendant had Day till the next Term to bring in the Record and in the mean time the Plaintiff reverses the Outlary by which it is become in Law no Record according to the 4 H. 7. 12. And Yelverton moved the Court for the Defendant that although in Law there was a Failer of the Record yet the Defendant ought not to be condemned but shall answer over according to the 6. of Eliz. Dier fol. 228. where it is adjudged that Failer of the Record is not peremptory and so adjudged for it was no Default in the Defendant his Plea being true at such time as it was pleaded with mark WEaver versus Clifford Action of Debt brought for an Escape the Case was thus upon the Nichils returned against a Conusor in Chancery a Capias was awarded out of the Chancery against him by vertue of which he was taken by the Sheriff and suffered to escape and adjudged that no Action would lie against the Sheriff in this Case for a Capias lies not upon a Recognisance but onely a Scire facias and therefore when a man is taken upon the Capias he is not a Prisoner by the course of Law for the Law hath not ordained any means to arrest him and is therefore in Custody without Warrant and no Escape and it is an illegal Commitment and so is the â—ratuâ—e of Westminster the 2. to bâ— constâ—ued which gâ—… Action against the the Gaolor to wit where the party is in Execution by course of Law and although the Chancery doth award a Capias upon a Recognisance and that there are divers Preâ—â—lents of it et it is bâ—t the use of that
not to the age of the Daughter for the age of the Daughter shall be intended to be set down for the receit of her legacy of forty pounds and for no other purpose and the Defendant within the time in which the Rent demanded is supposed to be due had not determined his Will as appears by the Verdict but Fennor and W. said that by the Verdict that the Defendant entred by force of the lease and occupied the land at the time comprised in the Declaration and more and that the Tenant at will cannot determine his will within a little time before the year end for that would prove very mischeivous to the lessor that his Tenant at will should determine his will within the year and refuse to occupy the land twenty dayes before the year end and in 21 H. 7. Crooks Reports it appears that a Lessee at will cannot determine his will within the year to the prejudice of the Lessor but that he shall answer the whole Rent to the Lessor but note it appeared that the Lessee at will was expulsed by the Plaintif that was Lessor and no other thing although done by his agreement can determine the Lease against the Lessor for it is Covin if the Lessee be not privy and acquainted with it which was granted by the whole Court and all of them agreed in the Title against the Plaintif but as the Reporter affirmed Popham was absent and hearing the Case was of opinion that the Plaintif had an interest by the words of the will JEffry versus Guy Mich. 3. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with Condition that if Jeffry the Defendant perform all Covenants in such an Indenture that then c. and one Covenant was that he should permit Guy the Plaintiffe from time to time to come and see if the House Leased by Guy and K. his Wife were in repair the Case was thus J. Bill and K. his Wife were Tenants in Tail of a house and had Issue J. B. dies K. marries Guy the Plaintiffe and they two make a Lease by Indenture to Jeffry for twenty years yeelding and paying to them and their Heirs three pounds Rent by the year with the Covenant as aforesaid Jeffry pleads in Barr the former intail and the death of R. and that VV. the Issue in Tail such a day entred before which Entry the Condition was not broken Guy replies that William came with him upon the Land to see if reparations c. and traverses the Entry of William in manner and form prout c. and Issue joyned upon the traverse and found for the Plaintiffe and Judgement given in the common Pleas upon which Judgement Jeffry brought Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and Judgement affirmed there but it was assigned for Error the Jury had not assigned any breach of Covenant in Jeffry and so had showed no cause of action but the Court held he need not in this Case for by the speciall Issue tendred by Jeffry the Plaintiffe was inforced one speciall replication to that point tendred and the Plaintiffe could not proceed error and it is not like the Case of an arbitrement wherein Debt upon an Obligation to perform the award the Defendant pleads nullum fecer arbitrium then the Defenâ—… in his replication ought to set forth the award and assign his breach because the Defendants Plea is generall but if in such Case the Defendant should plead a release of all demands after the Arbi-Arbitrement by which he offers a special point in Issue there it suffices if the Plaintiff answers to the Release or other special matter alleadged by the Defendant without assigning any Breach so in this Case the special Plea of the Defendant had disabled the Plaintiff that he could not assign any Breach of Covenants but of necessity ought to answer to the special matter alleadged RAstell versus Draper Mich. 3. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought for nine and thirty pounds the Plaintiff declares that the first of May primo Iacobi sold to the Defendant twenty Northern Clothes for sixty pounds Flemish Money to be paid upon Request which sixty pounds Flemish Money amount to nine and thirty pounds English Money and that the Defendant though often requested had not paid the nine and thirty pounds to his Damages of c. The Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Plaintiff should have demanded the summ according to the Contract which was for sixty pounds Flemish and to have shewed that it amounts to nine and thirty pounds English but the whole Court against it for the Debt ought to be demanded by a name known and the Judges are not skilled in Flemish Money and also when the Plaintiff hath his Judgement he could not have his Execution by that name for the Sheriff cannot tell how to levy the Money in Flemish and also it is made good by the Verdict for the Jury have found the Debt demanded to wit nine and thirty pounds But if the Contract had been for so many Ounces of Flemish Money or a Barr of Silver and Gold now it cannot be demanded by the name of twenty pounds or such a summ which is not Coin nor used in Trade or Merchandise but in such Case must have a Writ of Detinue and in that recover the thing or the value and so in the Book of Entries fol. 157. is the President where Debt was brought upon two severall Obligations and demands eight and twenty pounds and declares severally that by one Obligation he owed eight and twenty pounds of Flemish Money and 34 H. 6. 12. 9 E. 4. 46. But note in that Case the Plaintiff if he would might have declared in the Detinet and it had been good ROlles versus Osborn Mich. 3. Jac. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant upon a Bond of a thousand pounds and Serjeant Nichols moved the Court for the Defendant and shewed that the Plaintiff and Defendant were obliged each to other in a thousand pounds a peice that they should intermarry before such a Day and both their Obligations were forfeited and each of them sued the other and the Defendant prayed that common Bail might be accepted of her and she would accept of common Bail of the Plaintiff and the Court held it reasonable but said if they would marry both their Bonds might be saved BArneshurst versus Yelverton Hill 3. Jacobi The Plaintiff as Administrator of I. S. brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant upon a Bond and obtained a Judgement and afterwards the Administration is revoked yet notwithstanding the Plaintiff proceeded and took the Defendant in Execution and upon a Motion in the Court the Court held the Execution void and that the Defendant ought to be discharged because it issued out erroneously for the Letters of Administration being revoked the power of the Plaintiff is gone
of Clanrickard with whom Yelverton was of Councel it was resolved that if the Issue be upon the custome of Tithing and that it be found against the Defendant he shall pay the value expressed by the Plaintiff in his Declaration for because by the collateral matter pleaded in Barr the Declaration is in whole confessed SMith versus Smith Trin. 6 Jacobi one Bisse made K. his Wife and John his Sonne being one year old Executors and K. solely proved the Will and afterwards married the Plaintiff and they two brought an Action of Debt as Executors against the Defendant and the Defendant pleads in abatement of the Bill that John was made Executor with K. and is yet in life and not named the Plaintiffes reply that John was but of the age of one year and that K. proved the Will and had Administration committed to her during the minority and that John is and was at the time of the Writ purchased within the age of seventeen years and upon that Yelverton demurred and adjudged for the Defendant that the Bill should abate for both of them in truth were Executors and ought to be named in the Action and although by the Administration granted during the minority K. had the full power yet the Infant ought to be named he being Executor GOmersall versus Ask Trin. 6. Iacobi The Defendant brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant as Administrator of her Husband upon two former Judgements given in two Actions of Debt against the intestate and shews the recoveries the Defendant pleads that the intestate entred into a recognisance 35 El. in Chancery to Sir Henry Bechel and shows that after the Judgements had by the Plaintiff Sir H. obtained a Judgement against the intestate upon the Recognisance and that she hath not assets to satisfie the Plaintiff of the intestates Goods beyond Goods that are chargeable and liable to the Judgement upon the Recognisance to which Plea the Plaintiff demurres and by Fennor and Williams justifies the Plea in Barr was good for although the Plaintiffes Judgements mentioned in his Actions are before Sir H. Judgement yet because the Plaintiff by his Action doth not demand Execution of the Judgements but onely his Debt recovered for this Action brought it as an originall and in the same Court as if he did demand the Debt upon the first Obligation and therefore because the Plaintiff had not sued out a Scire facias to execute the first Judgements but had prosecuted a new originall the Plea is good and allowable as it had been upon the said Obligation but Yeluerton and Fleming were of a contrary opinion for the Plea had not been good against the intestate himself and the Executor or Administrator represents his person and therefore the Plea is not good but onely in excuse of a Devastavit and they were of opinion that the Action brought by the Plaintiff was in nature of a Scire facias for he demanded the Debt in another course then it was at first for that Debt which was but matter of escript is now become by the Judgement to be Debt upon Record and of so high a nature that the Judgement being in Force he can never have an Action upon the Obligation which is adjuged in Higgins Case Co. 6 Rep. but Cook doubted and the Plaintiff dying the Court did not resolve APleton versus Baily Mich. 6. Jacobi Apleton as Executor of Apleton brought an Action of Debt against Baily for the Arrerages of diverse Rents as well Copy-hold Rents as Free-hold Rents pertaining to a Mannor whereof the Testator was seised and thereof died seised and the Rents were not paid to him in his life time by reason whereof they belonged to the Plaintiff as Executor And the Defendant though he was requested had not paid against the form of the Statute of the 32 H. 8. And the Court that the Action did not ly for the Arrerages of Copy-hold Land for the Statute of the 32 H. 8. doth not extend to them but only to Rents out of Free Land Secondly It lies not for the Rent of free Land because the Plaintiff hath not shewed in his Declaration that the Defendant had attorned to the Testator in his life And although in pleading it is good to alledge a Feoffment of a Mannor without pleading any Livery or of any Attornment of Tenements but when the Rent of any Free-hold Land comes in Debate it behoves both the Owner of the Mannor and and his Executor that demands it to convey the privity between the Tenant and the Lord which ought to be by attornment for Rents and Services rest not without Attornment which mark PEirson versus Ponuteis Mich. 6. Jacobi The Plaintiff as Executor of Peirson brought an Action of Debt against Jo. Ponuties of London Merchant that he should render to him three and thirty pounds twelve shillings in that the Defendant 5. Oct. 1598. at London c. By his Bill obligatory hath acknowledged himself to owe to the Testator 1518. Florens Polish which then amounted to thirty three pounds twelve shillings to be paid to the Testator Ad solucionem festi purificat c. Called Candlemas day next insuing and to that payment had obliged himself by the same Bill And the Plaintiff avers that Predicti soluciones dicti festi purificat c. Next after the making the Bill were according to the use of Merchants the twentieth of February 1598. Yet the Defendant had not paid the 1518. Florence Polish or the thirty three pounds twelve s. to the Testator nor to the Plaintiff The Defendant pleads Non est factum and found against him and moved in arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was not good because first the payment of Candlemas is not known in our Law but that was not allowed for that which is unknown in ordinary intendment is made manifest and helped by the Averment in the declaration because that payment among Merchants is known to be upon the twentieth of February and the Judges ought to take notice of those things that are used amongst Merchants for the maintenance of traffick and the rather because the Defendant doth not deny it but pleads non factum by which he confesses the Declaration to be true in that averment Secondly it was objected that as the Case is the use of Merchants is not materiall because the Testator by any thing that appears was not a Merchant but it was not allowed because the defendant that bound himself to pay was a Merchant and the Testator ought to take the Bill as the defendant would make it and he chose to make the payment according to the use of Merchants and not according to the Ordinary intercourse between party and party which mark this by the whole Court TAlbot versus Godbold Mich. 6. Jac. Godbold 28 Eliz. sealed a Bill to the Plaintiff made in this manner memorandum that I have received of Edw. Talbot who was the Plaintiffes Testator to the
forth divers payments by him made and amongst other payments shews that he had payed to M. Fawn named in the Condition sixty pounds for a Legacy due by the Will of the said Ed. A. the payment of which sixty pounds was disallowed by that Court and by the Order of the Chancery sixty five pounds paid for not allowing the first sixty pounds to Ed. A. the Son which sixty and five pounds the Defendant had not repaid though thereunto requested and so he was damnified to which Replication the Defendant demurrs and the opinion of the whole Court after a great Debate was against the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff in his Replication had alleadged two Causes to inforce his Damage the first was that the Plaintiff in his Answer in the Chancery had alleadged the payment of sixty pounds to M. F. for a Legacy due to her by the Will and that such Allegation was rejected by the Court of Chancery and neither of those matters are certainly alleadged but by way of Implication and not expresly for he ought to have shewn that a Legacy of sixty pounds was given to M. F. by the Will of E. A. for although the Will of E. A. is recited in the Condition in the Date against which Recitall the Defendant may not be admitted to say that he made no such Will yet the Legacy given to M. F. is not recited in the Condition if not in the General against which the Defendant may take a Traverse that Eáw. A. did not bequeath such a Legacy of sixty pounds and upon that a good Issue may be taken And secondly the Plaintiff sayes that the payment of the said sixty pounds was disallowed by the Court of Chancery and doth not appear in the Replication where the Chancery was at that time to wit whether at Westminster or at any other place and it is issuable and triable by a Jury whether any such Order of Chancery were made or not for the Orders there are but in Paper and are not upon Record to be tried by Record but by a Jury and the Plaintiff perceiving the opinion of the Court against him prayed that he might discontinue his Suit which was granted by the whole Court but Quaere of this it being after a Demurrer WEaver versus Clifford Pasch 44. Eliz. rotulo 453. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Escape against Clifford and declares that one A. was bound to the Plaintiff in one Recognisance of a hundred pounds to be paid at a Day at which Day A. made Default of Payment and the Plaintiff sued out two Scire fac and upon the second Scire fac a Nihil was returned and the Plaintiff had Judgement to recover and afterwards he sued out a Levari fac and a Nihil being returned the Plaintiff prosecuted a Capias ad satisfaciend by vertue of which Writ the Defendant being then Sheriff took the said A. and afterwards at D. in the County of S. permitted him to go at large to which the Declaration the Defendant demurred Damport for the Defendant and he shewed the cause of the Demurrer to be because a Capias upon the Recognisance did not lie and he divided the Case into two parts first whether a Capias would lie in the Case and secondly whether the Sheriff would take the Advantage of such a naughty Processe and as to the first it seemed to him that a Capias would not lie because it appeared by Herberts 5. Repub. fol. 12. And Garnons Case 5. Rep. fol. 88. that the Body of the Defendant was not liable to Execution for Debt by the Common Law but onely in Trespasse where a Fine was due to the King or that he was accountant to the King and the Plaintiff could have no other Processe but a Fieri facias within the year and if the year were passed then he might have a new Original in Debt But now by the Statute of Marlbrig cap. 23. And Westm. 2. cap. 11. a Capias is given in Account and by the 25 E. 3. c. 17. Capias is given in Debt and Detinue and by the 19 H. 7. c. 9. the like Processe is given in Case as in Debt and Trespasse and the 23 H. 8. c. 14. a Capias is given in a Writ of Annuity and Covenant but Statute gives a Capias in this Case and therefore it remaines as it was at Common and by that it would not lie which is also apparent by the Recognisance for that is that if the Debt shall be levied of the Goods and Chattels Lands and Tenements c. and doth not meddle with the Body and by an expresse Authority 13 14 Eliz. Dier 306. Puttenhams Case it is held that the Chancery hath no Authority to commit the Defendant to the Fleet upon a Recovery in a Scire facias upon a Recognisance because the Body is not liable And for the second point it seemed to him that the Sheriff should take Advantage of this which should be as void and as null whereof a stranger may take benefit and to prove this he took this Difference when a Processe will not lie and where it is disorderly awarded as if an Exigent be sued out before a Capias or an Execution before Judgement for if that Processe be originally supposed there the Processe is but erroneous in Druries Case 8. Rep. 142. 34 H. 6. 2. b. But if the Action it self will not maintain the Processe as a Capias in Formedon there that Processe is as void and null and he took another Diversity when the Capias is taken by the Award of the Court when Judgement is given that he shall recover for in that Case it shall remain good untill it be reversed because it is the Act of the Court and so is Druries Case to be intended but if the party himself take it it is at his own peril as here it is for the Plaintiff hath onely pleaded that he prosecuted c. which is as void to the party who sued it out and he shall have no benefit of it but the Sheriff shall not be punished for false Imprisonment because he is not to examine the illegality or validity of the Processe for the 11 H. 4. 36. If a Capias issue out without any Original and the party be taken the Sheriff shall not be punished and for these Reasons he prayed Judgement for the Defendant Noy was for the Plaintiff and he agreed that at the Common Law no Action did lie in this Case as it hath been said but he was of opinion that this Case is within 25 E. 3. cap. 17. for the intention and drift of the Statute was to give speedy remedy to recover Debts and the Action is all one in the eye of the Law as if it had been done by Original which in the equity of the Statute And a Capias lies upon a Recognisance against a Surety for the Peace and upon a Scire facias against the Bail in the Upper Bench. As to
goes to issue upon it for if they discend to issue upon such a Plea and it be found against the Defendant it is peremptory and he shall loose the Land but upon demurrer it is not peremptory but onely to answer over Which mark VVOrkley versus Granger Mic. 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for two Houses and certain Lands c. And upon a speciall Verdict The case was one Heâ— Wels and his wife nere seised of a parcel of Land to them and the Heirs of their bodies begotten as for the joynture of the wife the remainder to the Heirs of the Husband in Fee the Husband bargains and sels the Land to Stamp and his Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Husband and one Winter leavie a Fine of that Land to another who grants that Land back again to Winter for one month the remainder to the husband and wife and the heire of their bodies to be begotten the remainder to the husband and his heirs The Husband dyes the Wife survives and makes a Lease to the Defendant for ninety nine yeers if she should so long live the woman dyes and the Plaintiffe claims under the bargainee and in this Case two points were debated First what Estate passed to the bargainee and Digges of Lincolnes Inne who argued for the Plaintiffe that the bargainee had a Fee simple determinable which issued out of both the Estates as it was held by Periam in Alton Woods Case And he said that the Proclamations upon the Fine are but a repetition of the Fine as it is held in Bendlones Rep put in the Case of Fines in Cooks 3. Rep. And see Pinslees Case for then for the same cause the Issue in tayl is bound although the Fine be levied by the Husband alone by the Statute of the 4. H. 7. and 32 H. 8. because he cannot claim but as Heir to the Father as well as to the Mother and therefore his Conveyance is bound and see 16. E Dyd 332. Husband and Wife Tenants in speciall tayl The husband is attainted of Treason and executed having Issue the woman dyes the Issue shall never have the Land And if husband and wife Tenants in speciall tayl And the Husband levies a Fine to his own use and devises the Land to his wife for life which remainded over rendring Rent the husband dyes the woman enters pays the Rent and dyes the Issue is barred for two causes first by the Fine which had barred his Conveyance of the intayl secondly by the Remitter waived by the Mother 18 Eli Dyer 531. See 5 H. 7. Assise Thorp and Tirrels Case Secondly the Lease made by the woman was determined by her death and it was said that the woman had not any qualitie of an Estate tayl but onely she might take the profits during her life within the Statute of 11 H. 7. And when she dyes the Estate is denised See Austens Case Doctor Wyat Tenant in tail leased for yeers And dyed without Issue the Lease was determined See first of Eliz title Executors And 31 H. 8. Dyer Where a Bishop made a Lease for yeers and afterwards makes another Lease to one of the Lessees c. And Fleming held that if the woman survived as under Tenant in speciall tayl and made a Lease for 21. yeers it is out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. and so it was adjudged in Wattes and Kings Case LAne versus Alexander Hill 5. Jaco The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made to him by Mary Planten for three yeers the Defendant saies c. that the Land is Copihold Land of the Mannor of H. in Norff. whereof the Queen Eliz was seised in Fee and long time before the Lessor had any thing there in Court such a day that J. S. her Steward at the Court c. granted the Land to the Defendant by Copie in Fee according to the custome and so justifies his entry upon the Plaintiffe The Plaintiffe replies and saies that long time before the Copy granted to the Defendant to wit at a Court of the Mannor held such a day the 43. Eliz the Queen by Copy c. granted the Land to the Lessor for life according to the custome by force whereof he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe The Defendant by way of rejoynder maintained his barr and traverses with that the Queen at the Court of the Mannor by J. S. her Steward such a day c. granted the Land to the Lessor and upon this the Plaintiffe demurred in Law generally And Yelverton moved that the traverse was good in this Case upon the day and Steward and the difference is where the act done may indifferently be supposed to be done on the one day or the other there the day is not traversable as in the Case of a Deed made such a day there the day of the Deed is not traversable for it passes by the livery and not by the Deed. And the livery is the substance and the day but a bundance 10 E. 4. And the Law is the same if the day in trespasse wherein the day is not traversable For although it be done upon another day it is not materiall But when a man makes his title by an especiall kinde of Conveyance as in this case the Plaintiffe makes his title by one Copy there all that is concerned in the Copy is materiall and the party cannot depart from it for he claims not the Land by any other Copy but by that which is pleaded as is in the 18 H. 6. 14. where an Action is brought for taking his Servant and counts that he by Deed retained with him his Servant the Monday in one week in such a case it is a good plea for the Defendant to say that the Servant was retained by him such a day after without that that the Plaintiffe did retain him the Monday And the Law seems to be concerning Letters Patents wherein the day and place are traversable being the speciall conveyance of the party from which he cannot depart And also it seems that although the day in the principall case be traversed yet the Statute of 18 Eliz of Demurrers aids it it being but a generall Demurrer and the day being onely matter of form But the whole Court were of opinion that the day was not traversable in this case For the Queen granting an ancienter Copy to the Plaintiffs Lessor then to the Defendant and the traverse should have been without this that the Queen did grant in manner and form c. to the Plaintiffs Lessor and the Case is the same in the Letters Patents for there the traverse should be without this that the Queen granted in manner and form c. And the day and place shall not come into the traverse But Justice Fennor was of a contrary opinion for the Reason delivered by Yelverton before and he also and the Lord cheif Justice held it to be holpen by the Statute of 18 Eliz for it is but
to the estate casts the possession of his Ancestors upon him but a stranger to whom a Copy hold is surrendred hath nothing before admittance because he is a purchasor And a Copy made to him upon which he is admitted is his Evidence by the custome and before that he is not a customary Tenant and so he could not transfer any thing to another and adjudged so according to 24 Eliz Alderman Dixies Case BEdell versus Lull Pasch 7. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made by Eliz James of certain Lands The Defendant pleads that before Eliz had any thing one Martin James was seised in fee of it and had issue Henry James and dyed seised by reason whereof it discended to H. J. as Son and Heir and that Eliz entred and was seised by abatement and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and that afterwards the Defendant as servant to H James and by his command c. The Plaintiffe by way of replication confesses the seisen of M. James And that he being so seised by his last Will in writing devised the said Land to Eliz in fee and afterwards dyed seised by reason whereof she entred by force of the devise and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and traverse without that Eliz was seised by abatement in manner and form c. And the Defendant demurrs upon this replication and shewed for cause that the traverse was not good and adjudged for the Defendant for the Plaintiffe by his replication need not both confesse avoid and traverse the abatement too for the Plaintiffe made a title to his Lease by the Will of his Ancestor and that proved that he entred legally and not by abatement as the Defendant had supposed And then to take a traverse over makes the replication vitious For a traverse shall not be taken but where the thing traversed is issuable And here the devise is onely the title issuable And it was also held that the traverse was not good as to the manner of it for he should not have traversed without that that he was seised by abatement but it ought to have been without that that he did abate and also if the Plaintiffe had minded to have fully answered the Defendant he ought to have took his traverse in the very same words the Defendant had pleaded it against him to wit without that that he did enter and was seised by abatement which observe The Case concerned Sir H. James to whom the Defendant was Tenant SAunders versus Cottington Mich. 7. Jac. An Ejectment brought of two Houses but the Bill was onely for one and it was filed And the Defendant by his paper book pleaded to both Messuages And the Roll in Court and the Record of Nisi prius were two Houses And there was a verdict for the Plaintiffe and Judgement entred accordingly And a Writ of Error was brought by the Defendant and before the Record was removed the Plaintiffe moved the Court that the Bill upon the file might be amended and made two Messuages And because the Defendant had pleaded to Messuages in his Answer in paper and that the Roll and Record were according it was resolved by the whole Court that the Bill upon the File should be amended and made two Messuages for that Bill which made mention onely of one House could not be the ground of all the proceedings afterwards but it was as if no Bill had been filed and therefore it should be supplied and so had been severall times before the Record was renewed Which observe THe Plaintiffe declared in Ejectment upon a Lease of an House 10 Acres of Land 20 Acres of Meadow 20 Acres of Pasture by the name of one Messuage and ten Acres of Meadow be it more or lesse and upon not guilty pleaded the Plaintiffe had a Verdict but moved in Arrest of Judgement and Judgement was stayed For by the Plaintiffs own shewing in his Declaration he could not have Execution of the number of Acres found by the Verdict for in the Lease there is but ten Acres demised And these words more or lesse could not in judgment of Law be extended to thirty or fourty Acres for it is impossible by common intendment and the rather because the Land demanded by the Declaration is of another nature then that which is mentioned in the per nomen c. For that is only of Meadow and the Declaration is of arrable and Pasture MOore versus Hawkins Mich. 8. Jacobi In Ejectment after issue Joyned upon a not guilty pleaded the cause came to be tried before Brook and Yelverton Judges of Assize in the County of Oxford the Plaintiffe had declared of divers Messuages and divers Acres of Land lying in three Villages in the said County And at the tryall before the Jury was sworn Walter the Defendants Counsell put in a Plea that after the last continuance to wit such a day in Trinity Terme before the day of Assize to wit the 20. of July the Assizes being held at Oxford the 21 of July the Plaintiffe had entred into such a Close by name containing eight Acres parcell of the premises specified in the Declaration c. and this Plea was received by the Judges of Assize And afterward in Mich. Terme Yelverton and Walter being of Counsell with the Defendant desired that they might amend their Plea to wit to put in the very Village where the Land did lye into which the entry of the Plaintiffe was because it was but matter of form and not of substance and they were of opinion that the tryall of that new lssue ought to be of all the three Villages named in the Declaration And Yelverton Justice having asked the opinions of all the Judges in Serjeants Inne Fleetstreet related their opinions in the Court the Record of Nisi prius was returned into the Exchequer to wit that it was in the discretion of the Justices of Assize to accept such a Plea as is before and that it might be well allowed as the 10 H. 7. is and it shall stay the Verdict But otherwise it is of a protection for although they allow a protection yet the Judges may take the Verdict de bene esse yet he said that in the 7. E 3. in a Precipe quod reddat a Release was pleaded at the tryal and the Jury found the Verdict but that was the indiscretion of the Judges to allow it when it should not have been allowed And all the said Judges held as he related that the Plaintiffe could not have a replication to that Plea at the tryall for the Justices have no power either to accept a Replication upon that Plea or to try it but onely to return it as parcell of the Record of Nisi prius And they held also that the Plea being put in the Countrey could not be amended in adding the Town in certain in which the Close did lye for it was matter of substance And that the Court of
is the eldest Son although they alleadge their births in severall Counties yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and so in that Case a Release of all his right was pleaded against him and he pleaded that he was within age and borne in another County yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and so adjudged 7 H. 4. 8. and 17 E. 3. 36. b. 19 H. 6. 15. Nay though the Espousals be alleadged to be in another County yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and adjudged 7 H. 4. 8. And Davenport inferrs from 36 H. 6. 9. A grand Cape against one he comes and pleads that he was within age at the time of the first Cape which shall be tryed where the Land lyes And another exception was taken because the Venire facias was not well awarded for it was directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex that he should cause to come twelve Coram nobis apud westmonasterium which is not good for that Court follows the King and may be removed to any place and therefore it ought to have been Vbicunque fuerimus in Anglia but all the Judges Fleming being absent after mature deliberation held the tryall at Middlesex good for they took this difference in their answer to the rule layd downe that what concernes the realty it shall be tryed where the Land lyes for when nonage or the birth are alleadged to intitle one to the Land demanded as if in an Assise the Tenant pleads a discontinuance the Demandant sayes he was within age at the time or to debarr another of Land that he was borne before marriage in these Cases because the Inheritance of the Land depends upon it although they be alleadged in another place yet they shall be tryed where the Land lyes 19 H. 6. And so it is 39 H. 6. 49. b. to be intended but if nonage or birth be pleaded as matter dehors and not to the disabling of the title to the Land but to another purpose as here it is to the person because he could not appeare by Attorney in this Case it shall be tryed where the Infancy is alleadged As if in a Formedon in the Remainder the Tenant pleads nonage in the Plaintiff and prayes that the Plea may stay untill his full age if Issue be taken upon it it shall be tryed in the place where it is alleadged And as to the Exception to the Venire facias the Roll is right which warrants the Writ and therefore they held it was but the Writers fault and should be amended and Doddridge and Cook held the Triall good if Infancy be alledged the Triall shall be by inspection during his Nonage as it is 17 E. 3. Account 121. and 11 H. 4. 115. 25. Ass 2. and 48 E. 3. 11. and the 11. Rep. f. 30. but if his Age upon inspection remains doubtfull then the Judges may swear the party and examine Witnesses And 25 E. 3. 44. and 50 E. 3. 5. but if the Infant come to full Age it shall be tried by the Countrey 33 H. 8. and they took this Difference in what place it should be tried for if the Action be reall it shall be tried where the Land lies as it is 21 E. 3. 28. 28 E. 3. 17. 44 Assis 10. 46 E. 3. 7. 13 H. 4. 3. and if both places be in one County then the venire facias shall be of both 22 E. 3. 11. H. 4. 75. but if nonage be alledged in a personall Action the Triall shall be where the writ is brought 43. H. 6. 40. in Debt the Defendant pleaded infancy and that he was born in such a place yet the Venire facias was awarded of that place where the Action was brought and 43 H. 6. 40. Prisot was of the same opinion and the Law is the same when it concerns the person as in misnomer or that he is not the same person and so in the Case in question although the Action be brought in one place and the nonage pleaded in another County yet it shall be tried where the Action was brought and therefore the Action being brought in Midd. the triall of Midd. is good for a writ of Error is of the nature of an Originall which is personall and they held the Venire facias should be amended being but a matter of Form and that it was no mistriall it being awarded at a right place and likewise the will is right which warrants it and therefore it is but a misprision and no mistriall and the Venire facias shall be amended according to the will and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff in the writ of Error Formedon BRigham versus Godwin The Formedon did abate by the death of one of the Demandants and upon a new writ brought by Journes accounts the Tenant was Essoined and it was moved by the demanded that the Essoin should be quashed because the Tenant was Essoined upon the first writ but the Essoin was allowed by the Court but it was held by the Court that if the Tenant had the view upon the first Writ he should never have the view again at the Common Law we might have had a new Essoin upon view as often as he brings a new writ and Husband held that if by the Common Law it is to be granted the Statute doth not abridge it two views do not ly upon one writ at the common Law and if this shall be accounted but one Writ the view lieth not but in this case the Tenant did relinquish the view because he had day to plead NEvill versus Nevil Mich. 15 Jac. rotulo 77. Formedon in le Discender the writ was generall and the Count was upon a Feofment made after the Statute of uses and a speciall verdict whether the Deed warrant the Count the verdict is whether upon the whole matter the said A. N. gave the moity of the third part of the Mannor c. for default of Issue of the Bodies of either the said G. and D. to the use of either of them surviving and of the Heires males of his Body to be begotten or no the Jury are wholly ignorant the writ was to the use of G. and D. and of the Heirs males of the Bodies of the said G. and D. lawfully to be begotten and for default of such issue male of the Body of either of them then to the use of either of them having issue male of his Body lawfully begotten and for default of such issue male of both the Bodies of the said G. D. or either of them lawfully to be begotten then to the use c. By Deed an implication cannot be intended if there be not apt words otherwise it is in a Will for this is but a gift to a man and his Issue for this gift is but to both of them for life and severall inheritances Bishop al. versus Cossen Trin. 16 Jac. rotulo 62. In Formedon the Tenant pleaded a warranty and pretends
and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff every Leet was derived out of the Sherifs turn PAul versus Barwicke Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 2147. A stranger in replevin pleaded non est factum where he should have pleaded non concessit and good after a verdict though it 's not formall pleading REad versus How In replevin the place was omitted in the Declaration and the Defendant demurred and held a good cause for the Plaintiff is bound to take notice where the Cattell are distrained a man cannot distrain for a rent charge but in the day time because I may take notice where it is because the Law presumeth that I or my servants are all the day upon the ground A second deliverance must not vary in the place a disclaimer goeth to the locus in quo c. HYnd versus Wainman al. Pasch 8. Jacobi rotulo 758. Wainman pleaded non cepit and the other made cognisance as Bayliff to Wainman The Plaintiff pleads that the parties to the Fine had nothing c. and it was tryed Mich. and Jacobi and it was moved by the Councell of the Defendant that the Plaintiff should prove an actuall taking but the Court held the contrary And the Judges said that if one takes Cattell as Bayliffe to another and by his command this shall be adjudged to be the taking of the Master as of a Bayliff in trespasse FRancis versus Forrest Trin. 9. Jacobi rotulo 2033. In replevin for the taking of Cattell at A. in a certain place called R. the Defendant avows dammage fesant the Plaintif in his Barre saies that he was seised of one Messuage c. in C. in the Parish of A. and prescribes for common And after a tryall it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the venire facias was ill awarded because it was of A. only and so it was adjudged by the Court. And Cook said that at C. or in C. imply a Village and therefore he said the venire facias ought to have been of C. and A. or at least of the Parish of A. and Brownlow chief Prothonotary agreed to this RIchardson versus Sterer Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 786. In Replevin the Defendant avows for Damage fesant The Plantiffe replies that long before the time of taking the Cattell H. late Earl of L. was seised of one Messuage c. and so prescribes for Common of Pasture for ten Beasts and so justifies the putting in of one Cow of the two Cowsusing his Common And the Plaintiffe further saies that the said W. R. long before c. lent to the said T. P. the other Cow to manure the Land of the said T. P. as long as the said W. pleased And so prescribes for the putting in of that Cow being thereof possessed by reason of the lending of it and so demands Judgement And Hutton Sarâ—eant moved that the Barr was naught because the Plaintiffe had falfified his Replication because the Replication is by two and by the pleading another time of the taking the property was in P. only and the speciall property by verture of the lending was also in P. And so Replevin ought to have been brought in the name of P. onely and the Defendant demurred the Replication and the Plaintiffe was non suit POpe versus Shurm Hill 7 Jacobi rotulo 336. The Defendant avows Damage fesant The Plaintiffe claims Common by reason of a Demise made to him by one H. W. who was seised in Fee of one Messuage and Common for him his Tenants and Farmers c. And alledges one Lease made the thirtieth of March 11. to have and to hold c. from the Feast c. then last past for one yeer and so from yeer to yeer c. The Defendant traverses the Demise and the Jury finde that the said H. W. before the said time of the taking to wit the 25 of March Anno 11. did demise to have for one yeer then next following and so from yeer to yeer and this found specially And Judgement was given for the Plaintiffe because the matter in question was whether he had right of Common or not and not the title of the Lease and it appears by the Jury that he had just right of Common And Warburton put this difference if a Tenant brings an Action of Trespasse wherefore by force of Arms c. against his Lord And the Lord pleads that the Defendant holds by such services and Issue be taken upon it And the Jury finde that he holds by other services the Verdict is sufficiently found for the Lord because the Plaintiffe could not maintain an Action against his Lord. IOhnson versus Thorowgood Trin. 12 Iacobi rotulo 1734. In Replevin the Plaintiffe allows damage fesant the Plaintiffe claims Common by prescription to when the Fields called F. and C lye fallow all the time of the year And when the Fields are sowed after the Corn c. After the Feast of Pentecost they used c. And the Jury found that he had Common to wit when the Feilds lye fallow every year all the time of the year And when the Fields were sowen they used to have Common c. And it was held by Nicholls that for Common Appendant it is not necessary to prescribe but to say he is seised of one Messuage c. in Fee and that he hath Common of Pasture in the said place as belonging and appertaining to the Tenement And saies further that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiffe because it appeared by the Record that the Defendant took the Cattle at such time as the Plaintiffe ought to have Common And therefore Nicholls said that if a man have Common for great Cattell and Sheep and the Sheep be taken and he prescribes that he hath Common for Sheep only and the Jury said Common for Sheep and great Cattel the Common is found for the Plaintiffe And the like if one claim Common all the time of the year when the Land lyes fallow and when it is sowen from such a day unto c. And his Cattel are taken in the year when it is sowen as lies fallow it is sufficient for the Plaintiffe to prescribe for Common either in the year when it is sowen or when it lies fallow And if the Jury find all the Common it is sufficiently found for the Plaintiffe The like if a man hath Common from such a day to such day and the Cattell are taken and a day between the dayes and he prescribes that he hath Common in the said time quo c And the Jury find he had Common before that time the same day and after the Verdict is found for the Plaintiffe and Warburton and Winch of the same opinion PIts versus James Mich. 12. Jacobi rotulo 2155. Upon a speciall Verdict for the Misnomer of a Corporation The first question was whether the foundation of poore men to pray for Souls departed is within the Statute of Chaunterys and secondly for the Misnomer And
first had the Free hold granted to him by the Lord of the Mannor And then he leavied a Fine and five years passe whether he in the Remainder be Barred or no those whose estates are turned to rights either present or future are meant by the Statute to be barred of a Copy-hold for years be put out of possession and a Fine Leavied and no entry by him he is barred by the Statute by the Bargain and Sale he in the Remainder is not put out of possession if a man make a Lease to begin at Easter next and before Easter a Fine is leavied and five years passe this Fine will not barr because at the Leavying of the Fine he could not enter for then his right was future if the Lease had been in possession and the Lessee had never entered he had been barred A Lease for years Remainder for years if the first man taketh for life the first estate is not so determined but that the Remainder standeth if a Copy-hold surrender for life there passeth no more from him then so much as maketh the estate and no more and the rest remaineth in him CRantley versus Kingswel Pacsb 15 Jacobi rotulo 710. The Defendant makes cognisance as Bailiff of Kingswell his Father for Rent service due to his Father at such a Feast And shews that Cramley holds of him by fealty and rent paiable at such a Feast and for Rent due at such a Feast made Cognisance the Plaintiffe in Barr saies that he at the said Feast offered the Rent upon the Land and that no body was there to receive it And the Plaintiffe saith that afterwards he demanded the Rent upon the Land and the Plaintffe made a Replevin pretending the Lord should make a personall demand but the whole Court was against him And Warburton took acception against the pleading the Tender because he saith that he offered the Rent to pay when as he was not present And the question was whether the Lord for a Rent service did not demand it at that day whether he can distrain without a demand of the person and held he might for the Tenant is yet bound to tender and the Land is debter and the Lord may resort thither when he pleases to demand the Rent upon the Land but if he tender his Homage and the Lord refuses it he cannot distrain without a demand of the Person and Judgment for the Defendant STokes versus Winter Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 2242. In Replevin the Defendant makes cognisance as Bayliff to Tenant for life to whom the Annuity was granted for life to begin by will after the death of the devisor And alledges the death of the devisor but not the day of the death after whose death the said H. was seised of the yeerly rent aforesaid in his demesn as of his Free-hold for terme of his life by vertue of the devise aforesaid And because seven pounds of the Rent aforesaid for one yeer ended at the Feast c. and by the space of 14. dayes then next following were behinde to the said T. the said time with c. the said T. as Bayliffe of the said H. doth make cognisance of the taking of the cattell aforesaid in the said place in which c. for the said 7 li. for the yeerly Rent aforesaid being so behind c. and issue was taken whether the said I. at the time of his death was seised of the said six Acres of Land in his demesne as of Fee as c. And after tryall exception was taken to the Advowry because it was not alledged that the annuity at such a Feast after the death of the devisor was behinde but it was over-ruled because there is so much expressed and Judgment given for the Defendant HVmfrey versus Powell Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 2791. Replevin wherein the Defendant avows for one Annuity granted to the Defendant to whom the office of Catorship of the Church of Roffen in Kent was granted by the Dâ—an and Chapter of that Church for life with an Annuity of 6. pounds for the exercising of that Office with a clause of distresse by vertue of which grant he was possessed and avowes for the Annuity and avers that it was an ancient Office pertaining to the Dean and Chapter of Roffen and doth not aver that the Annuity was an ancient Annuity The Defendant pleads the Statute of the 13 Eliz that all Devises Donations Grants c. made by any Master and Fellows of any Colledge Dean and Chapter c. other then for the terme of twenty and one yeers or three lives from the time of this Devise c. should be totally void And shews that the old Dean died and another was elected And a Demurrer thereupon And Judgement that the Grant was void HYen versus Gerrard Mich. 13. Jacobi rotulo 752. The Defendant in Replevin avows that one being seised in Fee made a Lease to him and avows for Damage feasant The Plaintiffe in Barr pleads and maintains his Declaration and traverses the Lease upon the Avowant demurrs and adjudged a goodtraverse IEnyx versus Applefourth Trin. 17. Eliz rotulo 543. The Defendant avows for a Rent charge the Plaintiffe in Barr pleads that the Defendant had presented a Writ of Annuity And that he had an Imparlance thereunto And demands Judgement if the Defendant did well make cognisance to the taking of the cattell in the said place in which c. in name of a distresse for the rent aforesaid by vertue of the said writing as Bayliffe of the said R. the said Writ of Annuity being prosecuted c. upon the said writing in form aforesaid c. And a Demurrer thereupon and Judgement by the whole Court for the Plaintiffe it is not needfull to lay a prescription to distrain for an Amerciament in a Court Leet but it is otherwise for an Amerciament in a Court Baron by the whole Court DArcy versus Langton The Defendant avows for a Rent charge and for a Nomine penae and no mention made in the Avowry of the Rent charge and the Plaintiffe was non-suit and afterwards in Arrest of Judgement this matter was alledged and at first held to be a good exception but afterwards Judgement was entred an Advowry is in the nature of a Declaration if that be vitious no Judgement can be given for the Advowant TRin. 9. Jacobi Regis rotulo 2033. Replevin for the taking of Cattell at Andover in a certain place there called R The Defendant makes cognisance for damage feasant the Plaintiffe saies that he was seised of the Messuage c. in C. in the Parish of A to which he claimed Common of Pasture And issue taken upon the prescription and a Venire Facias of A. and exception taken because it was not tryed of C. and A. or of the Parish of A. but it was adjudged to be good TRinbone versus Smith Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 626. In Replevin foure and twenty were returned upon the
who makes conisance as Bailiff of Sir Ed. Br. for a common Fine which was assessed upon the Plaintiff who was resident within the Leet of his Master The Plaintiff replies that Sir Edw. by his deed had released to him all rents services exactions and demands out of his Mannor except suit of Court the Defendant demurred And Nichols that suit of Court for which this common Fine was set is excepted and therefore the common Fine is not released by that but is excepted also a common Fine is assessed when the Jurors in the Leet do conceal that which they ought to find and with which they are charged and therefore the release being for exactions out of the Land And this is not for any thing by reason of the Land but because he doth misbehave himself and by the opinion of the whole Court a release of all demands doth not discharge a man of his suite to a Leet by reason of his residency because a Leet is the Kings Court to which every leige-Subject is to come and perform his allegiance to him And also because suit of Court is inseparably inoident to a Court leet which cannot be released PAllets Case Pasch 5. Jacob. In a replevin in which Pallet was Plaintiff the case was such where a man made a Lease of Lands of which Land he was seized by a good Title and of Land of which he was seised of a defeasible Title for years rendring rent and in the replevin the Lessor avows for the whole rent The Plaintiff in the replevin saith that after the lease made the Disseisee had entred upon part of the Land and a demurrer Sergeant Hicham moved for the Advowant that he ought to have a return for he agreed that the rent should have been apportioned but he said that if a man avows for many things and he hath right but to one he shall have a returh habend 5. H. 7. and 9. H. 7. And 4. Ass Pl. 6. where a man brings an assise for rent and hath right but to part yet he shall recover for that part and cited the opinion of Popham put in Walkers Cafe in the third Rep. 24. when rent reserved upon a Lease for years should be apportioned If a man in an action of debt demands more then hee ought yet upon a nil debet pleaded the Lessor shall recover so much as shall be apportioned and assessed by the Jury and shall be barred as to the residue But Yelverton was of another opinion for he said as this case is the Avowant shall not have a return habend But if the apporciament had been made by the Jury he should have had a return habend but in this case the apporciament must be made by the Judges to whom the quantity of the Land cannot appear and therefore they cannot make apportiament for they all agreed that the apportiament ought to be accotding to the value of the Land and not according to the quantity And to prove this he cited Hubberd and Hammonds Case 43. Eliz. co lib. 427. As where the Fines of Copyholders upon admittance are uncertain the Lord cannot exact excessive Fines and if the Copyholder deny to pay it it shall be determined by the opinion of the Judges before whom the matter depends and upon a demurrer to the evidence to a Jury upon the confession or proof of the annuall value of land the annuall value ought to appear to the Judges but in this case the value doth not appear to them and therefore they cannot make any apportiament and therefore the Avowant shall not have a return habend But Tâ—anfield held the Avowant should have a return habend for the whole rent for the Judges could not apportion this because the value did not appear and the eviction is matter of privity which ought to be discovered by the Lessee and he should give notice to the Lessor and he ought to shew the value of the Land from which he is inriched to the Judges And Popham is of the same opinion for he said the value of the Land ought to be shewed by the Lessee for every one ought to plead that which is in his knowledg and that was in the Lessee's knowledg and not the Lessor and Fenner of the same opinion but Yelverton and Williams against it for Yelverton said that it appeared that part of the Land was evicted and therefore it ought to be apportioned but because the value did not appear to the Judges it could not be apportioned Williams said that if the Lessee surrender part the Lessor need not shew the value and Popham agreed to that because the acceptions of the Lessor had made him privy to it KEnrick versus Pargiter Trin. 6. Jacobi The Defendant justifies the taking of the Cattell damage fesant upon a surmise of a custome that the Plaintiff being Lord hath the place in which c. wholly to himself untill Lammas day and after that day it is common for the Tenants and the Plaintiff is not to put in but only three horses c. And because the Plaintiff after Lammas put in more cattell then three horses the Defendant took them damage fesant as it was lawfull for him to do And issue was joyned upon the custome and found against the Plaintiff and Yelverton shewed in arrest of Judgment that the Defendant could not take the Cattell damage fesant for it appears that the Defendant is only a Commoner and it also appears that the place in which c. is the soile of the Plaintiff and the Cattell cannot be taken damage fesant upon his ground no more then the Tenant can have an Action of Trespass against his Lord guare vi armis c. in regard of his Seigniory as it is in Littleton and 5. H. 7. But the Court said that the matter of taking the Cattell did not come into question for nothing was in issue but the custome which is found against the Plaintiff for if the Plaintiff would have taken advantage of that he ought to have demurred And although by that he had confessed the custom yet whether such Commoner could have taken the Lords Cattell would then properly have come into debate And by Fenner Williams and Cook the taking the Lords Cattel damage fesant was good for by the custom the Lord is to be excluded but only for his stint and the Lord may well be stinted and the whole vestive and benefit of the soile is the Commoners and they have no other remedy to preserve the benefit they have in feeding their Cattell but by taking the Cattell of the Lord if he offends And the Custome hath made the Lord as meer a stranger as any other and without doubt the Commoner might take the Cattell of a stranger 15. H. 7. The chief Justice and Yelverton doubted of it And although the Commoners by the custome had gained the sole feeding in the land of the Lord Yet they ought to have shewed the custome and also the usage
l. as it appears by Fleta and Brian the authority of the Marshall was absolute in civill and criminall causes at the Common Law and that Statute restrains them for Debts but not for Trespasse of what nature soever and therefore see the Statute of 30 l. 1. 5 E. 3. ch 2. and 10 E. 3. ch 2. Swaffe versus Solley Trin. 14 Jacobi rotulo 689. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore he took his Close the Defendant justifies for a way the Plaintiff replies that he did the Trespass of his own wrong without any cause alledged and so an Issue joyned and after a Verdict for it was moved in arrest of Judgement that the Issue was not well reined and prayed a new Triall because the Issue ought to be speciall but that exception was disallowed and adjudged that it was helped by the Statute of Jeofails by the opinion of the whole Court PLaint versus Thirley Hill 6 Jacobi rotulo 161. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Arms the Goods and chattells of the plaintif did take and impound the Defendant pleaded the common Barr and the plaintif assigns the place and are at issue upon that and after a verdict it was moved in arrest of Judgement that there was no Issue joyned because the Lands are not in question and so no assignment necessary and Judgement was stayed but afterwards upon a motion Judgement was given for the plaintif because the Issue was holpen by the Statute of Jeofails and there was the like case upon a Demurrer in the court of common pleas Trin. 4 Jacobi rotulo 1131. CHild versus Heely 13 Jacobi rotulo 3381. vel 381. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Arms the Close Hedges and Gates of the Plaintiff at W. did break and his grass with walking over it did destroy and other his Grass with Cattell did eat and consume the plaintiff assigned one Close of pasture called Drew and another close called Sutton one other close called L. and the Defendant as to the Trespass except the breaking of the close called G. and P. and the treading c. with his feet and eating with his cattell in the said close called P. and E. not guilty and as to the breaking of the close c. saith the plaintif ought not to have his Action because he saith that E. 6. was seised of the Mannour of W. of which one Messuage c. was copy-hold and shews the custome for a way and another custome for a Common and conveys the Copy-hold to himself and justifies as to the pedibus ambulandi and as to the Trespasse with the Cattell justifies for Common the Plaintif replies as to the Trespass pedibus ambulandi that it was of his own wrong without any cause alledged and traverses the way and as to Trespass with the Cattell demurres and the cause of the Demurrer was as it appeared by motion because in the justification of the Cattell the Defendant had not alledged any custome for Common and so the Plaintif could not take any Issue of that custome but had alledged a custome for the way as for the common and the court were of opinion that it was well pleaded and Judgement upon the Demurrer for the Defendant FAirchild versus Gair Pasch 3 Jac. An Action of Trespasse brought for the tiths of the Church of B. and therein a speciall verdict was as followeth the Defendant was collated to this Church of B. being a Donative by A. and B. the Patrons and that the Church was exempt from the Jurisdiction of any Ordinary the Defendant resigned to A. and C. who was a stranger and to other persons who had no Interest his Church of B. with all Rights c. and afterwards the persons passe their Rights to D. who collates and interests the Plaintiff in the Church by reason whereof he seised the Tithes in question and the Defendant took them and concludes that upon the matter c. and if the Resignation be good then they find for the Plaintiff otherwise for the Defendant and by the opinion of the whole Court Judgement was given for the Plaintiffe for the Resignation was good both in respect of the thing resigned and of the person to whom it was made for it being a Donative and exempt from ordinary Jurisdiction the Resignation must be into his hands and the Incumbent shall not be constrained to keep the Church whether he will or no if the Patron will not accept it and because there is no person to whom the Resignation can be made but onely into the hands of the Patron it is good and although the Resignation be to one Patron and to a stranger it is good to both the Patrons and void as to the stranger and the more strong it is because of the following words to wit to all persons whatsoever which words involve all that have any manner of interest and then seeing it is found that D. who collated the Plaintiff and the Estate of both the Patrons although no agreement be found of the Patrons it is not materiall and the resting of the Plaintiff in the Church is good to give him power to take the profits by reason of the primer possession and although the Defendant did resigne but the Church onely yet it is good to all that appertains to the Church and that which the Defendant may have as Rector there 6 E. 3. is that if the Patron grant Ecclesiam that will passe the Avowson but Herlethen said that was in ancient time and therefore not so then to which the court seemed to agree and the court waived the Dispute of any other thing but onely the Resignation for of that onely the Jury doubted and was onely referred to the court but Popham chief Justice said that if the Patron would not collate any man to such a Donative there was no way to compell him but he is left to his own conscience and he might in time of the vacancy take the profits and sue for the Tithes in the spirituall court for such Donatives at first grow by consent of all persons who have any manner of Right or Interest to wit the Ordinary and Parishioners but Gawdy Fenner Yelverton and Williams against him that the Ordinary might compel him to collate any clerk for the Rectory is only exempted from the power of the Ordinary and not the Patron and that is onely as to charges to be taxed upon the church for the ordinary attendance in a Visitation and such like and Popham said that although the Church in execution of the charge is spirituall yet the patron may collate and a meer lay man as the King may make a temporall man a Dean which hath often happened but all the other Judges were against him in case of the person which is meerly spritual but as to the Deanery they did agree it for the function is temporall but yet Williams said that lay men who have Deaneries ought to have and at all
his house which he could not do for the entring is one act done and ended at the going out again And therefore if he re-enter it is a new Trespass and the continuando is only alledged for the aggravation of damages 2 R. 3. 15. 10. E. 3. 10. 16. E. 3. 24. That a continuando cannot be for breaking the House but Doddridge and Haughton Justices the rest being silent were of opinion that it might be alledged that a continuando for although it might be that if hee went forth and re-entred it should be a new Trespass but if upon his first Entry he continued divers dayes it might be alledged with a continuando And see for that Mich. 38. El. in the Common Pleas fol. 118. If a Disseisee re-enter he shall have an Action of Trespass against the Disseisor with a continuando And so is Fitzherberts Nabrevium 91. L. that a continuando may be laid as well for breaking a House as eating the Grass and so is 10. E. 3. 10. and 20. H. 7. 30. by the opinion of Gapley GEush against Mynne Pach. 11. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes the Close of the Plaintiff did break c. The Defendant justified by reason there was a report that a Vermine called a Badger was found there to the great damage of the Inhabitants by reason whereof he uncoupled his Beagles in the place where c. and hunted there and found the Badger and pursued him untill he Earthed in the place where c. by reason whereof he digged the ground and took the Badger and killed him and afterwards hee stopped up the Earth again which is the same Trespass and demands Judgment whereupon the Plaintiff demurs And upon reading the Record Scamber of the Inner Temple was for the Demurrer and that the Defendant could not justifie as this case was And first he was of opinion that the Common Law warrants hunting such noysome Beasts although it be in the Lands of another because it is good and profitable to the Common-wealth that such hurtfull Beasts should be extirpated according to the 8. E. 4. 15. And Fishermen may justifie their Nets upon anothers Land 13. H. 8. 16. 22. H. 6. 49. A man may justifie entring into a house to serve a Subpaena 3. H. 6. 336. A man may justifie the entring into anothers Land with the Sheriff to help him to distrain but otherwise it is for things of pleasure as 38. E. 3. 10. B. You cannot justifie the Entry when your Hawk hath killed a Pheasant in anothers Land and so for hunting of Hares or Conies in the Free-hold of another but although the Law allows and permits such Entries as aforesaid yet the Law requires that such things shall be done in an ordinary and usuall manner as 12. H. 8. 2. A Commoner cannot digge the Land to make Trenches although it be for the benefit of another and this is confirmed and explained by the Statute of 8. Eliz. cap. 15. For although that Statute gives reward for the killing of Vermins yet the Statute further saies that it must be with consent and with reasonable Engines and Devices 2. R. 2. Barr. 237. Grant of Fish in the Pond one cannot dig the Land and make a Sluce but must take with them Nets And so if a man grant to me all his Trees in such a place I I cannot grub up the roots out of the earth if there be any other way to take them but if there be no other way then it is otherwise as 9 Ed. 4. 35. a. A grant to put a Pipe in my Land and afterward it is stopped I may dig to mend it by the opinion of the Court and therefore there being an Ordinary course to wit hunting to kill the Badger the digging for that is unlawfull and the Action will well ly Mich. 36. and 37 Eliz. 60. Nicholas Case expressely for a Fox and Fenner held it was not lawfull to break a Hedge in the pursuit MIles against Jones Pasch 11 Jac. Miles brought an Action of Trespasse against Jones wherefore by force and Arms his goods c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff 5 Jacobi acknowledged a Recognisance of 100. l. at Mich. at which day he did not pay it and that two years after the Recognisance was extended upon his goods because the monies were not satisfied at the day nor at any time after the Plaintiff replies that they were paid in the sixth year of James and desires this that it may be inquired onely by the Countrey and the Defendant likewise and upon the Triall it was found for the Plaintiff and it was new moved in arrest of Judgement by Goldsmith that there was no Issue joyned for an Issue ought to be joyned upon a thing alledged by the party DOyly against White and Webb Trin. 11 Jacobi Doyly brought an Action of Assault Battery and imprisonment of his wife against White and Webb The Defendant pleads a speciall Justification to wit that in November 2 Jacobi an Action of Trespass was brought in the Common pleas by one A. against Julian Goddard and upon the generall Issue it was found for J. G. and Judgement given for her and afterwards and before Execution J. G. takes to Husband the now plaintiff and afterwards brings a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and upon a Scire Facias against the said Julian the Judgement in the Common pleas was reversed and costs given to A. the plaintif in the Writ of Error and aftewards a Capias ad satisfaciend was directed to the now Defendants to take the said I. G. by Force of which the said Defendants took the woman of the now plaintif with an averment that the said I. G. and the Wife of the now Plaintif were one and the same person and the plaintif demurres upon this plea and Yelverton moved that this justification was not good for divers causes first when the Sherif is to execute a process he is to do it duly and upon the right person at his perill and for that see 11 H. 4. 90. b. If the Sherif take the goods of another in Execution he is a trespassor 5 E. 4. 50. a. If a Capias be to take I. S. and there be two of the same name he ought to look to take the right man at his perill and as he ought to take notice so he must pursue his authority and for this see 10. E. 4. 12. b. if a Capias issue out against I. S. the Son of A. and he take I. S. the Son of B. false imprisonment lies against him and in a Case when his Warrant is against I. G. there is no such J. G. for by her marriage with the Plaintiff she had another name and he is therefore a Trespassor for the taking of J. Doyly and his averment cannot help him because it agrees not with his Warrant and so cannot be intended to be the same person but if the variance was
in the name of Baptisme onely it would be otherwise and secondly although the party had admitted her to have the same name yet the Sherff in pleading had taken expresse Conusance of the contrary and had made it appear to the Court that it was not according to his authority and therefore he shall be punished but the whole Court was of a contrary opinion for first the Scire facias was according to the Judgement in the Common Pleas and well then might all the subsequent Processe be according in course of Law but if the Husband had come upon the Scire facias and shewed how that she was covert then the Action ought to be against both of them and secondly the parties themselves in all the proceedings throughout have all admitted that she is the same person and that she had the same name and therefore this differs from the 10 E. 4. 15. and therefore they shall be concluded from saying the contrary and although the Sheriff had shewed the marriage that was but a bare allegation and suggestion of the Sheriff and it appears not judicially whether it were so or no and thirdly it would be dangerous for the Sherif to return a Non est inventus for because the parties have admitted her name to be so in all the proceedings the Sheriff shall be estopped also as the 3 H. 7. 10. and then an Action of the Case would ly upon the false Return or if the Woman should be in the company of the Sheriff and the party shew her to the Sheriff she might escape CArrill against Baker Trin. 11 Jacobi The Plaintiff brough an Action wherefore by force and Arms he entred into his Warren and digged his Land and chased his Conies and took them the Defendant pleads to all except to the entring the Warren chasing the Conies and digging the Land not guilty and as to the entring of the Warren chasing of the Conies and digging the Land he pleads an especiall Justification to wit that he had Common there time out of mind and because the Plaintiff stored the Borrows there with Conies and made new holes by reason whereof the Defendants sheep feeding there fell into them to their great damage the Defendant did with a Ferret chase the Conies and stopped up the holes with the earth digged out c. and upon that Plea the Plaintiff demurred and George Crook was of opinion that it was not a good justification and the Question was single whether a Commoner might drive out Conies which surcharged the Land and he conceived he could not for the Freehold and possession of the Land is in the terr-Terr-Tenant onely and the Commoners cannot intermeddle with it for a Commoner hath onely the grasse of the Land and not absolutely neither to do with it what he pleases but onely to take it with the mouths of his Cattel and for this see 12 H. 8. 2. a. and 27 H. 6. 10. and 13 H. 8. 16. the espleas in a Quod permittat is alledged in taking the grasse with the mouths of his Beasts and for that see 22 Assis 48. 10. E. 4. 4. and 46 Ed. 3. 23. if a stranger put in his Cattell the Commoner cannot have an Action of Trespass and 13 H. 8. 15. ruled that if a Commoner dig the Land to make a trench he is a trespassor but he may drive out or distrain for doing damage and 15 H. 7. 12. 13 H. 7. 13. and 12. H. 8. 2. a. because after a manner he hath interest in the grasse which is spoiled and consumed by the Cattell of the stranger but although he may drive out and distrain the Cattell of an estranger yet he cannot meddle with the Lords Cattel or the Terr-Tenants although there be more then reasonable as in Fitzherberts Na. brev 125. D. and 8 E. 3. 30. if the Lord surcharge the Common The Commoner may have an Assise against the Lord and if he be a copy-holder he shall have an Action of the case 9 Rep. 112. but the Lord may distrain H. 9. Ja. Kings Bench a prescription for a Commoner to kill Conies of the Lords is not good and he cited Pasch 43 Eliz. Kings Bench rotulo 234. Belly and Laughorns Case the Lord may use the Sale as he pleases but as his Case is the Commoner although Tenant of the Land cannot kill the Conies with his Ferret For a free Warren in such a precinct is a charge upon the Land in what hands soever it comes but if he hath a Warren adjoyning and the Conies come into the Lands of another out of the Precinct then he may kill the Conies and he cited Boslers and Hardies Case in the Common Pleas and for an express authority he cited Old and Conies case Hill 29 Eliz. and Sir Robert Fitcham he was against it and he agreed he could not kill the Conies but as to the digging he took this difference if a Commoner makes any thing de novo in the Land he is a Trespassor as it is adjudged in the Case of a trench before and the like but if a commoner amends and reforms a thing abused it is no Trespass and therefore if the Land were full of Mole hills he may dig them down 13 H. 8. and 42 Assis if the Lord make a Hedge the commoner may pluck it down 23 E. 3. 6. a. See if the Lord make a Pond in the Land the commoners may dig and let the Water out and therefore holes that were made long in a hurt and Damage to the Land the commoner may put the earth digged out again into its place Secondly the Defendant hath shewed that the Cony holes were made by the Plaintiff himself and he shall never take advantage of his own wrong and Thirdly the Law will allow every man to preserve his inheritance and it cannot be preserved any other way for if he should bring his Assise yet he in that shall recover but Seisin and no Reformation of the Trespass and wrong done and the opinion of the Court seemed to incline for the Plaintiff and Doddridge Justice said that a Lord or his Feoffee may make new conie-Borrows lawfully for they are necessary for the preservation of the conies but one fault found by Justice Haughton in the pleading nothing was done for the Plaintif declared for entring into his Warren the Defendant pleads to all but the Warren digging and chasing not guilty and as to the digging and chasing he justifies for common here but answers nothing as to the Warren neither by confession or traverse and therefore all was discontinued as Herlackendons Case is Co. 4. Rep. and to this the whole court Fleming being absent agreed WAldron against Moore Trin. 11. Ja. The Plaintiff brought an Action of trespass against Moore wherefore his Close called Gerleford at Rentesbury in the County of Devon by force and Arms hath broken and entred c. The Defendant pleads that a long time before the Trespass was supposed to be done one
Disseisin and Doddridge sayd It would be mischeivous if it should Hill 6. Iac. In the Common Pleas that if in the Common Barre in Trespass the place in the Common Barre is alledged to be Blackacre the Plaintiff may plead that it is his Free-hold and then it was held by the whole Court that an abuttall of one side is sufficient without alledging it of every side SWaine against Becket An Action of Trespass brought for cutting down of Trees And upon a speciall verdict the question was that whereas there is a Mannor wherein are Copi-holders for life which have used to lopp Trees growing upon the Copy-holds for their necessary fire and repairing of their customary Tenements the Lord of the Mannor maketh a Lease of the Mannor for yeares excepting the Trees the Lessee of the Mannor granteth a copy for life the Copy-holder loppeth the Trees growing on his Copy-hold whether by law he might do it or no was the doubt of the Jury And it was held by all the Court that the Copy-holder might lopp the Trees because he is in by the custome which is above the Lords Estate after he is admitted and that the copy-hold doth not depend upon the Lords interest And that the Trees excepted and the Soil remained parcell of the Mannor because the Lease was but for years but if the Lease had been for life it had been otherwise because it had been severed from the Mannor And whereas it was objected that the Tenant should not be in a better condition then his Author it was answered that a Lord of a Mannor at will may grant a copy for life or in fee and it is good If the Lord cut down all the Trees so that the Copy-holder can have no lopping he may have his Action upon the Case against the Lord as it was adjudged in Gosnolds case If the Lord sell away his waste and the Copy-holder dye and the Lord grant a new copy he shall have his Common If the Lord sell away the Trees so that the Copy-holder cannot have Estovers because the Bargainee felleth down the Trees the Copy-holder shall have his Action against the Bargainee Common and lopping are incident to the copy-hold Judgment for the Defendant HArris against Ap-John An Action of Trespasse brought the Defendant pleads not guilty and verdict found for the Plaintif And in Arrest of Judgment it was alledged that the venire facias was de placito debiti and so also was the habeas corpus and it should have been de placito transgressionis And it was amended by the whole Court MYnwinnock against Bligh Trin. 16. Jacob. rotulo 1697. An action of Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintiffs Close done Septemb. in the 13. year of King James The Defendant pleads as to part of the Trespasse in award and that the Defendant submits himself to the award the 15. yeare and that the Arbitrators in the 13. yeare which was before the submission made the Award and traverses that he was guilty of the Trespasse after the award made And the Plaintiff replies that the Arbitrators the said day in the 13. year made not any award c. And after Tryall exception was taken that the issue was ill joyned being of a thing that was void yet notwithstanding Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and they resembled to a payment upon a single Bond and conditions performed at a Feast not contained in an Obligation Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3044. An Action of Trespass brought wherfore by force and armes his Goods and Chattels to wit a thousand posts and forty railes took and caryed away and damages given intire and after a verdict exception taken because Rales was pretended to be no Latine word nor to have any exception but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff DVncomb against Randoll Hil. 9. Jac. rotulo 2267. Three issues in Trespasse One issue was upon a prescription to wit that they had accustomed to have for himselfe his Farme and Tenants of the same Mannor common of pasture in the said c. for all his Sheep which are levant and couchant in and upon the Demesne Lands of W. which lye and are in A. aforesaid every yeare And exception was taken for the uncertainty because it did not appear that those were demesne Lands which lye in A. for it was ill pleaded and ought to be averred but notwithstanding it was held good after a tryal and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and in this case an exception was taken to the venire facias because it was of A. and of the Mannor of C. and because it was made in this manner to wit de visu de A. and de visu manerij de C. but it was disallowed because against the form used in the Common Pleas. DOwnes against Skrymsher Trin. 9. Iac. rotulo 334. An Action of Assault and Battery brought and there was a Demurrer upon the Evidence And the case was that the Defendant the day specified in the Declaration said that the Plaintiff assaulted the Defenant and in defence of himselfe justifies the beating the Plaintiff replies that he did it of his own wrong without any such cause and in the Evidence the Defendant maintained that the Plaintiff beate him the day mentioned in the Declaration and in the same place And the Plaintiff perceiving that gave in evidence that the Battery was made another day and place to wit c. which was the cause of the speciall verdict for if there be two Batteries made between the Plaintiff and Defendant at divers times the Plaintiff is bound to prove the Battery made the same day in his Declaration and shall not be admitted to give another day in evidence by the opinion of the whole Court HEydon against Mich. 8. Jac. rotulo 839. An Action of Battery brought against three two of them pleaded not guilty and Judgment by non sum informat against the third and the two were found guilty for all And the Jury gave damages severally against one a 100 l. and against the other a 100 s. and what Judgement should be given was the question and at first the Court was of opinion that the Plaintiff should not have Judgment at all for where the Defendants are found guilty of all the Trespass in this case the damages shall be intire but if one shall be found guilty of part or at another time in this case the damages shall be severall otherwise not And they thought a Venire de novo ought to issue out because the Jury had mis-behaved themselves in severing the damages but afterwards it was resolved that the damages that were given by the first Jury to wit one 100 l. should be recovered against all the Defendants in that Writ named and that in Trespass the first Jury taxes the damages for the whole Trespass and that shall bind all the Defendants and therefore execution was given against all the Defendants for the hundred pounds Trin. 9. Jam. rotulo 1835.
because the first taker hath devested the property out of the Owner The Defendant in this justified the taking of the Mare as a stray and did not alledg that he came as an estray and the Plea was held insufficient and the Court held they could not tye them together And the Defendant said that the Hayward took the Mare and delivered her to the Defendant this was but not guilty and Judgment for the Plaintiff LVttrell against Wood and other Defendants Pasch 40. Eliz. An Action of Trespasse brought wherefore by Force and Armes he broke the Plaintiffs Close and cut down his Trees The Defendant in Barre to the new assignment alledges that he is a Copy-holder for life of the Mannor of Mynehead in the County of Somerset and that in that Mannor there was a Custome that every Copy-holder for life had used at his pleasure to cut downe all the Elmes growing upon his customary Lands and to convert them to his own use when and as often as hee would and so justifies and a Demurrer upon the Barre And the question was whether the Custome was good and reasonable and the later opinion was that it was a good and reasonable Custome but now it is otherwise held Actions of Waste IN Waste the Writ shall be brought where the Waste was committed And the Processe in this Action is Summons Attachment and Distresse peremptory by the Statute of Westminst 2. But at the Common Law the Distresse was infinite And if the Defendant doth not appear upon the Distresse although a Nihil be returned yet the Plaintiff shall have Judgment and a Writ to inquire of damages of the Waste and an Essoine lies as in a Quare Impedit and the Processe shall be executed as in a Quare Impedit and returned from 15 dayes to 15 dayes and the Plaintiff in this Action shall not recover costs but the value of the Waste found by the Jury shall be trebled by the Court for costs shall not be recovered in such Actions as are given by the Statute as in this Action a Decies tantum and Quare impedit And so Judgment is to recover the place wasted and severance lies in this Action Mich. 9. H. 4. rot 104. And note in the tryal of the issue in Waste if the Defendant by his Plea doth not confess the Waste six of the Jury which are impannelled to try the Waste must have the view of the place wasted to the intent that the Plaintiff may be put in possession of the place wasted by the view of the Jury And if the Defendant confesse the Waste the Jury ought only to inquire of the value of the Waste but not who committed the Waste But upon a default upon the grand Distress the Sheriff in his proper person shall repair to the place wasted and there inquire what waste and spoile is done And if he doth not return that he was there in his proper person it is naught But upon a Judgment by non sum informat nil dicit or in a Plea by which the Defendant confesses the waste the Sheriff shall inquire only of the damages And he is not bound to return upon that Writ that he in proper person went to the place wasted And when the Judgment is by default the challenge lies against the Sheriff and if it be denyed it is Errour And if the Plaintiff do not take jungment upon the first distress being returned executed but takes another distress it is Error And no receit lies by the VVife upon the default upon the Distress at the return of the VVrit to inquire of the wast Trin. 6. H. 6. rotulo 133. For if the VVoman at the Assize before verdict doth not pray to be received she shall never be received afterwards in the Court at the return of the Nisi prius And note that the Jury may give severall values and one joynt value of the place wasted but severall values is the better way If a Lessee for yeares makes a Lease of one moity to one man and of the other moity to another man and one of them commit Waste the Action shall be brought against the two for the Waste of one is the Waste of the other if a Lease be made by three to one for life and afterwards two release to the third and the Lessee commits wast he alone shall have a Writ of Waste supposing that hee demised onely If Waste be committed in two Villiages and the Sheriff hath executed his Office naughtily in one Villiage and well in another all shall be inquired of De novo because the whole in Inquisition was but one Inquest at one time but if the Plaintiff assigne the Waste in the Houses and Woods and it doth not appeare by the Count that the Houses were demised and upon a Nihil dicit a Writ to inquire of the damages issues out and the Jury find c. the Plaintiff shall have his of the Houses BEdell against Bedell Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 3052. An Action of Waste brought the Case was There is a devise to two for one and twenty yeares the Father and Son and made the Son Executor and he refuses to prove the Will and take the terme and so no Waste committed And if Lessee for life and his Lessor joyne in a Lease for yeares by Indenture and the Lessee for life dye and waste is committed the surviving Lessor shall have the Action of Waste and shall count that he did demise it alone If a Lease be made to Husband and Wife for life and for twenty yeares after their deaths and the Wife dye and Waste is committed the Wife shall not be named in the Wriâ— nor the terme after her death If Husband and Wife during the Coverture make a Lease and Waste is committed they both shall joyne in the Action of Waste And if a Lease be made but for one yeare or for halfe a yeare onely yet the Writ shall be for a terme of years but the Count shall be speciall if a Lessee for yeares or life grants Rent out of the Land he had for yeares and afterwards commits Waste if the Lessor recover the place wasted the Land shall be charged If a Lessee for a hundred yeares grants part of his terme to another and be commits Waste the Action shall be brought against the first Lessee If Tenant for life commits waste and afterwards grants his estate to another waste shall be brought against him in the Tenet and after Judgement a Scire facias shall issue to the Grantee to shew cause wherefore the Plaintiff shall not have Execution of the place wasted and the like if Lessee for yeares commit waste and grants over his Estate Waste shall be brought against him in the Tenet And if a Lease be made for life upon condition that if the Lessee shall do such an Act his Estate shall cease and he doth commit such an Act the Writ shall be brought against the Lessee in the Tenet
Adultery as aforesaid and for that that he refused to become bound to performe the order and the sentence of the high Commissioners he was committed to the Fleete and he praied Habeas Corpus for his Inlargement and also a Prohibition to be directed to the high Commissioners and it was moved by Nicholls that fining is not Justifiable by the high Commissioners no more then Imprisonment he sayd that he was cited out of his Diocesse against the Statute of 23. H. 8. The which Statute is commanded to be put in execution by the Stat. of 1 El. Secondly the offence that is Adultry is not an Enormious-crime and for that shall not be punished by the high Commissioners as it appeares By the Statute of 1. El. But by the Ordinary Thirdly the high Commissioners by the Stat. of 1 El. ought to observe the same course and order in their proceedings that the Ordinary used before the making of the Statute of 1. El. c. That they could not fine nor Imprison But he agreed that the Statute 1 H. 7 gives authority to the Ordinary to Imprison for Adultery but then the person ought to be Ecclesiasticall so that he agreed if Sir William Chancey had been an Ecclesiasticall person the Ordinary might Imprison him for Adultery and for Allimony they ought to give no remedy if the Husband would inhabit together with his wife as he sayd Sir William Chancey desired But if the Husband refuse to dwell together with his wife or thrust her out of his house and will not suffer her to dwell with him then the Ordinary may compell the Husband to allow allimony for his wife but the high Commissioners ought not to proceed upon that for this is no erronious crime for by that the party shall loose his benefit of Appeale which he hath from the Ordinary to the Metrapolitan for here the party cannot appeale to any nor hath any remedy If the Queen will grant Commission to reneue and so he concluded that for that these matters appeare upon the returne of the Habeas Corpus to be the causes of his commitment he praied that Sir William Chancey might be delivered out of Prison and prohibition of staying the proceedings of the high Commissioners Doderidge the Kings Serjeant for the case of Sir William Chancey argued that the returne consisted of two parts That is Adultery and Allimony and to the manner of the proceedings he would not speake for he said that the Court had ajudged that the high Commissioners by the Statute of 1. Eliz. Ought not to proceed upon any offences but those which are Enormious but he intended that the offence at the first was not Enormious being but Adultery and Allimony yet when Sir William Chancey was sentenced for that before the Ordinary and then commuted his pennance and after that lived divers yeares in Adultery with two severall women and had two Bastards and then he became Incorrigible and by consequence the offence is become Enormious and is properly to be determined before the high Commissioners and so praied he might be sent backe and that no Prohibition should be granted and at another day Foster and Warburton said that the high Commissioners ought not to meddle with these matters Nor could not Fine nor Imprison for that But Walmesley said that the Statute of 1. Eliz. Hath referred that to the discretion of the King and the King by his Commission hath given them power to meddâ—e with that and also he seemed that this was an Enormious crime for this is against an expresse commandment that is Thou shalt not commit Adultery and he intends there can be no greater offence then that and it seems to him that the word Enormious ought not to be so expounded as it is expounded by the other Judges that is an Exorbitant crime but Enormious is where a thing is made without a rule or against Law for in every action â—f trespasse the word is used Et alia enormia ei intulit and yet these are not intended Exorbitant offences but other trespasses of the nature of them which are first expressed perticulerly and so the Statute hath been expounded for many yeares and to the Imprisonment he said that the high Commissioners have Imprisoned for the space of 20. yeares and though that the Statute doth not give power to them to Imprison yet this is contained within the Letters Patents and the statute hath given power to the King to give to them what authority he pleaseth by his Letters Patents and for that that it hath been used for so long a time he would not suddainly alter that but gave day till the beginning of the next Tearm for the argument of that Coke cheif Justice said that it was agreed by all that the Imprisonment was unlawfull and if a Person be imprisoned which hath the Priviledge of this Court this Court may deliver him without Bayle for the King is the supream head by the Common Law as to the coercive power and that the Letters Patents of the King cannot give power to imprison where they cannot imprison by the Common Law and so it was adjudged in Sympsons Case 42. Eliz Which was cited before the high Commissioners for adultery with Fists Wife and adjudged there that they cannot imprison for that and he saith that an exposition with the time is the best and for that see the ninth of Eliz. Dyer and the 18 of Eliz. And also it appears by the Statute of 5. Eliz. that awards a Capias excommunicatum which could not be imprisoned before that and upon this Sir William Chancey was bayled and after by meditation of the Metrapolitan he was reconciled to his wife and this was the end of this Businesse Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. in the common Bench. As yet Urrey against Bowyer HVtton Serjeant argued for the Defendant the question is if lands which were parcell of the Possessions of the Hospitall of Saint Iohns of Jerusalem should be discharged of tythes by the statute of 31. H. 8. or 32. H. 8. in the hands of the Patentee and he seemed that the priviledge was personall and annexed to persons of the said order for it is confessed that it came by reason of the order of the Cestercians as appeares by the Canon The words of which are that they should hold their lands c. Also it appeares by the statute of 2. H. 4. 4. That it is personall by which it was enacted that the religious of the order of Cestercians that had purchased Bills to be discharged to pay tythes should be in the state they were before by which it appeares that it is annexed to their persons and not to their lands so that their Farmers cannot take benefit of that Secondly the priviledge was annexed to this order by canon which is a thing spirituall and hath no power to meddle with the lands of any man but the proceeding of that ought to be by inhibition or excommunication see 11. H. 4. 47. 19.
H. 6. 3. This priviledge by the canon which gives that shall be taken strictly And so is the opinion of their own expositors see Panormitan Canon 37. So that there is an apparant difference between that and the lands which came to the King by the statute of 31. H. 8. For by that the King is discharged of paiment of tythes and so are his Patentees It seems to me that the construction of the Cannon may be in another course different from the rules of the common law as it was ajudged in Buntings case that a woman might sue a Divorce without naming her Husband very well and 11. H. 7. 9. The pleading of the sentence or other act done in the spiritual Court differs from the pleading of a temporall act done in temporall Courts and 34 H. 6. 14. a Administration was committed upon condition that if the first Administrator did not come into England that he should have the Administration which is against the Common Law for there one authority countermands another and 42 Ed. 3 13. A Prior which hath such priviledge to be discharged of Tithes makes a Feoffment and his Feoffee payes Tithes to the Prior and this was of Lands which were parcell of the possessions of Saint Johns of Jerusalem and upon that he inferred that this priviledge is personall and if it be so it is determined by dissolution of the order as it is determined in 21 H 7. 4. That all Parsonages impropriate to them by the dissolutions are become prsentable and so of these which were annexed to the Templers for these shall not be transferred to Saint Johns though that the Lands are 3 Ed. 1. 11. By Herle accordingly Fitz. Natura Brevium 33 K. and 35. H. 6. 56. Land given in Frankalmaine to Templers and after transferred to Hospitallers of Saint Johns the priviledge of the Tenure is paid and so shall it be in case of Tithes being a personall priviledg that shall not be transferred to the King and to the Statute of 32. H. 8. The generall words of that do not extend to discharge the Land of Tithes though that the Statute makes mention of Tithes if there be not a speciall provision by the Statute that the Lands shall be discharged and this appears by the words of the Statute of 31 H. 8. where the general words are as generall and beneficiall as the words of this Statute and yet there is aspeciall provision for the discharge of the payment of tithes by which it appears that the generall words donot discharge that and so the generall words of 1 Ed. 6. are as larg and beneficiall as the generall words of the Statute of 31 H. 8. And yet this shall not discharge the Land of payment of Tithes and this compared to the Case of the Marquesse of Winchester of a writ of Errour that that shall not be transferred to the King by Attainder of Land in taile for treason by the Statute of 26 H. 8. or 33 H. 8. And so of rights of action and so it was adjudged in the time of H. 8. that if the founder of an Abby which hath a Corrody be attaint of Treason the King shall not have the Corrody and he agreed that the Hospitall of Saint Johns of Jerusalem is a house of Religion for this is agreed by Act of Parliament and the word Religion mentioned in the Statute more then seventeen times and also it seems to him that the Statute of 31 H. 8 shall not extend to that for this gives and establishes Lands which come by grant surrender c. And that shall not be intended those which come by Act of Parliament no more then the statute of 13 Eliz. extends to Bishops 1. and 2. Phillip and Mary Dyer 109. 38. The statute of Westminster the 2. chap. 41. Which gives Contra formam collationis to a common person founder of an Abby Priory Hospital or other house of religion without speaking expresly of a Bishop and yet it seems that this extends to an alienation made in Fee simple or Fee taile by the Bishop 46 Ed. 3. Forfeiture 18. But it is resolved in the Bishop of Canterburies Case 2 Coke 46 that the statute of 31 H. 8. shall not extend to these lands which come to the K. by the statute of 1 Ed. 6. to make them exempt from paying of Tithes and to the Case in 10. Eliz. that is but an opinion conceived and that the Prior hath this priviledge from Rome and that the Farmer shall pay Tithes and the question was in the Chancery and upon consideration of the statute of 31 H. 8. It seems that the Patentee himself shall be discharged as long as by his own hands he tills it and the statute of 32. H. 8. Upon which the state of the question truly consists was not considered and also it was not there judicially in question And to the case of Spurling against Graves in Prohibition consultation was granted for that that the statute was mistaken and so the award was upon the form of the pleading only and not upon the matter and so he concluded and prays consultation Houghton Serjeant to the contrary and he agreed that it is a personall priviledg and if the Order of St. Johns had been dissolved by death that then the priviledg shall be determined and this appears by the Stat. of 2. H. 4. 4. before cyted and also the case of 10. Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. did doubt of that but he relyed upon the manner words of pleading that is that Hospitallers are not held to pay Tithes it is as a reall composition made betwixt the Lord and another Spirituall person of which the Tenants shall take advantage as it is resolved in the Bishop of Winchesters case Also as if a man grant a Rent charge if the Grantee dye without Heir the grant is determined But if the Grantee grant that over and after dyes without Heir yet the Rent continues 27. H. 8. Or if Tenant in tayl grant Rent in fee and dies the grant is void But if he after suffers a recovery or makes a Feofment the Rent continues good till the Estate taile be recontinued as it is resolved in Capels case So here the order of Templers hath been determined by death the priviledg hath been determined but insomuch that the Land was transferred by Parliament to the King this continues Also the words of the Statute of 32. H. 8. are apt not only to transfer all the Interest which the Pryor had in his Lands but also his Priviledges and Immunities to the King and he agreed it is not material if the words Tythes are mentioned in the Statute or not But the word upon which he relyes and which comprehends this case is the word Priviledg which takes away the Law for where the Law binds them to pay Tithes the priviledg discharges them And the words of the Statute are taken in the most large extent that is all Mannors c. Priviledges
of the King for the Plaintiff and day given for the argument of that till the next tearm Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Tresham against Lambe LEwes Tresham was Plaintiff in waste against John Lambe the Plaintiff supposed the Defendant had made waste in sowing and plowing ancient meadow the which he had let to the Defendant for years in Rushton in the county of Northampton and sowed it with Woade and prayed Estrepement upon the Statute of Glocester chapter 13. And upon examination it appears that the Lands let was pasture and Meadow the Pasture was Ridge and furrow but had been mowed and used for meadow for diverse years and that the Defendant plowed and sowed that with Woade but this which had been ancient meadow he used that as Meadow and did not convert that to Arable Land but the Judges would not grant any Estrepement to the Pasture for that it was Ridge and furrow and it was no ancient meadow although that had been mowed time out of minde c. But to the ancient Meadow they granted a writ of Esterpement but Foster seemed to be of another opinion for that that it was to sow Woade for that that it is against common Right and the fume and smell of that is offensive and infectious but if it had been to sow Corne he agreed as above and for the executing the Writ of Estrepement they all agreed that the Sheriff ought to take if need be the power of the County against those which made the waste hanging the Action and may commit them if they will not obey him for the words of the Statute are that you shall cause to keep which shall be intended in safety But if Lessee for years trench or draine that is no Wast as it was now of late times adjudged where if the Lessee takes any of the reasonable Bootes that the Law allowes that it shall be no Waste nor Estrepement shall be granted see Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 59. m. If a man devise Land to his Executors for years this is assetts but if he devise that his Executors shall sell his Lands or devise his Lands to his Executors to be sold this shall be no assets untill the Lands are sold and the money for which the land shall be sold shall be assetts A Record of Nisi prius in an Action of Debt upon an obligation with condition to pay such a sum of Money at such a Feast next after the date of the obligation and the day of the date of the obligation was omitted in the Record of the Nisi prius so that it doth not appear which shall be the next Feast at which the mony ought to be paid after the date and by all the Justices that was no perfect Issue and for that the Justices of Nisi prius have no power to proceed upon it and for that it shall not be amended otherwise if it had been a good Issue though that another thing had been mistaken see Dyer 9. Eliz. 260. 24. And see before the same Tearm here The King pardoned a man attaint for giving a false verdict yet he shall not be at another time impannelled upon any Jury for though that the punishment were pardoned yet the Guilt remaines Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. James versus Reade THE case was the King was seised of a Mannor where there were diverse Copy-holders for life and was also seised of eight Acres of Land in another Mannor in which the Copy-holders have used time out of minde c. To have common and after the King grants the Mannor to one and the eight Acres to another and a Copy-holder puts in his beasts into the eight Acres of Land and in trespasse brought against him by the Patentee of the eight Acres he prescribes that the Lord of a Mannor and all those whose estate he hath in the Mannor have used time out of minde c. For themselves and their Copy-holders to have Common in the said eight Acres of Land and further pleaded that he was Copy-holder for his life by grant after the said unity of possession in the King and so demanded judgment if action against which the said unity of possession was pleaded upon which the Defendant demurrs and all the Justices seemed that though that prescription was pleaded that the common was extinct but it seems also to them that by speciall pleading he might have beene helped and save his common for this was common Appendant see 4. Coke Tirringhams Case 37. 6. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Cartwright against Gilbert IN Debt upon an obligation with condition to be and perform an Arbitrement to be made the Arbitrators award that the Defendant should make Submission and should acknowledge himself sorry for all transgressions and words at or before the next Court to be held in the Mannor of P. And for the not performance of that Award the Plaintiff brought this Suit and the Defendant in Barr of this pleads that at the said next Court he went to the Court to make his submission and to acknowledge himself greived according to the Award and was there ready to have performed it but further he saith that the Plaintiff was not there to accept it upon which the Plaintiff demurred and it seemes to Coke and Foster that the Defendant hath done as much as was to be done of his part and for that that the Plaintiff was not there ready to accept the Defendant was discharged for this submission is personall and to the intent to make them freinds and for that both the parties ought to be present But Walmesley and Warburton seemed that it might have been very well made in the absence of the Plaintiff as well as a man may submit himself to an Arbitrement of a man which is absent for this is only to be made to the intent to shew himself sorrowfull for the Trespasses and words which he hath made and spoken and it was not argued but adjourned till the next tearme and the Justices moved the parties to make an end of that for that it was a trifling Suit Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610 In the Common Bench. Sir Edward Ashfeild SIR Edward Ashfeild was bound in an obligation by the name of Sir Edmund and subscribed that with the name of Edward and in Debt brought upon that he pleads it is not his Deed and it seemes to all the Justices that he might well plead that for it appears to them that he is not named Edmund and the originall against him was Command Edward otherwise Edmund and this was not good for a man cannot have two Christian names and if judgment were given against him by the name of Edmund and the Sheriff arrest him by Capias that false imprisonment lies against him But if he have a name given to him when he was christened and another when he was confirmed he shall be called and known by the name given unto him at the time
of his confirmation and not by the first see 11. R. 2. Grants 9. Ed. 3. 4. 12. R. 2 Feoffments 58. See Perkins fol. 8. b 9. a. Grants 10. Eliz. Dyer 279. 4. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610 In the Common Bench. Styles against Baxter STyles brought an Action upon the case against Baxter for calling him perjured man the Defendant justified that he was perjured in such a Court in such a deposition and so pleaded that certainly and it was found for the Defendant at the Nisi prius and Judgment was given accordingly and the Defendant afterwards published the same words of the Plaintiff upon which he brought a new Action for the new publication in which the Defendant pleaded in Barr the first Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurred and it was adjudged without any Contradiction that it was a good Barr. Hillari 8. Jacobi 1610. In the common Bench. Andrewe against Ledsam in the Star Chamber ANdrewe exhibited his bill in the Star Chamber against Ledsam the matter Andrew being a rich Usurer delivered to Ledsam being a Scriâ—ener one thousand pound to be imployed for him for Interest that is for ten pound for the use of every hundred pound for every yeare Ledsam being a Prodigall man as it seemes spent the Money and delivered to Andrewe diverse severall obligations every of them containing three severall persons well known to be sufficient being some of them Knights others Gentlemen and Esquires of great Estates and the other good Citizens without exceptions were bound to Andrewe in two hundred pound for the payment of one hundred sixty pound to Andrew at a day to come within six Moneths then next comming as Andrew had used before to lend his Money and delivered the Obligations with Seales unto them and the names of the parties mentioned to be bound by that subscribed and his own name also subscribed as witnessing the sealing and delivery of them as a publique Notary aâ— the good and lawfull obligations of the Parties which were mentioned in them where indeed the parties mentioned in them had not any notice of any of them But Ledsam had forged and counterfeited them as he hath confessed upon his Examination upon Interrogatories administred by the Plaintiff in this Court and at the hearing of the Cause and sentence of that it was moved if Ledsam shaâ—l loose both his Eares or but one for if it be but one forgery then by the Statute of 5. Eliz. Admitting that the Bill is grounded upon this Statute he shall loose an Eare and pay the double dammageâ— and cost to the party greeved And also if Andrew being but the Obligee and not any of the parties in whose names the Obligations were forged if he be such a party greived which shall have double costs and dammages and these doubts were resolved by Coke cheife Justice of the Common Bench where they were moved and Flemming cheif Justice of the Kings Bench that Ledsam should loose but one eare for that shall be taken as one forgery for that it was made at one time and also that Andrew was the party greived within the Statute but Coke said that the Bill was generall that is against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and not precisely upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. For he said that when a Bill is founded upon an Act of Parliament that this ought to containe all the branches which are mentioned in the Act the which wants in this Bill but insomuch that it was adjudged in Parliament what punishment such offenders shall have they inflicted the same punishment which is appointed by the Statute and added to that that he should be Imprisoned till he found good Suerties for his good behaviour and also that hee shall be brought to every one of the Kings Courts at Westminster with great Papers in his hatt containing his offence in Capitall letters but the Lord Chancellor expounded the double dammages in such manner that is that they shall not be intended double Interest but only the Principall Debt Note that if Execution be directed to a Sheriffe to Arrest any man or to make Execution within a Liberty And the Sheriffe direct his Warrant to a Bayliffe of the Liberty for to make Execution of the Processe which makes it and after is a Fugitive and not able to answer for that the Lord of the Franchise shall answer for that and shall be liable to answer for his Bayliffe by all the Justices Burdett against Pix IN Debt upon a single Bill by Burdett against John Pix as administrator of Freewen the case was this that is Freewen was bound in an Obligation of thirty four pound to Burdett the Plaintiff and was also bound to one William Pix in 80. l. Freewen dyed Intestate and the Letters of Administration of his Goods were Committed after his Death to the said John Pix the Defendant and the said William Pix also made the said John Pix the Defendant his Executor and died and the Defendant in this Action pleads that the said Freewen was indebted to the said William Pix and that he was his Executor and that he had Goods of the said Freewens sufficient to satisfie the said debt the which he retained for the satisfaction of that and that over that he hath not of his to satisfie him upon which the Plaintiff Demâ—…or that that the Defendant doth not plead that he hath â—…is election to retaine the said goods for the satisfaction of â—…own said Debt before the Action brought and by all the Justices he ought to make his election before the bringing of the Action otherwise he shall be charged with the other Debt See Woodward and Darcyes Case Commentaries 184. a. and 4. Cook 30. Coulters Case Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Bone against Stretton THe case was this A man seised of two Acres of Land makes a Lease for years of one Acre to one and another Lease for yeares of the other Acre to another and then he enters and makes a Feoffment and severall Liveryes upon the severall Acres and one of the Lessees being present doth not assent to the said Livery and the use of the said Feoffment was not the use of his last Will and then he declares his last Will and by that recites the said Feoffment and then declares the use of that to be to the use of himself for life the remainder over to a stranger and after the Tenant for years which did not assent to the Livery grants his Estate to the Feoffor and the Feoffor dies and Nicholls Serjeant moved first That this enures as a grant of a reversion and that the grant of the perticuler Tenant enures first as an Attornement and then as a surrender of his Estate as if it had been an expresse surrender and all the Justices agreed that this doth not enure to make Attornement and surrender as expresse surrender will for an expresse surrender admits the reversion to be in the Grantee to whom the surrender is made
others which were present at the said marriage or Actors in that And upon Evidence it appeared that Doctor Hussey was not present nor Actor in it and for that the Jury found him not guilty but they found all the other Defendants guilty of the said Ravishment for upon the Evidence it appeares that the Wife of Doctor Hussey procured and provided the Minister which married them and in the last Michaelmas Terme this was tried here at the Barr and the Jury assessed Dammages to ten pound and the value of the Ward to eighty pound for so much Moore proved that he could have sold him for and also the Jury found that the Ward doth appeare married being of the Age of 16. yeares at the time of his marriage and exceptions were taken to that for that it was not found of what age the Ward was at the time of the verdict and it was urged by Dodridge that by the Statute of Westminster 2. chapt 39. The precise age ought to be found at the time of the verdict Secondly it was found that the Ward did appeare married and doth not say without License of the Guardian and the Guardian may give his consent where the Ward marries himselfe and then there is no cause of action The third and other exception was taken in the behalfe of the Wife of Doctor Hussey for that shee being a married Wife was found guilty of Ravishment of Ward against the Statute of Westminster the 2. chap. 39. And it was urged that it was not the intent of the Statute that provides that he which did Ravish not having right in the marriage though he should restore the Boy naked and not married or should satisfie for the marriage he shall be punished for the transgression by Imprisonment for two yeares and if he shall not restore him or shall marry the Heire after the marrying yeares and cannot satisfie for the marriage he shall abjure the Realme or shall have perpetuall Imprisonment And it was objected that a married woman was not intended to be within this Statute for it is apparent that a married woman hath not wherewith to make satisfaction and it shall not be intended that she shall have perpetuall Imprisonment or make abjuration for this was to make separation betweene the Husband and his Wife and so it was adjourned And the Judges moved the parties to compound amongst themselves see Michaelmas 8. Jacobi Trinity 9 Jacobi Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Kenricke against Pargiter and Phillipps RObert Pargiter Gentleman and John Phillipps were summoned to answer to Robert Kenricke Gentleman of a Plea why they tooke the Beasts of the said Robert Kenricke and those unjustly detained against Suerties and Pledges c. And thereupon the said Robert Kenricke by Thomas Pilkington his Attorney doth complaine that the said Robert and John the fourth day of August the yeare of the Reigne of our now King seventh at Kings Sutton in a certaine place called Great Greenes took Beasts that is to say one Gelding one Mare and one Colt of the said Robert Kenrickes and do unjustly detaine them against Suerties and Pledges untill c. By which meanes he saith he is the worse and hath losse to the value of twenty pound and therefore bringeth this suit c. And the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps by John Barton their Attorney do come and defend the force and Injury when c. And the said Robert Pargiter in his owne right doth well avow and the aforesaid John Phillipps as Bailiff of the said Robert Pargiter doth well acknowledge the taking of the said Beasts in the aforefaid place in which c. and justly c. Because he saith that the said place in which it is supposed the taking of the said Beasts to be made did containe and at the aforesaid time in which it is supposed the taking of the aforesaid Beasts to be made did containe in it foure Acres of Meadow in Kings Sutton aforesaid which the said Robert Pargiter long before the aforesaid time in which c. and also at the same time in which c. was and as yet appeareth seised of one Messuage and one virge of land with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton in his Demesne as of Fee and that the aforesaid Robert Kenrick the aforesaid time when c. and long before was seised of a Messuage and foure Virges of land with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton aforesaid whereof the aforesaid place in which c. Is and at the aforesaid time when c. and also at the time to the contrary doth not appeare in the memory of man was parcell in his Demesne as of Fee And the said Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps further say that the said Robert Pargiter and all those whose Estate the said Robert Pargiter now hath and at the aforesaid time when c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances of the said Robert Pargiter from time the contrary whereof doth not appeare in the memory of man had and have used to have and were accustomed to have Common of Pasture in the aforesaid place c. For six Horses Geldings or Mares two Colts six young Beasts called Steeres or young Beasts called Heifers and two Mares called breeders in and upon the said Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances lying and rising in manner and forme following that is to say every year in and from the first day of August called Lammas day untill the feast of the purification of the blessed Mary the Virgin then next following as to the said Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances belonging and the said Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps further say that the aforesaid Robert Kenricke of the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtenances whereof c. In the forme aforesaid appearing seised the said Robert and all those whose Estate the said Robert Kenricke now hath and at the aforesaid time in which c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtenances whereof c. time out of mind had and were used and accustomed to have the aforesaid place in which c. To their proper use in severalty every year in and from the feast of the purification of the blessed Virgin Mary untill the first day of August called Lammas day then next comming that by reason and in consideration therof he the aforesaid Robert Kenrick and all those whose Estate the said Robert Kenrick now hath and at the time in which c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtnances whereof c. time out of minde have had and were accustomed to have every yeare from the aforesaid first day of August called Lammas day and from thence untill the aforesaid purification then next following Common of pasture in the aforesaid place in which c. Only for three Mares
or Geldings and no more and because the Beasts aforesaid in the narration aforesaid specified over and above the aforesaid other three Mares or Geldings the aforesayd time in which c. were in the aforesayd place in which c the Grasse then growing there eating and the Common of pasture of the sayd Robert Pargiter overcharging and doing damage to the sayd Robert there the sayd Robert Pargiter in his owne right doth wel avow and the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter doe well acknowledge the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. and justly c. they then doing damage there c. And the aforesayd Robert Kenrick saith That neither the sayd Robert Pargiter for the reason before alleadged the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place in which c. can justly avow nor the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter for the same reason the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. justly can acknowledge Because by protestation that he the sayd Robert Kenrick and all those whose estate the sayd Robert Kenrick now hath and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. had in the sayd Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. time out of minde had not nor used to have or were accustomed every yeare at the first day of August called Lammas day and from thence to the next Feast of the Parification then next following Common of pasture in the aforesayd place in which c. onely for three Horses Mares or Geldings and not more in manner and forme as the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips above have alleadged for Plea the sayd Robert Kenrick sayth That he long before the time of the taking of the Beasts aforesayd and also at the same time of the taking c. was seised of the Mannor of Kings Sutton with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton and Astrop in the County aforesayd whereof the aforesayd Messuage and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. are and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. and also time out of mind c. were parcell in his Demesne as of Fee and the aforesayd House and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances thereof c. and of the taking and likewise time out of mind were parcell of the Demesne Lands of the Mannor of Kings Sutton aforesayd And the sayd Robert Kenrick so of the Mannor aforesayd with the appurtenances in manner aforesayd appearing seised the sayd Robert before the sayd time in which c. put his Beasts aforesayd which then were the proper Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick upon the aforesayd House and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances lying and rising in the aforesayd place in which c. to eate the Grafs there growing in the sayd place in which c. called Great Greens parcell c. the Grass in the same then growing feeding and the aforesayd Beasts were in the place aforesayd untill the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the aforesayd fourth day of August the seventh yeare aforesayd at Kings Sutton aforesayd in the County aforesayd at Great Greene parcell c. took the sayd Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick and those unjustly detained against Sureties and Pledges untill c. as he above against those complaines and this he is ready to verifie whereof and from which the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place c. further acknowledge the sayd Robert Kenrick demands Judgment and his damages by reason of the taking and unjust detaining of those beasts to be adjudged unto him c. And the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John Phillips say that the aforesaid Plea of the said Robert Kenrick above in the Bar avowed pleaded and matter therein contained is very insufficient in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the said John from just acknowledging the taking of the Beasts aforesaid to have and shut up and that he to the said plea in manner and forme aforesaid pleaded hath no need not by the Law of the Land shall be held to answer and this they are ready to averr whereof for default of a sufficient plea of the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in this part the said Robert and John as before demand Judgement and Returne of the Beasts aforesaid together with their Damages c. To them to be adjudged c. And the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in respect he hath sufficient matter in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the aforesaid John from justly acknowledging the taking of the said Beasts to be shut out as above alledged which he is reaoy to verify which truly matter of the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John do not answer according to their verifying they altogether refuse to admit as before and demand Judgment and their Damages occasioned by the taking and unjust detaining of the said Beasts to be adjudged to them c. And because c. Upon the pleadings the Case was thus a Freeholder prescribs to have common in parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor for six Horses and other Cattel in certain Land from Lammas to Candlemas that the Lord of the Mannor hath used to have the said Parcell of Land in severall to his owne use from Candlemas to Lammas and in consideration of that the said Lord hath used to have Common in the said parcell of Land for Horses only and not more and the Lord unjustly puts in other Beasts then the said three Horses in the said parcel of Land and surcharged the Common and the Free-holder distrayned them doing Damage and the Lord brings a Replevin and it was argued that prescription was not good for that that Free-holder claimes that as Common without number in his severall Soyle the Grantee cannot exclude the owner of the Soile 12 H. 8. Brooke so of him which hath Common Fishing in the severall of another he cannot exclude him which hath the severall 18 H. 6. 16. And it is not like to the Case of the time of Edward the first prescription the 55. Where is Prescription that the Owner of the Soile shall be excluded from his Common for part of the yeare for there the other claimes all the Vesture of the Land and so may well exclude the Lord but not when he claimes it but as Common but it was agreed that by Lawes by the Commoners consent they may order that their great Cattell shall be put in in such Feild only untill such a Feast and after that for sheep and swine and this is good as it appears by 46 Ed. 3. 25. And Coke cheife Justice said that such prescription to have Common and to exclude the Owner of the Soyle is not good and he saith that so it hath been adjudged between Whyte of Shirland 31 Eliz. And in
Cletherwoods Case of the Middle Temple but he said that Prescription to have all the Vesture of the Land is good for such a time and at the first day of the Argument of this Case Foster Justice seemed that the prescription was good and might have reasonable beginning that is by Grant as if they have Common together and they agree that one shall have all for one part of the yeare and the other for another part of the year and that shall be good to which Coke answered that that cannot be by Prescription to have that as Common and at another day Coke cited Shirland and Whites Case to be adjudged 26 of Eliz. in the Kings Bench to be prescription to have common in the Waste of the Lord and to exclude the Lord to have common in the place and adjudged to be void prescription and also he cited a case between Chimery and Fist where prescription was to have common in the Soile of the Lord and that the Lord shall have feeding but for so many cattell and adjudged that the Prescription was not good to exclude the Lord but a man may prescribe to have the first Crop or the first Vesture of anothers Land and it is good and with that agrees the resolution in Kiddermisters Case in the Star-Chamber Warburton justice said that this prescription is not for the excluding of the Lord but for their good ordering of their Lands according to the Book of 46 Ed. 3 25. before cited that the great Cattell should have the first feeding and after that the sheep Coke said that if it had appeared by the pleading that all the Demesnes of the Lord ought to be common and in consideration that the Lord had inclosed part and injoyed that in severall the Free-holders and Tenants of the Mannor which have Common over all the Residue and exclude the Lord and this shall be good by prescription and it is adjourned see 15 Ed. 2. Fitzherbert Prescription 51. And afterwards in Trinity Tearme 1612. 10. Jacobi this case was moved againe and all the Justices agreed as this Pleading is Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff and they moved the parties to replead Pasch 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Portington against Rogers Trin. 8. Jacobi Rot. 3823. MARY Portington brought a Trespasse against Robert Rogers and others Defendants for the breaking of her house and Close upon not guilty pleaded and speciall Verdict found the Case was this A man had Issue three Daughters and made his Will in writing and by that devised certain Land to the youngest Daughter in taile the Remainder to the Eldest Daughter in taile the Remainder to the middlemost daughter in taile with Proviso that if my sayd daughters or any of them or any other Person or persons before enamed to whom any estate of Inheritance in possession or Remainder of in or to the said Lands limited or appointed by this my last Will and Testament or to the Heires before mentioned of them or any of them shall joyntly or severally by themselves or together with any other willingly apparently and advisedly conclude and agree to or for the doing or execution of any Act or Devise whereby or wherewith the said Premises so to them intailed as aforesaid or any part or parcell thereof or any estate or Remainder thereof shall or may by any way or means be discontinued aliened or put away from such person or persons and their Heires or any of them contrary to mine intent and meaning in this my Will otherwise then for a Joynture or shall willingly or advisedly commit or do any act or thing whereby the premises or any part thereof shall not or may not discend remaine or come to such persons and in such sort and order as I have before limited and appointed by this my last Will and Testament then I will limit declare and appoint that then my said Daughter or Daughters or other the said person or persons before named and every of them so concluding and agreeing to or for the doing or execution of any such act or Devise as is aforesaid shall immediately from and after such concluding and agreeing loose and forfeit and be utterly barred and excluded of and from all and every such Estate Remainder and benefit as shee or they or any of them should might or ought justly to have claime Challenge and demand of in or to so much thereof as such conclusion or agreement shall extend unto or concern in such manner and forme as if she or they or any of them had not been named nor mentioned in this my last Will and Testament and that the Estate of such person c. shall cease and determine c. And after that the youngest Daughter tooke a Husband and then shee and her Husband concluded and agreed to suffer a Recovery and so to barr the Remainder and upon that the Plaintiff being the eldest Daughter entred and upon the Entry brought this Action And Harris Serjeant argued for the Defendant that this shall be a condion and not a limitation and he said that Mews and Scholiasticas Case is not adjudged against him see the Commentaries 412. b. And it shall be taken strictly for that that it comes in Defesans of the Estate and then admitting it is a condition it is not broken for this conclusion and agreement is only the agreement of the Husband and though that the Wife be joyned yet be that for her benefit or prejudice that shall be intended only the Act of the Husband and he only shall be charged as in the 48 Ed. 3 18. Husband and Wife joyne in Contract and the Husband only brings Action upon that and 45 Ed. 3. 11. Husband and Wife joyne in Covenant and the Action was brought against them both and it was abated for that shall charge the Husband only 24 Ed. 3. 38 The Husband and the Wife joyne in an Action upon the Statute of Laborers and the Writ abated and so in cases of Free-hold as 15 Ed. 4. 29. b. The Husband and the Wife being Tenants for life joyne in praying aid of a stranger and this shall be no forfeiture of the Estate of the Wife and 48 Ed. 3. 12. a. Statute Merchant was made to the husband and Wife and they joyned in Defeasans that shall not be Defeasans of the Wife and 28 H. 8. Dyer 6. The Husband of the Wife Executrix aliens the Tearme which was let to the Testator upon condition that he or his Executors should not alien and by Baldwin by the alienation of the Husband the Condition was not broken for it was out of the words so here the agreement and conclusion being made by Husband and Wife shall be intended the Act of the Husband only and so out of the Words and by consequence out of the intent of the Condition and shall be taken strictly but he seemed that the Condition shall be void for the Words conclude and agree are words uncertain for what
if a man devise his Lands to his Wife and after her death to his Son and the remainder to his sayd Wife in Fee-simple the Husband of the Wife having Issue shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie for alwayes the Judges have made such favourable construction of Wills that if Estates devised by Will might be created by act executed in the life of the party then it should be good by devise and to the objection that conclusion and agreement is uncertaine and so for that shall be voyd he saith that it is not so uncertaine as going about or resolve and determine an attempt or procure as in Corbets Case first of Coke 83. b. or as attempt or endeavour as in Germins and Arscotts Case there cyted fol. 285. a. See 6 Coke 40. a. Mildmayes Case and also the words subsequent are repugnant that the Estate tayle shall cease as if the Tenant in tayle were dead and not otherwise which is absurd and repugnant for the Estate tayle doth not determine by his death if he doe not dye without Issue And also he sayd that it is more reasonable that the perpetuity in Scholasticas Case for here the limitation depends upon agreement which is a thing certaine upon which the Issue may be joyned and also the condition doth stand with the nature of the Estate tayle and for the preservation of it and Recovery is against the nature of it for this destroyes the Estate tayle and is onely a consequent of it and not parcell of the nature of the Estate and this is the reason that Littleton saith That an Estate tayle upon condition that he should not alien is good for that preserves the Estate and also preserves Formedon for him in reversion if there be a discontinuance and with that agreed 13 H. 7. 23. 24. and he sayd that there was a Judgement in the point for his Clyent for another part of the Land and he cyted 31 Edw. 5. Fitz. Feoffment placito the last and Fitzherberts Natura brevium Ex gravi querela last Case and so concluded and prayed judgement for the Plaintiff and this Case was argued againe by Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant and he intended that the agreement is voyd to the Wife and shall be intended the agreement of the Husband onely for a marryed Wife cannot countermand Livery 21 Assis 25. and if a Woman makes a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff upon request made by her and she takes a Husband she cannot make request after coverture 35 Assisarum So that he intended that this shall be intended the agreement of the Husband onely and not of the Wife and yet he argued that Declaration of a use by a marryed Wife shall be good according to Beckwiths Case But he sayd That the reason of that is for that that she is party to the Recovery which is a matter of Record and as long as the Record remaines in force so long the Declaration of the use shall be good and also he argued that if the condition being that if the Wife conclude or agree to any act to make discontinuance that then c. that that shall be intended unlawfull acts and Recovery is no unlawfull act and for that shall not be within the restraint of the Condition as the Earl of Arundels Case 17 Eliz. Dyer 343. and admitting that it is a limitation yet it shall be of the same nature as a condition and as well as a condition that Tenant in tayle shall not suffer Recovery is voyd So also is such Limitation void and so it was intended before the Statute of Donis Conditionalibus and it appeares by the pleading that the parties did not intend to take advantage of the agreement for it is pleaded that at the time of the Recovery suffered the youngest Daughter was seised of an estate tayl the which could not be if her estate were determined and destroyed by the agreement and conclusion so that the last words make the Forfeyture for the first are not unlawfull and before the execution of the Recovery the estate tayl is determined and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Barker Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff It shall be intended a Limitation and not a condition for a Will shall have favorable construction according to the intent of the Devisor for a Joyntenant may devise to his Companion 49. Ed. 3. and Fitz. Na. Bre. Ex gravi querela last case A man devises Land to his Wife for life upon condition that if he marry that it should remain over to his Son in tayl and the Wife marries and the Son in remainder sues Ex Gravi querela by which it appeares that it was a Limitation and not a condition and 34 Ed. 3. devise was to one for life upon condition that if his Sonn disturbed him that then it should remaine over in taile upon disturbance he in Remainder in tail brings Formedon by which it appears it was a Limitation and with that agrees all the Justices in 29 Assisarum 17. And Wellock and Hamonds Case cited in Barastons Case before and 18. Eliz. Dyer If Land be limited to no third person by the Devise then the Heir shall enter for breaking the condition and also he said that it appears by Littleton and 13 H. 7 23. and 24 and 20 H. 7. and 17 Eliz. 343. the Earle of Arundells case which conditioneth that Tenant in taile shall not alien standeth with his Estate but not with Fee simple and so it is adjudged in Nowes and Scholasticas Case which is adjudged in the point which as he saith cannot be answered and the Words of the Condition are not that her Estate taile shall cease as if shee had been dead but as if she had not been named which is not so repugnant or absurd as the other and this compared to 34 Ed 3. Where the Estate was limited till it was disturbed And he also argued that the agreement of the Wife shall be a forfeiture notwithstanding the coverture for when the Estate is granted upon such condition he which hath the estate shall take it subject to the condition as if two Lessees are and one Seals the Counterpart onely yet the other shall be bound by the Covenants contained in it and 33 H. 6. 31. a Woman disavows to be Executor notwithstanding that shee was marryed and if Precipe had been brought against the Husband and Wife the default of the Husband shall binde the Wife and so she shall be punished for waste made during the coverture and so concluded and prayed judgement for the Plaintiff Foster Justice that an Estate of Free-hold shall not cease by agreement or conclusion without entry for it is a matter of Inheritance and Free-hold and it is not like to 33 H. 6. 31. which concerns Chattels and Goods and Walmesley Justice accorded with him Warburton Justice it hath been adjudged in Scholasticas Case that the condition was good and therefore he would not deliver his
his Writ and that the eldest Brother hath nothing in the Land Judgement was had against a Defendant in Debt and Capias to satisfie awarded and Non est inventus returned and Scire facias awarded against the Bayl and upon the first Scire facias the principall Defendant yeelds his Body in execution and it was very good for before that the Bayl had no day in Court and in the Kings Bench if the Defendant yeelds his Body upon the second Scire facias it shall be accepted And if a man be Bayl upon a Writ of Error if the Judgement shall not be reversed he shall be in execution againe It was objected by Hutton Serjeant that the Scire facias is against the Bayl to know why the execution shall not be awarded against the Bayl and that ought to be delivered to the Sheiriff before the day of the returne or otherwise it shall be Erroniously awarded and then the party may yeeld his Body to Prison at any time and discharge his Bayl and agreed that Bayl in this Court may be released Accompt doth not lie for any sum certaine Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611 in the Common Bench. John Reyner against Powell See Hillary 8. Jacobi 136. HAughton Serjeant argued that there shall be a good Estate tayl of a Copy-hold and that by the custome after the making of the Statute of Westminster 2. And he agreed that at the Common Law all estates were Fee simple absolute or conditionall and that the estates tayl were created by the Statute of Westminster 2. And do not exclude customary estates as it appeares by Littleton who saith that Tenant at will by copy of Court Roll by custome may be in Fee simple and so of estate tayl and with this agrees many other Authors 15 H. 8. b. Tenant by Copy-hold of Court Roll resolved in the point and that a Formedon in the discender lieth for that and as the Statute of Westminster 2. divides estate tayl and Fee simple So may custome of a Mannor as well as custome make an estate at will which is personall and determines by the death of any of the parties to discend and as well as the custome of London of not moving things fixed is created by custome as well may Formedon be created by Custome and also the Statute is that gives Cui in vita extends to a Copy-hold so the Statute of Limitation as it appeares by Brooke Limitation 5 Ed. 6. And with this agrees also Heydons Case and though that the words are Voluntas Donatoris in the Charter c. Yet the estate tayl may be created by devise So that the Statute shall not have such literall construction and as well as a Lease for a hundred yeares may be within the Statute of 11. H. 7. Which speakes only of discontinuances as it appeares by Sir George Brownes Case 3. Coke So may a Copy-hold estate which is but an estate at will be within the Statute of Westminster 2. and it is confest by the other part by pleading that he was seised in tayl according to the custome of the Mannor and it is not pleaded that he had Issue at the time of the Alienation and the other party claimed by the Alienation the which was not good if he had no Issue at the time of that if he had but Fee simple conditionall and so concluded and praied Judgement c. Dodridge Serjeant of the king saith that the reputation of the estate consists upon two parts first the name secondly the nature of the estate tayl and for both the makers of the Statute of Westminster 2. bad no intention that this should extend to Copy-hold and first for the name which gives the being he cited Fitz. Natura Brevium 12. C. where it is sayd that Copy-Tenants or Copy-holders or Tenants by copy is but a new Terme found for of auncient times they were called Tenants in Villenage or of base tenure as this also appeares by the old Tenures by which it appeares that then they were called and named Tenants which held in Villenage or of base tenure and Bracton booke 2. chap. 8. in the end speakes of that and calls them Villaines Sokemaines and that if such a Tenant will transfer his Tenement let it be delivered into the hand of the Lord or his Steward and he wrote immediately before the Statute of Westminster 2. and agreed with Fitz. Na. Bre. And also Bracton booke 4. fol. 209. Saith that such Tenants have used to Plow the Demesnes of the Lord and calls and names them as before and 4. Ed. 1. He is called Customarius So that Custome doth not make the certainty of his estate if he hath any and he said that 42. Ed. 3. 25. is the first in Law in which is any mention of these Lands and there they are called Neists Lands and 14 H. 4. 323. a. they are called Sokemaines by base Tenure and Lambert calles it Folkland by which and severall names he saith that the basenesse of the Estate appeares And to the estate he saith that originally it was but at the will of the Lord though that it be according to the Custome of the Mannor So that the Lord cannot put him out if he performe the services And the Register doth not respect him for he hath not framed any Originall for him to give him remedy by the Common Law but only in the Court of the Lord though that erronious Judgement be given Also he cannot prescribe but in the name of the Lord as it appeares by 18. Ed. 3. Fitz. prescription that such estates which are incident to Fee simple as Dower not Tenants by the Curtisie cannot be derived out of this without Custome nor that warranted So that his reputation appeares by his name and also by his nature Also he intended that the makers of the Statute of Westminster 2 did not intend that the Statute should extend to this for it is Oppositum in Objecto for Custome is without time of memory And the Statute of Westminster 2. was made 13. Ed. 1. the beginning of which every one knowes Also the Statute of Westminster 2. doth not extend to any Lands but those which the Tenant might have aliened before the Statute But the Copy-holder had not any power to alien for the Lord ought to be his Instrument and hand as Bracton saith to alien transfer he cannot but by the hands of the Lord and it must be restored to the Lord the words of the Statute are The will of the giver in the Charter c. So that the Statute intends such Lands which may passe by Deed and Fine and devise his Deeds and the Deed extends to them for a Fine is Chirograph and devise to be made by copy of Court Roll is not so for that is only of Acts made in the Court of the Lord it cannot be within the Statute for Copy-hold ought to be held of the Lord and Tenant in tayl shall hold of the giver and so
the street shall be devisable and he claimes by force of a Devise made according to that custome and adjudged that the custome is not good for it is inconvenient that in one self same ancient Town one house shall be devisable and another not and upon that the Plea was amended so here custome that a Copy-holder may sell all the Trees is inconvenient for it doth not appeare that this Custome extended to any other but to him Secondly this Custome is against the Common Wealth for every Custome ought to have preservation and maintenance and that shall not be here for when one Copy-holder hath sold all the Trees the Successor shall not have any Boots nor Fire and so by the same reason he may pull down the house And so this tends to destruction and rests in the will of a man if he will distroy or not And this is inconvenient that such power should be given to one which hath but an estate for life as in 14. Ed. 3. Barr 277. Copy-holder pleads Custome of a Mannor that that Copy-holder which comes first after a windfall falne shall have it and resolved to be void Custome for that it rests in the will of a man if he will finde that or not So in 5. H. 7. 9. Custome that if one find Beasts doing Dammage that he may distraine them and have foure pence for his Dammages and adjudged void Custome for the Dammages are nncertaine and for that it is no reason that the Fine shall be certaine and 19. Eliz. Dyer 358. 46. Custome that all Devises and Leases granted for more then six yeares are meerly void forthwith is a void Custome because contrary to common reason and the liberty of one which hath Fee simple So 2 Hen. 4. 24. Custome that the Tenants of the Mannor shall not use their Common till the Lord put in his Beasts is void for it should not depend on the Will of the Lord So in the principall case the Lord cannot grant Copy-hold Estate in reversion for it depends upon the Nomination of his Tenant and for that the Custome shall be void Thirdly The Copy-holder hath prescribed to do a thing which is contrary to his Estate and doth not cohere with his Estate that is that Lessee for life shall cut the Trees for he hath but a speciall property in that and not the â—bsolute property and it is like to a Case in 19 Ed 3. Feoffments 68. and 19 Assise 9. Where Commander of an Hospitall prescribes that he and his Predecessors which have had the same office have used to make Leases for lives and in an Action brought by the Prior it was adjudged that the custome is void and so by consequence the Lease was void for the Commander hath no Estate to make it so in Forsâ— and Hemlings Case 4. Coke and 3 Ed. 3. F. Dat. Custome that a married Wife may make a Will is void for it doth not stand with the quality of her person so here it is not with the quality of the Estate but it may be objected that it is a greater Estate then an Estate for life for it is perpetuall Free-hold to that it may be answered in this case it is no greater Estate then for life for the Copy-holder hath only made nomination but he which was nominated was not admitted so that the Tenant hath no greater Estate nor the Lord hath granted greater Estate then for life but admit that he be Tenant for life with a Remainder for life to him to whom the nomination is made yet he cannot do such an act and for that the cutting down of the Trees shall be a forfeiture of his Estate by custome by which the Estate is created and copy-hold Lands are not as other Lands which if they were let for Life at the common Law the Tenant were dispunishable for wast till the Statute of Glocester for it was the Folly of the Lessor to make a Lease to such a person which would make wast and for that as the benefit and Priviledge of the copy-holder remaines so the benefit of the Lord shall not be abridged and so he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Haughton Serjeant seemeth the contrary for the Defendant and he agreed that Customes ought to be reasonable and if they be generally inconvenient they cannot be reasonable and to the first exception to prove that it is a new Custome that is that it is found that he is onely Tenant in possession without saying Without Remainder as it was in the first Case to that he thought if it were true that the Copy-holder hath such priviledge that he might nominate his Successor it is not materiall and to the lessening of the Fine that is found very certaine for he that is nominated at the first requires admittance and if the Lord refuse that he shall be admitted for such a Fine that the Homage Assess and so it is found and that is very certaine and the rather for that that this is a speciall Verdict Also he agreed as before That Custome ought to be reasonable and if it be generally inconvenient though it be not mischeivous yet it shall not be good and to the Case of 40 Assis 37. Custome to devise the Tenements on the South side of the Street is not good for that that Custome cannot be in one particular place certaine and also he agreed the Case of Windfall for that tended to charge the Lord 3 Eliz. Dyer 299. 57. 58. Custome to have Herriot the best Beast and if that be put out of the way before seisure then the Lord may seise and take the Beast of any other mans there arising and lying downe to his owne proper use and the custome held voyd and unreasonable So the custome in 20 H. 7. to have so much for every Pound-breach is voyd but this custome is meerly between the Lord and Tenant and the custome hath made that discendable Inheritance and also may have reasonable beginning and the Lord hath benefit for that that is his Fine for the admittance of him which is nominated and custome hath created other Estates as Grant to him and his is good by the custome and so the Cases of 21 Ed. 4. and 22 Ed. 4. before cyted for the turning of Plough upon the Land of his Neighbour So the custome if the Lord feed the Beasts of his Tenant that he may Fold them and so he concluded that the first custome to make nomination is good and to the second custome he agreed that bare Copy-holder for life could not Prescribe to cut and sell all the Trees no more then custome that Tenant for life may devise as 35 H. 6. But here the Tenant hath perpetuity in his Estate and may nominate his Successor and as well as the Common Law allows Tenant after possibility of Issue extinct to make waste so may custome allow Tenant for life with such nomination power to cut and sell the Trees Also he intended admitting the custome not good
that yet the Copy-holder hath nor forfeited his Estate for the Trees and the Mannor are granted by severall Grants and for that though that they are by one selfe same Deed yet by that the Trees are severed from the Mannor and the Trees are the cause of the forfeiture and they are no parcell of the Mannor as in 31 Edw. 3. Assis 441. by sale of a Castle the services are extinct So here the forfeiture cannot accrue to the Mannor when that commeth by reason of Trees which are severed by reason of severall Grants and he thought that the Grant shall be taken more strong against him which made it as if a man in the Premises give Fee-simple to have in tayl the Estate tayl shall be precedent and the Fee-simple depending upon that so if a man have the next avoydance of a Church and the Church becomes voyd and after he purchase the Advowson yet the Presentation remaines as it was before for that is the best thing and so it is resolved in Herlackendens Case 4 Coke 63. b. That if a man makes a Lease for yeares of Land except the Trees and after grants the Trees to the Lessee that the Trees are not reunited to the Land and so he concluded that it shall be no forfeiture and prayed Judgment for the Defendant and this Case was argued againe Michaelmas 9 Jacobi by Shirley for the Plaintiff that the first custome was voyd insomuch that he claimed to doe a greater thing then his Estate would warrant as in 35 H. 6. Custome that if one Pawne the Goods of another that he which hath them Pawned may keep them whosoever they were is not good as Custome that the Tenant in tayle may devise is voyd for his Estate will not warrant it and it is prejudice to the Tenant in reversion So Custome that Copy-holder shall have Common and another Custome that none shall put in his Beasts till the Lord put in his 2. H. 4. 24. Also there is no Fine Limited to be tendred by the Tenant or to be demanded by the Lord And if a Copy-holder refuse to pay his Fine it is a Forfeyture and if the Custome do not provide for the Fine of the Lord as for the Copy-holder the Custome shall be void Also here cannot be admittance for Littleton saith that the sole meanes to transfer Copy-hold is by Surrender And here if the Custome should be good the copy-hold should be transferred by Nomination only and so the Lord should be Defeated of his Fine and it seemes also that the second Custome is void for it is contrary to the Estate of a copy-holder to sell all the Trees but he agreed that he might have Estovers for houseboote and hedgboote as it was adjudged in Swayne and Becketts Case and he cited the 19. assis Where a Commoner made a Lease for life and void for that that the Estate would not support it 9. H. 6. 56. and 11. H. 6. 40. Prescription to sell Estovers is void for Estovers are appropriate to a house And also it was adjudged in this Court between Poltocke and Powell that a copy-holder for life cannot prescribe to sell the Trees for it is contrary to his Estate as if a Custome be that if a Feoffor die his Heire within age that he shall be in Ward as 8. H. 6. And he thought that the Nomination was no alteration for he to whom the Nomination is made hath only an Estate for life when the Nomination is made and that doth not warrant the sale of the Trees and to the third it seemes that the Lord of the Mannor bargaine and sells the Trees and after lets the Mannor to the bargainee for years and then copy-holder makes wast he thought that the Trees were not severed from the Mannor as in 33. H. 8. 48. Dyer 2. if a man bargaine and sell a Mannor and after in the same Deed makes a bargaine and sale of an Advowson appendant this remaines appendant So if a man bargaine and sell a Mannor and also the Trees do not passe till Livery be made of the Mannor So if Lessee for yeares gives and grants the Land and makes a Letter of Attorney to make Livery the tearme passes without Livery and then it is a Forfeyture And here the Lessee shall have the benefit of Shade and Burrough and the Trees themselves during the Tearme as parcell of the Land and then when the copy-holder hath done more then his Estate will warrant this is a forfeyture and the Lessee shall take the advantage of it and so he praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris for the Defendant that the Customes are good but admitting that so yet the Plaintiff shall not take advantage of it and he argued that Custome ought to have two properties first reasonable secondly ought to have time to make that perfect and then shall be good as it appears by the examples of Littleton f. 37. of Burrough English and Gavelkind and custome may be against common right but not against common reason which is the common Law 8 Ed. 4. 18. 21 Ed. 3. 4. And he intended here that the second custome is good if the first be good for then it is perpetuall Free-hold and Copy-hold Estate of Inheritance is but an Estate at will at the Common Law and yet such Copy-holder may dispose the Trees as well as custome may create the Estate as well may it give such priviledge as custome may warrant the taking of Toll for passing over the soile of another 22 Assise 58. And so custome to have the Foldage of the Beasts which feeds upon his soil is good but custome for paying the Goods of another is not good for there is not any recompence but fishing in the Sea and to dig the soile adjoyning for landing of his Nets is good for this is for the publick good 8 Ed. 4. 23. So the custome for turning upon head-head-land of another is good and is for the preservation of Tilling and also it is between Lord an Tenant and shall be intended to have a reasonable beginning for consideration c. That this continues for he hath Fines and other Services and yet 3 Eliz. 199. Dyer If the Lord claim Harriot of his Tenant and if it be Esloyned alledge custome that he may take the Beasts that he found upon the Land in Withernam and this was adjudged unreasonable custome so 20 H. 7. 13. Custome to have three shillings of a stranger for pound-breach is void but of a Tenant is otherwise for it shall be intended to be a lawfull beginning 11 H. 7. 40. So here the beginning shal be intended to be lawfull and for valuable consideration and for this it shall be good and to the second custome it follows by consequence to be a good custome if the first should be good and then to the third he agreed that Copyholder cannot make wast and if he do it shall be a forefeiture of his Estate as it is said
that the Husband was subject to that then by consequence it was intended that all persons which were chargeable by the common Law shall be chargeable by the Statute and by the action which is formed upon that and by the common Law the Husband was chargeable and by consequence shall be chargeble by the Statute and he intends that there would be difference between actuall wrongs and others which are come by omission and if the VVife be the person which did the wrong then she shall be punished as well by Statute as she was before by the common Law also she shal be out-lawed and it hath been agreed that Ravishment of Ward shall be maintainable against the Husband and the wife if they both are Ravishers and also if the wife be Ravisher before marriage and after takes a Husband the Husband shall be charged with the damages and his Body shall be imprisoned and by consequence shall be abjured also shee may make an Executor by the consent of her Husband but admitting that she could not then the remedy is given against the Heir and she shall be within this Statute as well as other Statutes made in the time of the said King as the Statute of Westminster 1. 37. And shall be a Disseisor with force and shall be imprisoned whether the Husband joyn with her or not as it is adjudged 16 Assise 7. for all Statutes which provide for actuall wrong a married VVife shall be intended within them as it is 9 H. 4. 6. But the pleading of Joyntenancy there the Plea is the act of the Husband and so fayling of Record upon the Statute of 34 Ed. 3. as it is 16 Assise 8. for the Husband propounds the exception but if the VVife propounds the exception then she shall be within the Statute and shall be imprisoned 21 Assise So if a married VVife make actuall disseisin with force she shall be imprisoned 9 H. 4. 7. b. 8 Ed. 3. 52. 22 Ed. 2 Damages 20. 27 H. 6. Ward 118. And so the President Trinity 33 H. 8. Rot. 347. in a case between Thomas Earle of Rutland against Lawrence Savage and his VVife in Ravishment of Ward at the Nisi prius the Defendants make default and the Judgment was that the Husband and the VVife should be taken and upon that he inferred that the Husband should be subject and charged with the damages and so it is taken upon the statute of 35. Eliz. That the Husband shall be charged with Debt for the Recusancy of the VVife and shall be imprisoned for the not payment of it as to the verdict it seems that this is good and it shall be intended the VVard was marryed by the Defendants as in 33 Ed. 3. Verdict 48. It is found by verdict that Mulier enters and resolved that this shall be intended in the life of the Bastard or otherwise it is nothing worth and in Fulwoods case 4 Coke the Jury found that the Defendant acknowledged himself to be bound and that shall be intended according to the statute of 23 H. 8. and so here though that it be not found that the VVard was married by these Defendants yet it shall be so intended notwithstanding that nothing is found but only that he appeared married and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff This case was sollemnly argued this Tearme by all the Justices that is Coke and Walmesley Warberton and Foster and upon their selemn arguments Coke and Walmesley were of opinion that a married wife is not within the statute and Warberton and Foster were of the contrary opinion and so by reason of their contrariety in opinion the Judgment was staid Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Burnham against Bayne THE case was A Man seised of divers Lands the halfe of them were extended by Elegit and before Judgement was had against him a new Elegit Awarded and if all the halfe which remaines or but the halfe of that which was the fourth part of all should be extended was the question And it was agreed by all the Justices that but the halfe of that which remaines and not the halfe of all which he had at the time of the Judgement But the halfe of that which he had at the time of the Elegit And if all which remaines be extended the Extent shall be void by all the Justices see 10. Ed. 2 Execution 137 16. E. 2. Execution 118. And here the principall case was A man hath a Rent of forty pound reserved upon a Lease for years and two Judgments in Debt were had against him at the Suit of Sir Thomas Cambell and three Judgments at the Suit of the Plaintiff the halfe was first extended by Elegit upon the first Judgment had at the Suit of Sir Thomas Cambell and after upon the Judgment had at his Suit the halfe of the residue was extended and after upon the Judgment at the Suit of the Plaintiff all the residue was extended and all the Justices agreed that the Extent was void for they ought to extend but the halfe of that which remaines and that was but the fourth part Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Trobervill against Brent THE Case was A man makes a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and after grants the Reversion for life to which Grant the Lessee for years attornes the Grantee acknowledgeth a statute and after surrenders his Estate the Conusee extends the Statute and distraines for the Rent and in Replevin avowes for the cause aforesaid and adjudged that the Avowry was good Agreed that Creditor may sue the Executors and the Heir of the Debtor also but he shall have but one Execution with satisfaction see the Statute of 23 H. 8. for such course in the Exche quer Note that no Court of Equity may examine any matter of Equity after Judgment which was precedent the Judgment see the Statute of 4 H. 4. chapt 23. Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Hamond against Jethro THe case was this Edward Hamond was Plaintiff in Debt upon a Bill against VVilliam Jethro and the Bill was made in this manner Memorandum that I VVilliam Jethro do owe and am indebted unto Edward Hamond in the Sum of ten pound for the payment whereof I binde my self c. In witnesse and after the in witnesse it was thus subscribed Memorandum that the said VVilliam Jethro be not compelled to pay the said ten pound untill he recovers thirty pound upon an obligation against A. B. c. And in the Count was no mention made of this Subscription but this appears when the Defendant prayes hearing of the Bill the which was then entered Verbatim of Record and upon that the Defendant demurred in Law Harris Serjeant for the Plaintiff agreed that if it had been in the Body of the Bill it ought to have been contained in the Count to inable the Plaintiff to his action but that which is after in witnesse
for the matter it is not within the Statute and then for the persons also he intended that it is not within the Statute and this appears by the words of the Statute of 28. Edw. 1. Articuli super Chartas and to that 10. H. 6. 130. it is adjudged that Judgement in such case there given is void and Coram non Judice so 7 H. 6. 30. expresses the cause to be insomuch that none of the parties are of the houshold of the King 4 H. 6. 8. 19 Edw. 4. 8. 5. Edw. 4. 32 H. 6. Rot. 27. And he cyted also Michelburns Case to be adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench 38 Eliz. That they could not tender a Plea in Trospasse for Trover and Conversion if none of the parties were of the Kings house and further he said that when a Court hath Jurisdiction and errs in matter of proceedings or in Law there the Execution made by force of their Process shall be lawfull But where the Judgement is void by default of Jurisdiction as in this Case there it is otherwise as 10 H. 6. 13. Recovery of Land in the Spirituall Court is void so Formedon commenced Judgment given upon that before the Judges of Assises void So 36 H. 6. 32. Recovery of Land in Wales in this Court is void and 8 Edw. 4. 6. Recovery of Land in ancient demesne is avoidable by Writ of Deceipt But in the other cases before the Judgment and Recovery is absolutely void and Coram non Judice for default of Jurisdiction So in 9 H. 7. 12. b. Recovery of Land in Durham Chester or Lancaster here is void for the same cause And in this case also the said Statute makes that void by expresse words see the statute of Articuli super Chartas Chap. 3. And to the case of 14 H. 8. before cyted of Warrant awarded by Justice of Peace he agreed that insomuch that the Justice of Peace had Jurisdiction of causes of Felony and erred only in the forme and manner of his proceedings and so in all the other cases which were put of the other part And also hee agreed that a Writ of Error may be well maintained if such Judgement which is void as it was in Michelburns case for the party may admit the Judgment to be but voidable if he will And to the exceptions to the pleading that is that the authority is not prosecuted 1 Postea that is such a day which was before the Judgment and yet it seems good and that in the first the authority was very well prosecuted in the 2 Postea was sufficient and the other words that is such a day is but surplusage and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and it was adjourned Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Peto against Checy and Sherman and their Wives Triâ— 9. Jacobi Rot. 1151. IN Trespasse and Ejectione firme the Defendants pleaded that one of the Defendants made agreement with the Plaintiff for the said Trespasse and Ejectment with satisfaction and demands Judgment if action upon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law and it was argued by Nicholls Serjeant for the Plantiff that the agreement was no plea though it be said by Keble in the 11. H. 7. 13. That though it be a Plea in Ravishment of Ward quare Impedit and quare ejecit infra terminum insomuch that they are actions personall But Wood denyed that insomuch that Inheritance is to be recovered and in Ejestione firme tearm shall be recovered and for that it shall not be spoken and of this is Wood expresly in the 13. H. 7. 20. b. That in Ejectione firme agreement shall not be a plea insomuch that the tearm is to be recovered which is the thing in demand And there also it is agreed that in Waste brought against Lessee for yeares in the Tenet agreement is good plea and so Vavasor intended if it be in the Tenet but not if it be brought against Lessee for life And also he intended that by Recovery in Ejectione firme more shall be recovered then the tearm only for by that the reversion shall be also reduced and for that the Inheritance is drawn in question and it is said in 11. H. 7. 13. that it shall not be a plea in Assise insomuch that there the Free-hold is to be recovered and by the same reason hee intended that shall be no plea insomuch that more is to be recovered then in Assise for there the Tenant only shall recover the free-hold and his damages but here the Tearm and the Inheritance also are reduced and revested And this is the reason also which is given in 11. H. 7. 13. b. by Fisher That if a man make a Lease for years rendering Rent and after brings Debt for the Rent behind the Defendant cannot wage his Law notwithstanding that the action is personall But this is more high in his nature as it is there said and yet there nothing shall be recovered but only damages for which a man may have satisfaction Also he intended that it was not well pleaded that is that such agreement was had between the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants and betwixt those shall be intended those two only and also Ipsum and Alios by his commandâ—ment and doth not shew that this was made by the other two by his commandement and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant that the Plea is good and that the nature of the Action is only Trespasse by force and arms and differs from a Quare ejecit but Ejectione firme differs from predict infra terminum and lyes against the immediate Ejector but Quare ejecit lyeth against him which hath title as he in reversion 7 H. 4. 6. b. Ejectione firme was brought by Executors of Land let to their Testator for years upon outing of the Testator by the statute of 4 Edw. 3. Chap. 6. which gives action for the Executors of goods taken out of the possession of their Testator and it seems to him also that proces of Outlawry lyes in an Ejectione firme but in Quare ejecit infra terminum only summons So it is 11. H. 7. 13. There is a great difference between Waste and this for there the Process is Distress and other speciall Process But so is it not here but only the Process which is in other generall actions of Trespasse and so is the expresse opinion of Keble in 11. H. 7. 13. That in ravishment of Ward Quare Impedit and quare ejecit infra terminum that agreement is a good plea and yet all these trench upon the Realty and in ejectione firme if the tearm expire hanging the action this shall not abate the Writ but the Plaintiffe shall have Judgement for his damages otherwise in a Quare ejecit infra terminum And it was resolved 20 Eliz. That if an ejectione firme be brought at the common Law of Lands in
are to be recovered agreement is a good Plea as in 47. Ed. 3. 24. and 10. Ed. 3. in Debt upon a Lease for yeares concord is a good Plea and 7. Ed. 4. 23. in Detinue for charters it is a good Plea and in 6. Ed. 6. Dyer 75. 25. it is a positive rule that in all Cases and Actions in which nothing but amends is to be recovered in Dammages there an agreement with an execution of that is a good Plea and for that in Detinue it shall be a good Barr So in Covenant it was adjudged in Blakes Case 6. Coke 43. 6. As where an Obligation is with a Condition to pay money at such a day the payment of another thing is good if the Obligation be to pay a certaine Sum of money But if a man be bound in a Sum of money to make another Collaterall thing the acceptance of an other thing Collaterall shall not be a Barr for money is to the measure and the price of every thing if a man be bound in two Horses to pay one acceptance of another thing shall be no Barr But the acceptance of such a Sum of money in satisfaction is good Barr for this is the just Estimation and measure of every thing see 12. H. 4 Where a man was bound in an Obligation with Condition that he shall make acknowledgement of the Obligation of twenty pound to the Obligee before such a day c. And agreements are much favoured for it is a Maxim and Interest of the Common-Wealth that there be an end of suits for by Concord small thing increase and by Discord great things are consumed and the beginning of all Fines is Et est Cordia talis c. and the 11. of Rich. 2. Barr. 242. In Debt upon a Lease for yeares the Defendant pleads that by the same Deed by which the Land is let the Plaintiff grants that the Defendant ought to repaire the houses lett when they are ruinous at the costs of the Plaintiff and he retaines the Rent for the repaire of the houses being ruinous and a good Barr And if it be a right of Inheritance or Free-hold that cannot be barred or extinct by acceptance of another thing though it be of other Land as of another Mannor as it is agreed in Vernons Case 4. of Coke A woman accepts Rent out of the Land of which shee is not Dowable in recompence of her Dower this shall not be a Barr 5. Ed. 4. 22. 3. Eliz. Dyer and he said that the book of 11. H 7. 13. is misprinted insomuch that it is reported to be adjudged But in truth this was not adujdged for then it would not say in 13. H. 7. 20. the residue before 11. H. 7. 13. And in the 16. of H. 7. warranty it is agreed that in wast against Lessee for yeares Agreement is a good Plea otherwise if it be against Lessee for life And if they have adjudged 11. H. 7. 15. which was so small a time before they would not have adjudged the contrary in 16. H. 7. and Hillary 6. Ed. 6. Bendlowes in wast against Lessee for yeares in the Tenet Agreement is affirmed to be good Barr And in the book of Reports in the time of H. 7. printed in time of H. 8. the yeare of the 11. of H. 7. there was no print at all And he then upon that inferrs that as well as a man might agree for Trees so well might he agree for Tearme and to the booke of 9. H. 5. 15. a. That release of one Plaintiff in an Action of wast is a good Barr he said that this is to be understood in wast of the Tenant and then it shall be a good Barr see in the 12. of Ed. 4. 1. a. Two joyne in an Action of wast and the one was summoned and severed the other recovered the halfe of the place wasted and in the 26. H. 6. 8. Agreement is a good Barr in an Action of wast and he intended that in all Actions by force and Armes where a Capias lies at the Common Law Agreement or Arbitrement are good Pleas as Ravishment of Ward which is given by Statute in lieu of Trespasse for taking of a Ward where a Capias lies at the Common Law and Agreement was a Bar and for that now Agreement shall be a Barr in Ravishment of a Ward And he intended that an Ejectione Firme which is Trespasse in his nature and the Ejectment is added of later times And in all their Entries this is entred Trespasse and severs the Trespasse from the Ejectment and the Ejectment will vanish and the Statute of 4. Ed. 3. chap. 6. which gives Action to Executor of goods carried away in the life time of the Testator extends to that which proves this to be Trespasse for by the Statute the Executors may have Ejectione Firme for Ejectment made to their Testator notwithstanding that ancient Demesne is a good Plea in that and in the 44. Ed. 3. 22. That is called an Action of Trespasse and so all the Entries are De Placito Transgressionis and in the book of Entries in Mayhme it is cited to be adjudged 26. H. 6. Trin. Rot. 27. that concord is a good Plea in an appeale of mayne 35. H. 6. 30. But in an Action in the realty it is no Plea otherwise in Quare Impedit for there nothing is to be recovered but that which is personall and he intended that Agreement by one of the Defendants in personall Action is a good Barr as in 36. H. 6. Barr concord made by the freind of one of the parties was a good Barr Statham Covenant accordingly and 35. H. 6. 〈◊〉 7. H. 7. One of the petty Jury in Attaint pleads agreement and good and in an Ejectione Frime Lease made to try Title is not within the Statute of buying of Titles if it be not made to great men but to a Servant of him which hath the Inheritance and cannot mainetaine or countenance the Action and Bracton fol. 220. Lessee for yeares hath three remidies if he be evicted that is Covenant Quare Ejecit infra Terminum against the Feoffee of the Ejector or an Ejectione Firme against the Immediate Ejectors and in Ejectione Firme the Tearme shall be recovered as 12. H. 4. 1. H. 5. and 11. H. 6. 6. Non-Tenure is a good Plea in Ejectione Firme ergo the Tearm shall be recovered 7. Ed. 4. 6. 13. H. 7. 21 and 14. H. 7. It is adjudged that the Tearme shall bee recovered in Ejectione Firme and so he concluded that the agreement shall be a good Barr because Wise men seeke peace Fooles seeke strifes And that Judgement shall be given for the Defendant which was done accordingly Mâ—hcaelmass 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Mallet against Mallet LANDS were given to two men and to the Heires of their two Bodies begotten and the one died without Issue and the remainder of the halfe reverted to the Donor and he brought an Action of wast
against the surviving Donee of houses and Lands to him demised and agreed that the Writ was good but it was a question if the Count shall be generall or of a halfe only notwithstanding that both the parties were Tenants in Common of the reversion Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Ralph Bagnall against John Tucker after 83. TRINITY 9. or Micaelmasse 8. Jacobi Rot 3648. The Case was Copy-holder for life remainder for life purchaseth the Frehold and levies a Fine with Proclamations made five yeares-passe and then he died if the remainder were bound by the Fine or not was the question and it seemes that it shall not be Barr for he is not turned out of possession in right So if a man hath a Lease for remainder for yeares and the first Lessee for yeares purchase the free-hold and levie a Fine with Proclamations and five yeares passe this shall not barr the remainder for yeares insomuch that this was Interest of a Tearme and remaines an Interest as it was without any alteration and it was not turned to a Right And yet it was agreed that the Statute of buying of pretenced rights extends to Copy-holds See Lessures Case 5. Coke 125. See Pasche 1612. for the Judgement Note if an Attorney of this Court be sued here by Bill of Priviledge he ought not to find Bayle But if he be sued by Originall and comes in by Capias then he ought to find Bayle In covenant upon a Lease made by the Dean of Norwich Predecessor to the Dean that now is and the then Chapter of the Foundation of Ed. 6. King for injoying of Land devised to the Plaintiff for three Lives discharged of all incumbrances and also to accept surrender of the same Lease and to make a new and for breaking of covenant the same Dean and Chapter in such a yeare of the Raine of H. 8 had made a lease for years not determined by which the lands devised were incumbred upon which the Defendant demurred And Hutton Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the Lease was by the Statute of 13 of Eliz. as to the successor of the Dean which made it for that it was a Lease for years in being at the time of the making of that as it is resolved in Elmers Case upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. if a Bishop makes a Lease for years and after makes a Lease for life the Lease for life is void to the Successor and so it is in the case of Dean and Chapter and though that the words of the Statute are generally that such a Lease shall be void to all intents purposes and Constructions yet he intended that it shall not be voyd against the Bishop himselfe as it was resolved in the case of the next Advowson by the Bishop in Singletons Case cyted in Lincolne Colledge Case 3. Coke 59. b. And he intended if the Lease be voyd against the Successors that then the covenants also are void as it is agreed in the 28 H. 8. 28. Dyer 189. 190. and he cited one Mills case to be adjudged in the 29 and 30. Eliz. in the Kings Bench that if a Parson make Lease and avoid by non-Residence the Covenants also are void as well as the Lease and also he intended that the Lease for life was void insomuch that it was to be executed by a Letter of Attorney and the Attorney had not made livery till after two Rent dayes were past and for that the Livery was not good for when a man makes a Lease for life rendring Rent with Letter of Attorney to make livery here is an implyed condition that Livery shall be made before any day of payment be incurred and it is as much as if a man had made a Lease for life without any Letter of Attorney to make Livery before such a day there if the Attorney do not make Livery before the day but after the Livery is void insomuch as it is contrary to the Condition so in the case here for if Livery made be after a Rent day it may be made after twenty and so immediately before the end of the Tearme and if the Rent be void for this cause the Covenants also are void and if a man bargain and sell his Mannor and the Trees growing upon it the Trees do not passe without Inrollment insomuch that it was the intent of the parties that it should so passe and for that they do not passe without the Mannor also he intended that the Count is repugnant insomuch that that containes that the last Lease for life was made in the time of Ed. 6. and after by the Dean and Chapter of the foundation of Ed. 6. and after that containes that the same Dean and Chapter have made a former Lease in the time of H. 8. Which cannot be if the Dean and Chapter were of the Foundation of Ed. 6. and for that the Count ought to have contained the alteration of the foundation as in case of prescription as in Tringhams case 4. Coke 38. Wyat Wilds Case 8 Coke 79. 2. and 3. Phil. and Mary Dyer 124. A good Case and he intended that a declaration ought to have precise certainty as in 8. and 9. Eliz. 254. Dyer for a thing which cannot be presumed shall not be intended as it is agreed in Pigotts Case 5 Coke 29. a. otherwise of Plea in Barr for that is sufficient if it be good to common intent also he intended that there is variance between the Count and the Covenant for the declaration is that the Dean and Chapter covenanted with the Plaintiffs the Covenant is generall that is that the Dean and Chapter covenant and doth not say with who and for that the Count also shall not be good and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Haughton Serjeant for the Plaintiff intended that the Covenants shall not be voyd notwithstanding that the Lease it self be voyd he intended that a lease made by a Parson shal be good against himself but it shall be voyd by his death to the Successor but a Lease made by a Dean and Chapter shall be void to the Dean himself and the Covenant shall be in force notwithstanding that the Lease be void insomuch that the Covenants are collaterall and have not any dependance upon the Lease but to the inherent Covenants which depend upon the Lease and the Estate as for Reparations and such like shall be voyd by the avoidance of the Lease but he intended that Covenant to discharge the Land from incumbrances doth not depend upon the Interest but it is meerly collaterall and for that it shall not be void and with this difference he agreed all the Cases put of the other part as in 45 Ed. 3. 3. Lease was made to the Husband and Wife the Husband dies the wife accepts the Land and shall not be charged with collaterall Covenants notwithstanding that shee agrees to the Estate insomuch that they do not depend
upon the Estate and to the Livery made after two Rent dayes incurred he intended that Livery is good that notwithstanding for the deferring of the Execution of a letter of Attorney shall not defeat the Lease or other meane act which amounts to a Command for the Lessâ—r takes the profits in the mean time and it is not like to Littletons case that if a man devise his land to his Executors to be sold and they take the profits and do not make Sale that the Heir may enter insomuch that the Executors have not performed the Condition and it was not the intent of the Devisor that they should take the profits in the Interim to their own use and he intended that the declaration was not repugnant for it is of the aforesaid Church and not of the Dean and Chapter aforesayd and also there need not such congruity as it were the Foundation of the Action insomuch that this is only Allegation of the truth of the matter see 1 H. 7. 18. For variance upon shewing in Deed and 17 Ed. 3. 33. b. and here the aforesaid shew that it is the same in substance though it vary in words and though that the name is altered yet are the same persons in substance and the same Body and though that it be as it is intended to be of another part yet it is but name and the Foundation then is not Issuable as if the King H. 8. had been the Founder and made speciall provision in the Foundation that after the Time of Ed. 6. it shall be said to be the Foundation of Ed. 6. this shall be good and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff see after adjudged Michaelmas 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. The Bishop of Ely THE Bishop of Ely granted an Office with the Fee for the exercising of that if it be an ancient office it is a good grant and if the Fee be newly increased yet Foster Justice thought that the Grant shall be good for the Office and for so much of the Fee as hath been anciently granted with the Office Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Holcroft against George French IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit if the consideration be Executory then the Declaration ought to contain the time and place where it was made and after it ought ro be averred In Facto when it was performed or executed accordingly but if it be by way of Reciprocall agreement then the Plaintiff may count that in consideration that he hath promised for the Defendant the Defendant hath promised to do another thing for him there he need not that the Declaration contain time or place for the consideration or otherwise that it is performed and executed But if in the first case where it is executory that is also an averment that it is executed there if the Defendant plead Non Assumpsit generally and do not plead the speciall matter he cannot after take exception to that Count for the Default aforesayd where he pleads specially to that as in an action of Trover the Conversion ought to be averred to be in a certain place and so in submission and Arbitrement they are contained in the declaration it need not to expresse any time or place certain but if the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no award or that the parties have not submitted themselves to their award there the Plaintiff may reply that the Arbitrement or Submission was made at such a place and this was agreed by all the Justices Michaelmasse 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench Sir Edward Puncheon against Thomas Legate IT was adjudged in the Kings Bench and affirmed upon a Writ of Errour in the Kings Bench that an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit made by the Testator is very well maintainable against the Executor and this was for Money borrowed and so the Count speciall but not upon generall Indebitatus Assumpsit but is good without any averment that the Executors have assets over the payment of Debts due by specialty and Legacies and he sayd that the Record of the Case of 22 H. 8. with this agrees and that the book in this is misprinted and so Coke cheife Justice who publickly reported this Judgment in the Common place sayd which was adjudged in the 11 H. 8. in this Court Note that Land of which a Writ of Right Close lyeth shall be assetts in a Formedon and it is a Free-hold and not a Copy-hold and so are all Lands in ancient Demesne 3 Ed. 3. 14 H. 4. It is no matter what is known to the Judge if it be not in the form of Judgment Pasche 1611. fol. 50. HAughton Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the entry of him in Remainder is not lawfull insomuch that he intended it is not any forfeiture of the Estate tayle and first he argued that the condition is not good but repugnant to Law and for that voyd and yet he agreed that Tenant in tayl may be distrayned from making unlawfull Acts but here the condition tends to restraine him from doing of things which are lawfull as if a man makes a Gift in tayl upon condition that the Wife of the Donee shall not be indowed or that the Husband of the Donee shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie or that a Feoffee shall not take the profits of the Land though that the profits may be severed from the Land as in 16 Ed. 3. Formedon was brought of the profits of a Mill yet the condition is voyd insomuch that it is against the nature of an Estate tayl or in Fee-simple to be in such manner abridged so if a man makes a gift in tayl upon condition that the Donee shall not make waste the condition is void for the making of wast is a priviledge which is incident to an Estate tayle and for that the condition restraynes the Tenant in tayle of a thing which the Law inables him to do the condition is yoyd so a Donee in tayle upon condition that he shal not make a Deed of Feoffment or Lease for his own life as it is agreed in Mildmayes Case so here when the condition restraynes Tenant in tayl of concluding and agreeing the which in him is not any wrong no more then if a man should make a gift in tayl upon condition that the Donee should not bargaine and sell the Land this is voyd insomuch that he doth not make any wrong or discontinuance So in the case here for the thing which is restrayned that is concluding agreeing is in it self a lawfull act and also this is only the affections and qualities of the minde that they cannot make an Estate conditionall if an open act be not annexed unto it but he agreed that if a man make a gift in tayle or a Lease for life of white acres upon condition that the Donee or Lessee shall not take the profits of Black acre this is
executed for then it would be too late for then the Estate is transferred to another as it was in the cases put by Anderson in Corbetts Case But here all the Estate limited to him which made the forfeyture shall be determined and also he intended that the Reason that the Replication containes that the parties being in actuall possession are only to satisfie the words of the Condition And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff In dower the Demandant recovered Dower of tenths of Wool and Lamb and how execution shall be made was the question And the Justices intended that the Sheriffe might deliver the tenths of every 3 yard land and assign the Yard Lands in certain Bâ—t after it was conceived that this would be uncertain and unequall and for that the Sheriffe was directed to deliver the third part of all in generall and yet the first was agreed to be good but onely in respect of Inequalities as in dower of a Mill the third Toll dish and of a Villayne the third dayes work as in 23 H. 8. And it was also agreed that the Sheriffe may assign this dower without a Jury It was moved if an Attachment be granted against a Sheriffe for contempt after he is removed out of his Office and the Justices intended that not insomuch that now he is no Officer and for that he cannot be now fyned and without fyne they did not use to Imprison but the Judges would be advised to see the Presidents of the Court in such a case Mâ—chaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Kemp and Philip his Wife James and Blanch his Wife Plaintiffs against Lawrere and Trollop and the Wife of Gunâ—er Executrix during the minority of the Wives of the Plaintiffs THe case was An Executrix during the nonage for so it was and not Administratrix that is shee was ordained Executrix till the Wives of the Plaintiffs came to their full age or were marryed and then they should be Executrixes And this Executrix during the minority brought an action of Debt and recovered and before Execution the women Executrixes took Husbands and brought Scirefacias upon the Record to have Execution upon the Judgment against these Defendants as Ter-tenants which pleaded specially that they had nothing in the Free-hold nor in the Land but only a lease for yeares and that the free-hold was in another stranger upon which Plea the Plaintiffs demurred in Law And Nicholls Serjeant for the Plaintiffs that there is the difference betwixt this Executor and an Administrator during the minority as in 26 H. 8. 7. a. if an Administrator have Judgment and dyes before Executors or other have sued out their Letters of Administration they shall have no execution of this Judgement insomuch as he comes in paramount the first Administrator and as immediate Administrator to the first Intestate as it is agreed in Shelleys case So the Administrators of one Executor shal not have execution of a Judgment given for the Executor as it is resolved in Brudenels case 5 Coke the 9. b. And in 21 Edw. 4. It is agreed if two are made Joynt-Executors and one of them dies the other shall be sole Executor to the Testator and if hee make his Executor and dyes his Executors shall be Executors to the first Testator And also there is in Fox Gretbrooks Case in the Com that one may be Executor for certain years and another after and this differs from the other cases for in this case all these Executors were in privity one to another but in the other case one comes paramount the other But here they are all made by the first Testator and the Will And he cyted the 2 Case in the Lord Dyer and 18. and 32 Edw. 3. there cyted where a Purchasor brought a Writ of Errour and was not privy to the first Record And Grantee of a Reversion brought a Scire facias against Conusee of a Statute-Merchant alledging that he had received satisfaction So if a Parson of a Church recovers an Annuity and after the Church is appropriate to a house of Religion the Soveraign of the said house shall have a Scire facias And so if union be made of two Benefices and yet in all these cases there was no privity to the first Judgement so he in reversion shall have Errour in Attainâ— upon Judgment against his Lessee for life and the Reason is given in Brudenels Case that is they which may have prejudice may have scire facias and it is not like where two Joynt-tenants are and one makes a Lease for years and dyes the other shal have the Rent insomuch that he comes in by survivorship and not in privity But here the Executors come in in privity as in case of two Executors are joyntly one â—yes the other which survives shall have Execution of Judgement given for them for Administrator during the nonage is only to the use commodity and profit of an Executor and of a Testator so that he being Executor to the Testator he shall have execution And to the second that is that the Defendants have nothing but for yeares and that the free-hold is to a stranger he intended that this is not good yet he agreed that in scire facias where a free-hold is to be recovered speciall non-tenure is a good plea as in 8 Edw 4. 19. and 8 H. 6. 32. but not of the contrary and there also generall non-tenure is no plea But here where the free-hold is not to be recovered nor one nor the other is a Plea for it may be averred that the Defendant hath a release from him that hath the reversion and as in 14 H. 4. 5. in scire facias to accompt against an Executor who pleads that the Testator was never his Bayliffe to give an accompt and yet it is agreed that this hath been a good plea for the first Defendant and this is the reason that it was not taken nor was allowed for a good plea in the 11 H. 4. 11. Insomuch that this amounts to non-tenure and in 44. and 45. Eliz. Mich. Rot. 834. it was adjudged in Scire facias where the Defendant pleads that he was not Tenant of the Free-hold and adjudged no plea And so he said it was adjudged in the case of All-soules Colledge in Scire facias to have execution of a Judgment in Ejectione firme and the Defendant in the Scire facias pleads that he was but Lessee for years and adjudged no Plea insomuch that nothing was to be recovered but only the tearm and not the Free-hold and so he concluded and prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff in Scire facias Harris Serjeant argued to the contrary and he intended that the Return of the Sheriffe is void insomuch that the Writ commanded him to give notice to the Tenants of the Land in Fee-simple and hee did not return that those which he had returned were Tenants of the Land in Fee-simple and
that Sir Thomas Fitzherbert had the possession by acceptance of the surrender of the estate conveyed to William Fitzherbert and his Wife notwithstanding it was admitted by pleading that he had that by Disseisin And all the Justices agreed that the Jury shall not be concluded by the pleading of the parties insomuch that they are sworn to speake the truth Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Brook Plaintiff against Cobb IN Wast the Plaintiff assignes waste in cutting down of 20. Oaks in such a Close and 40. Oaks in such a Close c. Upon the Evidence it appears that the said Oaks were remaining upon the Land for standils according to the statute at the last felling of that and they were of the growth of 16. or 20. years and that tithes were paid for it And it was agreed by the Lord Coke and all the Justices that this was no Waste insomuch it was felled as Acre wood And it was said by the Lord Coke that though it be of the age of 20. or 24. yeares yet if the use of the Parties be to fell such for seasonable Wood this shall not be Waste and if Tithes be paid for that it appears that it is no Timber Doctor Mannings Case in the Star-chamber ONe Golding as an Informer and not as party greived exhibits his Bill in the Star-chamber against Doctor Manning Chancellor to the Bishop of Exeter for Extortion Oppression and other offences It was resolved that when a Bill contains any particular offences and after the same Bill contains generall words which includes many offences of the same kind And the Plaintiff proves the particular offences he may examine other particular offences also included within these generall words in supplement and aggravation of the particular offences contained in the Bill and if they be proved the Court will give the greater and high sentence against the Defendant in respect of them notwithstanding that they be not particularly expressed in the Bill But if the Plaintiff hath not proved any of the offences particularly expressed in the Bill the Defendant shall not be censured by the particulars grounded upon the generall words of the Bill And if a man which is not party greived exhibite Bill for offence made to another person as against whom the offence was committed he shall not be allowed as Witnesse insomuch as he is party greived and by that he should be a witnesse in his own Cause Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. William Peacock Plaintiff against Sir George Raynell IN the Sar-chamber the Plaintiff exhibits his Bill against the Defendant for Libelling and Infamous Letters the which was in this manner The Plaintiff being Heire generall to Richard Peacock which was of the age of eighty six yeares and had Lands of Inheritance to the value of 8. or 900. pound per annum and the Defendant had married the Daughter of Sir Edward Peacock which was a yonger brother of the said Richard Peacock and the said Defendant perceiving that the said Richard Peacock had purpose to settle his Inheritance upon the said Plaintiff and intending to remove the affection of the said Richard from the Plaintiff and to settle that in himselfe writes a Letter to the said Richard Peacock containing that the Plaintiff was not the Son of a Peacock and was a hunter of Tavernes and that divers women had followed him from London to the place of his dwelling and that he did desire to heare of the death of the said Richard and that all his Inheritance would not be sufficient to satisfie his Debts and many other matters concerning his Reputation and Credit to that subscribed his name this ensealed directed to the said R. Peacock And it was agreed that this was a Libell and for that the Defendant was Fined to two hundred pound and Imprisonment according to the course of the Court And the Plaintiff let loose to the Common Law for his recompence for the Damages he hath sustained But if the Letter had been directed to the Plaintiff himselfe and not to the third person then it should not have been a Libell or if it had been directed to a Father for Reformation of any Acts made by his Children it should be no Libell for it is not but for Reformation and not for Defamation for if a Letter containe scandalous matter and be directed to a third person if it be Reformarory and for no respect to himselfe it shall not be intended to be a Libell for with what mind it was made is to be respected As if a man write to a Father and his Letter containe scandalous matter concerning his Children of which he gives notice to the Father and adviseth the Father to have better regard to his Children this is only Reformatory without any respect of profit to him which wrote it But in the first case the Defendant intended his profit and his owne benefit and this was the difference Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Randall Crewe against Vernon IN the Star-chamber it was resolved That if the Defendant do not performe the Sentence of the Court as here he was to make acknowledgement of his offence committed against the Court of Exchequer at Chester and this acknowledgement was to be made at the great Assises at Chester and he did nor performe the Sentence and yet the Defendant could not be fined for this contempt but only Imprisonment and for that he was committed close Prisoner till he performed it But he could not be fined insomuch there was not any Bill upon which this Sentence should be founded Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Charnocke against Corey See before IN Debt against Administrator The Defendant pleades two Recognisances acknowledged by the Intestate which were not satisfied and that he had not any Goods or Chattells of the said Intestate unlesse Goods and Chattells which did amount to the Debts due by the said Recognisances And it seemed to all the Justices that the Plea was not good But that the Defendant ought to plead according to the Common forme that is that he hath no Goods besides or beyond the Goods to satisfie the two Recognisances or that he hath no Goods to such value which do not amount to the said Sums due by the two Recognisances And in these cases this manner of pleading is Implied confession that he hath Goods of such a value and so they should be assets if the Recognisances be discharged or remaine of Covin and fraud to deceive Creditor Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench Bicknell against Tucker see before 75. THE Case was A Copy-hold Estate was granted to one for life remainder to another for his life the first Copy-holder for life accepts a Bargaine and Sale of the free-hold from the Lord and after that levies a Fine with proclamations and five yeares passe and then he dies and if this Fine shall be a Barr to him which
shall be barred And the second those which have Right title or interest accrued after the Fine levied by reason of any matter which preceded the Fine and in both cases the Estate which is barred ought to be turned into a right or otherwise it shall not be barred the which cannot be here for the estate is given by the Custome and it is to have his beginning after the Death of the first Tenant and though that the first Tenant commit Forfeiture yet he in remainder cannot enter for his time is not yet come as in 45 Ed. 3. is a collaterall Lease with warranty to the Tenant for life in possession this shall not be a barr insomuch that it is made to him which hath possession so if a man make a Feoffment upon condition and the Feoffee levy a Fine with proclamations and five yeares passe and the condition is broken the Feoffee may enter at any time otherwise if the Fine had been levied after the condition broken and so if the Lord be intituâ—ed to have Cessavit and Fine is levied by the Tenant and five yeares passe he shall be barred and this was the cause of the Judgment in Saffins case insomuch as the Lessee had present interest to enter and this was altered into a Right by the Feoffment and then the Fine was a Barr but here he in Remainder hath no right till after the Death of him which was the first Tenant and then his right to the possession begins and then if a Fine had been levied with proclamation this shall be a Barr and so he concluded that Judgment should be entered for the Plaintiffe Coke cheife Justice accordingly and he agreed also that the sole question is if by acceptance of a Bargaine and sale by the first Tenant for life the Remainder be turned into a right and he sayd that right sometimes sleepeth but it never dyes but this shall be intended the right of the Law and not right of Land for that may be barred by Writ of Right at the Common Law and he intended that Copy-holdes are within the Statutes of Fines be they Copy-hold for life yeares in tayl or in fee for the third part of the Realme is in Copy-holdes and two parts in Lease for yeares and if these shall not be within the Statute then this doth not extend to three parts of the Realme and it is agreed in Heydons case 3 Coke 8. a. That when an act of Parliament doth not alter the Tenure Service Interest of Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the custome of the Mannor or in prejudice of the Tenant there the generall words of such act of Parliament shall extend to Copy-holds and also it is resolved to be within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Of Maintenance and also it is within the expresse Letter of this which containes the word Interest and Copy-holder hath interest and so also of Tenant by Statute Merchant then the question will be if the acceptance of a Bargaine and sale turnes that to a right and he intended that his Estate for life remaines though that it is only passive in acceptance of Bargain and sale and for that it shall not be prejudice more then if Tenant at will accepts a Bargaine and Sale for his Estate at will this notwithstanding remaines but if Lessee for years or life accepts a Fine upon conusance of right this is a forfeiture insomuch that it is a matter of record and it shall be an estoppel to say that he did not take Fee by that doth not admit the Reversion to be in another also insomuch that the Bargain and sale was executed by the Statute for this cause it shall not be prejudice as it was adjudged in the Lady Greshams case in the Exchequer 28 Eliz. Where two severall conveyances were made with power of Revocation upon tender of ten pound and adjudged by act of Parliament that a revocation was good and also that no license of alienation shall be made insomuch that it was by act of Parliament which doth no wrong and it is for the Trespasse for which the party ought to have license and if it be not Trespasse there need no license before hand nor pardon afterwards So if a man makes a Lease for yeares remainder for yeares the first Lessee accepts Bargaine and Sale this shall not turn these in remainder to prejudice Thirdly it seemes to him also that notwithstanding the acceptance of the Bargain and Sale the first Copy-hold Estate for life remains in Esse and is not determined For this differs from an Estate of Land for it shall not be subject to a Rent granted by the Lord the first Estate remaines till all the remainders are determined for the first tenant for life cannot surrender to the Lord also it is customary estate for by the Common Law this being granted to three successively this shall be determined and extinct for the third part for they three take into possession and the word successively shal be taken as void but here the Custome appoints that the remainder shall not have his beginning till the death of the first-Tenant and that they should take by succession and for that there is a difference between this customary Estate and other Estates at the Common Law and other surrenders for if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of another for life nothing passeth but for life only the Lord hath not any remainder by this Surrender and if this Tenant for life commits forfeiture he in reversion shall not take advantage of that and if at the Common Law Tenant for life remainder for life or in fee be and the first Tenant for life makes a Feoffment and after levies a Fine and resolved that he in reversion should not be bound till 5 years are incurred after the death of the 1. Tenant for life for then his title of Entry first accrues in apparancy and before that is in secrecy of which he in remainder is not held to take notice and so in this case he in remainder shall not be bound till five yeares are incurred after the death of the first Tenant and the rather insomuch as the first Estate remaines for that that the first Tenant was only passive and not active and so he concluded that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff insomuch that the Fine was no Bar and upon this concordance of all the three Justices in opinion no other Justices being present this Tearm Judgment was entered accordingly Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Danyell Waters against the Deane and chapter of Norwich IN covenant The case was this in 37 H. 8. the then Deane and Chapter of Norwich made a Lease to one Twaits for fifty yeares which ended 35 Eliz. in time of Ed. 6. The then Dean and Chapter surrendred all their possessions to the King which those newly endowed and incorporated by the name of Deane and Chapter of the foundation
and before the originall purchased the Indentnre was by the assent of the Plaintiff and the Defendant cancelled and avoyded and so demands Judgment if action and it seemes by Coke cleerly that the Plea is not good without averment that no Covenant was broken before the cancelling of the Indenture Pasch 12. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Barde against Stubbing IT was moved in arrest of Judgment that the Venire facias wants these words Et habeas ibidim nemina Juratorum but the words Venire facias duodecim c. were incerted and it seems by all the Justices that it was good and that the first words are supplyed in the last and they are aided by the statutes of Jeofai es after verdict and so it was adjourned In Audita querela sued by the sureties upon an escape made by the principall they being in execution offered to bring the Money into the Court or to put in sufficient Sureties to the Court and so prayed that they might be bayled and it was agreed that if Audita querela be grounded by specialty or other matter in writing or upon matter of Record Supersedeas shall be granted before that the party be in Execution and if he be in execution he shall be bayled but if it be founded upon a matter in Deed which is only surmise he shall not have Supersedeas in one case nor shall be bayled in the other case and so was the Opinion of all the Justices In an Action of Waste for digging of earth to make Brick Estrepement was awarded and upon Affidavit that the Writ of Estrement was delivered to the Sheriff and that he gave notice of that to the party and he notwithstanding that continues to make waste attachment was awarded Pasch 12 Iacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Fetherstones Case Trinity 1612. IN Ejectione firme The Plaintiff had Judgment and an Habere facias possessionem to the Sheriff of Coventry which returnes that he had offered possession to the Plaintiff and he refused to accept it and it seems that the Plaintiff cannot have Habere facias possessionem insomuch that it appeares by the Record that he hath refused to have the possession The case was A Dean and Chapter being Lord of a Maunor parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor being severall adjoyned to the Common which was parcell of the wast of the Mannor and one Copy-holder which had Common in the sayd Wast puts his Beasts into the sayd waste to take his Common and they for default of inclosure escape into the sayd Demesnes by which the Lord brings his action of Trespass and upon this the Defendant pleads the speciall matter and that the Lord and all those whose Estate he had in the said place where the trespass is supposed to be made have used to fence the said place which is parcell of the Demesnes of the sayd Mannor against the Commoners which have Common in the sayd Common being parcell of the waste and also of the demesnes of the sayd Mannor and that the Beasts of the sayd Defendant escaped into the sayd place in which c for default of inclosure and so demands Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurrs in Law In the agreement of which it was agreed by Hutton and Haughton the Serjeants which argued it whether a man by prescription is bound to make fence against Commoners as it is agreed in the 22 H. 6. 7. 8. 21 H. 6. 33. But the doubt which was made in this case by Haughton which demurred was for that that the Lord which by the prescription ought to inclose is owner of the soyle also against which he ought to inclose and so he ought to inclose against himself and for that he supposed that the pleading should have been that there is such a custome there and of time out of minde that the Lord shall inclose against the Common insomuch that by that the Copy-holder would bind the Lord and upon that it was adjourned c. Pasch 12 Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Sir Henry Rowles against Sir Robert Osborne and Margeret his Wife IN Warrantia Charte the case was Sir Robert Osborne and his Wife levyed a Fine of the Mannor of Kelmersh with other Lands in Kelmersh to Sir Henry Rowles against all persons and this is declared for the Lands in Relmersh to be to the use of Sir Henry Rowles for life with diverse Remainders over and for the Mannor no use was pleaded to be declared at all and then a Writ of Entry in the Post was sued against the sayd Sir Henry Rowles which vouched Sir Robert Osborne and his sayd wifeâ— and this was declared for the sayd Lands to be to the use of the sayd Sir Henry Rowles for his life with other Remainders over which were declared upon the Fine of the Lands in Kelmersh only and of the Mannor of Kelmersh no uses were declared upon the Recovery also and upon this Recovery pleaded in barr the Plaintiffe demurred and it was argued by Dodridge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiffe that the Plea in Barr was not good insomuch that it doth not appeare that the warranty which was executed by the Recovery was the same warranty which was created by the Fine and also the Fine was taken for assurance against the Issue in tayle and the Recovery to Barr the remainders and so one shall not destroy the other and for the first he sayd that a man may have of another severall warranties and severall causes of Voucher and all shall be together for warranty is but Covenant reall and as well as a man may have severall Covenants for personall things as well he may have severall reall Covenants for one self same Land as if the Father infeoff one with warranty and the Sonn also releases to the same Feoffee with warranty or if the Father infeoff one with warranty against him and his Heires and the Sonn release with warranty against all men the Feoffee may vouch one and Rebut against the other so of Warranty of Tenant in tayle and release of an Ancestor collaterall with warranty in Law and expresse warranty as it is agreed in 31 Ed. 1. Fitzh Voucher 289. And upon that he concluded that a man may have severall warranties of one selfe same man and the one may be executed and the other remaine notwithstanding that it be for one selfe same Land and he supposed the effect of these warranties are as they are used for if that may vouch generally and bind himselfe upon the Fine or upon his owne warranty or upon the warranty of his Ancestor notwithstanding that the voucher be generally as it is 31. Ed. 3. Warranty of Charters 22. So if he be vouched as Heire though that it were speciall but if he be Heire within age otherwise it is for that is a good Counter Plea that he was within age and so praied that the word might demur during his nonage 17.
Ed. 2. Counter Plea of voucher 111. 21. Ed. 4. 71. Then he supposed here was generall warranty which is executed and also another warranty which remaines notwithstanding any thing which appears to the Court for he hath not demanded any binding 10. Ed. 3. 15. a. b. Also the warranty in the Fine is the warranty of all the Conusees and the warranty upon which the voucher is is only the warranty of Sir Robert Osborne which cannot be intended the same warranty which is contained in the Fine which is by two as it is resolved in 10. Ed. 3. 52. But admitting that it agrees in all that is the voucher and the warranty in the Fine that is in number of persons and quantity of land and all other circumstances yet it shall be no Barr for the Common Recovery is only as further assurance for it is for forfeiture if it be suffered by Tenant for life as it is resolved in Pelhams Case 1. Coke Also he supposed that notwithstanding that the Fine was levied hanging the Writ of entry and â—o Sir Henry Rowles made Tenant yet this is good being by purchase but not if it be by discent or by recovery upon elder Title And he supposed that if the recovery and the warranty might be together by any possible meanes they shall not be distroied insomuch that this is the common case of assurance and for that shall be taken as in Pattenhams Case 4. and 5. Phil. and Mary Dyer 157. and 2. Coke Cromwells Case 77. b. where a man makes a Feoffment upon condition rendring Rent and after suffers common recovery and yet this notwithstanding the condition and Rent remaines And so it seemes that in this case the warranty remaines notwithstanding the Recovery and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Nicholls Serjeant for the Defendant and he seemed that the warranty is destroied first insomuch that the Recovery was to other uses and the Fine was when proved that there was no further assurance also he supposed that insomuch that it doth not appeare to what use the Recovery was for the Mannor of Kelmersh that for that it shall be intended to the use of Sir Robert Osborne himselfe and then for that also the warranty is distroied insomuch that part of the Land is re-assured to Sir Robert Osborne as in 40. Ed. 3. 13. The Father enfeoffes the Son with warranty which re-enfeoffes the Father this destroies the warranty So if they make partition by their owne Act as it is agreed in the 34. Ed. 3. Also he supposed that the Tenancy in Sir Henry Rowles is distroied before that the Fine was Levied insomuch that this was Executed by voucher and so he did not purchase hanging the Writ for this is also conveied from him by the Recovery in the value before that the Fine is levied and it is all one with the case where a man recovers upon good Title hanging a Writ and he agreed that the recovery had been for further assurance that then it shall be as it hath been objected by the other party and the warranty had remained but this he supposeth it was not insomuch it was to other uses then the Fine was and he intended that if the Estate to which the warranty is annexed be distroied the warranty also shall be distroied 19. H. 6. 59. 21. H. 6. 45. 22. H. 6. 22. and 27. So if the Estate be avoided the warranty is distroied if it be by the Act of the parties named also he supposed that the warranty is executed and that it shall be intended the same tye upon which the warranty is created as it is 10. Ed. 3. 51. Mauxells case Com if he demand no tye but enter generally into the warranty there shall be execution of all warranties and shall bind all his rights for otherwise all the Estates tayl cannot be bound by that But where the Lieu is demanded as where there are three severall Estates tayl limited to one man and upon voucher he enters generally into the warranty all the tayles shall be bound but if he demand the Lieu's which he hath to bind him to warranty there shall be a Barr of that only upon which the voucher is and the remedy is that if he be impleaded by the party that hath made the warranty he shall be rebutted by his owne warranty But if he be Impleaded by a stranger he shall vouche him that warranted that and if warranty be once executed by voucher and Recovery in value though that the Land recoverd in value be a defeasable Title yet the party shall not voucheat another time by the same warranty as it is 5. Ed. 3. Fitz. voucher 249. and 4. Ed. 3. 36. And for that in this case insomuch that the warranty was once executed he shall not vouche againe upon the same warranty Also it is not alledged in the Count that the Plaintiff was Impleaded by Writ of Entry in the Post but in the Per in which he might have vouched and so shall not have this Action where he might have vouched And also he supposed that Sir Henry Rowles shall not have benefit by this warranty without praying aid of those in remainder insomuch that he is but Tenant for life but he supposed that it was no Remainder but reversion for otherwise they are but as an Estate and he may have advantage of the warranty as it seemes without aid praying But not where there is Tenant for life with the reversion expectant And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant And he cited one Barons Case where Tenant in tayl levies a Fine with warranty and after suffers Recovery And it was agreed by all the Justices that yet the Recovery shall be a Barr to the Remainder notwithstanding that the Estate tayl be altogether barred and extinct by the Fine but Coke cheife Justice said that Wrayâ— cheife Justice would not suffer that to be argued insomuch that it was of so great consequence being the common course of assurances But it seemes that the Recovery shall not be a Barâ— for the Remainders for the causes aforesaid and he said that he was of councell in Bartons Case and thought this Objection to be unanswerable and of this opinion continued Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Richard Lampitt against Margeret Starkey EJECTIONE Firme upon speciall verdict the case was this Lessee for five hundred yeares devised that to his Father for life the remainder and residue of that after the death of his Father to his Sister the Devisor dies the Sister which hath a remainder takes a Husband the Husband at the request of the Father grants release and surrenders all his Right Tearme and Intrest to the Father which had the Possession And the question was if by that the remainder of the Tearme should be extinct or not And it was argued by Dodridge for the Plaintiff that the remainder remaines that notwithstanding insomuch that this is
But here the thing which makes the execution is only release which enures as Release And for that the accepting of the release it cannot be execution of a Legacy But if the Executor to whom the first Devise was made had had any Co-executor and he would not have suffered him to joyn in occupation with him that had been full Declaration of his Intent that he took it as a Devise and not as an Executor as it is agreed in the 10 El. 277. Dyer 50. And he said also that it hath been agreed to him that it is such a possibility that cannot be granted as it is agreed in Fulwoods case 4 Coke 66. b. And he said it is not like to Harveys Bartons case where two Joynt-tenants for life were and one made a Lease for years to begin after his death and dyed and his companion survived him and agreed to be a good Lease against the Survivor notwithstanding the Contingency And he conceived that this might be released and that it is not like to contingent actions insomuch that it is a release of right in Lands see 5 H. 7. 31. b. Colts Assise where it is said if Lord Mesne and Tenant are and the Mesne is forejudged by the Tenant and after the Lord releases to the Tenant and after by Parliament it is enacted that the fore-judger shall be void yet the release shall be good against the Lord and so of actions by Executor before Probate and 14 Ed. 3. Barr Release of Dower by Fyne doth extingush it and Althams case 8 Coke if it be made to the Tenant of the Land that shall be a Barr. And 21 H. 7. fol. the last Release to a Patron in time of Vacation shall be a Barr in annuity brought against the Incumbent and if the Lessee for years be outed and the Disseisor makes a Lease for years to a stranger and the first Lessee release to them both this is good as it is 9 H. 6. and yet regularly such release is not good without privity But insomuch that it is of right to the Land and to one which hath possession it is very good So Release by Copy-holder extincts his Copy-hold right as it is resolved 4 Coke amongst the Copy-hold cases and yet hee agreed that some possibilities cannot be released as in Albayns case power of Revocation if it be not to the Tenant of the Land insomuch that this is a meer possibility So if an annuity depend upon a condition precedent but where the returning of the estate is to the party himselfe as in Diggs case 1 Coke 174. a. And also the release in this case is the more strong insomuch that the estate in this is recited as in the case of 44 Ed. 3. in release of Ayde And so he concluded that admitting there be no election and execution of the Legacy by the acceptance of the Release then the title of the Defendant is good and if it be a good election execution Yet he conceived that all the tearm remains in the first Devisee and that the remainder is destroyed by the release and so prayed Judgment for the Defendant and so it was adjourued Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Manley against Jennings IN Debt upon an Obligation with Condition to performe observe fulfil and keep all Covenants Grants Articles Payments contained in a Lease c. The Lessee doth not pay the Rent at the day and the Plaintiff without making of any request begins a Suit upon the Obligation and upon this matter pleaded in Barr the Plaintiff replyed that he was not demanded and upon this the Defendant demurred And Harris Serjeant for the Defendant argued that when any penalty is annexed to a payment of the Rent be that annexed to the estate or otherwise yet it ought to be requested and without request to pay it no penalty shaâ—l be incurred as in 22 H. 8. 57. a. b. by Newton Ashton and Port where a difference is taken between an Obligation taken for payment of Rent generally without any relation to a Lease and where it is only for performance of Covenants and Issue taken upon the request and after demurrer joyned and the question if the Lessee ought to tender it 14 Edw. 4. 4. accordingly And in 21 Edw. 4. 6. a. b. Pigott and Bryan agreed that there shall be no penalty nor Obligation forfeited without request where the Obligation is for performance of Covenants and not precisely for the payment of Rent and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Nichols Serjeant for the Plaintiff conceived that the Lessee ought to make tender upon the Land to save the penalty and this shall be sufficient and the Lessor need not to make request and this is the Obligation for performance of Covenants for this doth not alter the nature of the Rent but if it be for payment of Rent precisely there the Lessee ought to seek the Lessor or otherwise for not payment he shall forfeit his Obligation for there tender upon the Land shall not excuse him And for that if a man makes a Lease for years rendring Rent at Michaelmass with nomine poene if it be not payed within 10 dayes after Michaelmass and within the 10. dayes and these differences appear and are agreed in 22 H. 6. 57. and 6 Edw. 6. Brooke tender 20. And he conceived that the Books of 14 Ed. 4. 4. 20. Ed. 4. 6. and 11 Ed. 4. 10. depends upon these differences that is that a man shall not distrain for Rent charge without Request insomuch that it is as a Debt which is due upon Request and admit that the case were that a man made a Lease for yeares the Lessee covenants to pay the Rent at the day with a nomine pene in default of payment of that and after the Lessee assignes his Interest to one which Covenants to pay the Rent and performe all the Covenants in the Lease he demanded in this case who shall make the request that is the first Lessor or the Lessee insomuch that it is penall to the Assignee of them both and so many Suits may arise upon that and also he sayd that it was ruled here upon a motion in arrest of Judgment that in Debt upon an Obligation to performe Covenants there need not to be alledged demand upon Solvit or non Solvit put in Issue for it may be pleaded that it was tendered or payd and so he sayd it is confessed by the Demurrer that the Obligation is forfeited and for that he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Coke cited Myles and Dragles Case where a man was bound for performance of a Will he need not to pay Legacy devised by that for which is no day assigned without request so if the Obligation be for payment of Legacy expresly and no day assigned and so it was adjourned Trinity 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Gravesend Case IN Debt the case was this that is the
H. 6. 14. b. Also he conceived that the Feoffment in consideration of marriage naturall love to his Son and that the Wife of the Sonne shall be Indowed and that the Son should redemise that to his Father for forty yeares if he so long lived and that the Father should pay the Rent to the Lord these he intended to be good considerations and for that should be within the said Proviso of the Statute of 13. Eliz. otherwise if it had been to defraud Creditors But if it had been to such intent that is to defraud Creditors this shall not be extended to other intent that is to defraud the Lord of his Harriot And in the 28. of Eliz. it was adjudged in the Kings Bench if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himselfe for life remainder to his Son in tayl with divers Remainders over with power of Revocation and after bargaines and sells to a stranger upon condition and after performes the Condition that yet the first conveiance remaines fraudulent as it was at the time of the making of it But this is only as to the purchasor and not as to any other And in Goodhers Case 3. Coke 60. a. In debt against Heire which pleads nothing by discent day of the Writ purchased the other joynes Issue and gives in Evidence fraudulent conveiance and upon speciall Verdict adjudged that it was very good See also 4. Coke 4. b. c. Vernâ—ns Case the Collusion to have Dower and Joynture also And so he concluded that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiff Warburton Justice agreed that the fraud shall not be intended if it be not found no more then if a man grant an Annuity to another Quam diu se bene gesserit in Annuity for that he need not to averr that he hath behaved himselfe well for this shall be intended if the contrary be not shewed of the other party So here insomuch that it is not found to be fraudulent it shall be intended to be Bona fide And he agreed that if it had been fraudulent at the first If the Son had made a Feoffment over in the life of the Father as it is agreed in Andrew Woodcocks Case 33 H. 6. 14. that then the fraud is determined So here when the Son hath made a Lease to his Father this determines the fraud if any be and so he concluded that Judgment should be given for the Plaintiff Wynch Justice agreed insomuch that it is expresse consideration found by the Verdict and for that other consideration shall not be intended and also that it shall not be intended that the Conveyance was made to defraud or to deceive the Lord of such a Peccadell as Harriot is which is of small consequence but if it be a fraud within the Statute of 27 Eliz. apparent that is if it containe power of revocation which is declared to be apparent fraud by the Statute the Court may take notice of that without any averrment And he saith That in the 2. and 3. Eliz. Dyer Wainsfords Case 193. a. and 9 Eliz. Dyer 267 268. there is no averrment of fraud but expresse Issue joyned upon the Fraud and for that he need not any other averrment And so he concluded also that judgement should be given for the Plaintiffe and so it was Ruled accordingly if the Defendant did not shew other matter to the contrary at such a day which was not done Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Strobridge against Fortescue and Barret IN a Replevin the case was this A man seised of Lands in Fee devises Rent out of it with clause of Distress and dies his Son and Heire enters and dyes the Rent is behind the Son of the Son dyes and his Son enters and makes a Feoffment to the Plaintiff and the Devisee of the Rent releases all Actions Debts and Demands to the Feoffor and after distraynes the Beasts of the Feoffee for the Rent behinde before the Feoffment and it seemes the Release is not good insomuch that the Devisee had no cause of Action at the time of the Release made against him to whom the Release is made nor Demand against him otherwise if the Release had been made to the Feoffee for he was subject to the distress and this is a demand Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612 In the Common Bench. Case of Cinque Ports NOTE that Coke said that it hath been adjudged by three Judges against one in a Case of Cinque Ports that the Cinque Ports cannot prescribe to take the Body of a Freeman in Withernam as they use for another for this is against the Statute of Magna Charta Quod nullus liber homo Imprisonetâ—r nisi per Legate Judicium and also against the liberty of a Subject but they more inclined that they might take the Goods of one in Withernam when another is arrested and them retain and this seemes the more reasonable Custome and Prescription The Case was Tenant for life the Remainder for life with warranty the first Tenant for life was impleaded and he vouches him in Reversion but he first prays in aid of him in Remainder and if this aid prayer shall be granted this was the question And it seemes by Nicholls Serjeant that it shall not be granted see 11 H. 4. 63. Where it is agreed that if a man makes a Lease for life Remainder for life Remainder in fee and the first Tenant for life hath ayd of him in remainder for life and he in Fee joyntly and 44 Edw. 3. 20. in Trespasse against a Miller which takes Toll where he ought to grind Toll-free the Defendant saith that J. had the Mill for life and that he is his Deputy the reversion to W. in Fee and prays ayde of the Tenant for life and of the Tenant in reversion and had it of the Tenant for life and not of him in reversion and this for default of Privity as it seems to Brooke Ayde 30. Haughton conceived that it should be granted for Tenant for life notwithstanding that he may plead any Plea yet he doth not know what Plea to plead without him in reversion but by the ayde praying al the Estate shall be reduced into one and the warranty shall come and for that he conceived that the first Tenant for life shall have ayde of him in remainder for life Wynch Justice conceived that ayde shall not be granted against the first Tenant for life against him in remainder for life for he conceived that ayde is alwaies to be granted when the defects of him and his Estate which prays it are to be supplyed by him which is prayed that this is the reason that he may have ayde of his Wife and where there are many remainders the first Tenant may have ayde of them all otherwise where he is Tenant for life the remainder for liâ—e and the reversion expectant for the Tenant for life cannot supply his
Common Law mâ—â— be done by Custome and that an Estate may be created by such nomination it appeares by the case where a Remainder is Limited to him which the first Tenant for life shall nominate and it is very good and to prove that the Custome is good he remembred the custome of Millam in Norfolke where he was borne that is that if any Copy-holder will sell his Land and agree of the price that at the next Court when a surrender is to be made the next of his blood and if he will not any other of his blood may have the Land and so every one shall be preferred according to the neerenesse of his blood and with this also agreed the Leviticall Law as it appeares Leviticus 25. chap. verse 15. which appoints this to be at the yeare of Jubile and the Common Law within one yeare after the Alienation and upon this he infers that if Custome may appoint Heire in the life of the party then a Fortiore he may appoint Successor after his death and he conceived that at the beginning the Copy-holders might have had absolute Fee-simple of the Lord and they rather made choice to have such Estate insomuch that they did not know if their Children would be towardly or not and for that content themselves with the nomination of a Successor only and so is the Custome at Hamm also in Middlesex if any Copy-holder will sell the next Cleivener which is he that dwelleth next unto him shall have the refusall giving so much as another will and he which Inhabits one the East part first and the South and the West and last the North shall be preferred is the only way in his course and there the Successor is nominated by the Heavens and by the quarters of the Earth and so is the custome in Glocester And if any Husband hath an Estate for twelve yeares his Wife shall have it for twelve years also and so ad Infinitum and this makes nomination and so of Free-hold and so if it be good without nomination it shall be good by nomination And if the Estate determine by the Death of the Tenant without nomination when the Lord revives the Copy-hold Estates the priviledge also shall be revived But he conceived that the Tenant cannot nominate part to one and part to another nor that divided in fractions And he saith that this point hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench by foure Judges against Popham 5. Jacobi between Ball and Crabb And so he concluded this point and to the second custome he said he would speake to that Transitive but not Definitve and that it hath been adjudged 45. Eliz. between Powell and Peacock that bare Copy holder for life could not prescribe to cut and â—ell the Trees otherwise of Tenant in Fee-simple for he hath them cherished and fostered And it is against common reason incongruent and against the Common Law that a Copy-holder for life may cut and sell the Trees and custome ought to have reason and congruence for 10. Ed. 3. 5. Leete cannot be belonging to a Church insomuch that it is Incongruent and so in Writes Case 2. Coke Tythes cannot be appurtenant to a Mannor insomuch that it is incongruent and a spirituall thing shall not be pertinent to a temporall and so è Converso And so in the 5. Assis 9. and Hill and Granges Case Com. Turbary cannon be appurtenant to Land insomuch that it is incongruent but it ought to be to a house so in time of Ed. 2. Tenant of the Mannor prescribes to have free Bull and Bare and it is not good for the reason aforesaid otherwise it is of the Lord of a Mannor and 9 H. 5. 45. custome in Leete to present common and adjudged that it it is not good insouuch that it wants congruity for it is not proper to the Court and upon this he concluded that bare Tenant for life cannot prescribe to cut Trees for it is not congruent that such an Estate shall have such a priviledge and this for three reasons First insomuch that Trees growing are parcell of the Inheritance Secondly in respect of the perdurablenesse of them for it shall be intended that they will indure forever and so will not his Estate for this is as a shadow as Job said and 't is absurd that shadow should cut downe the Tree And also it is for necessity of habitation and Plow and Husbandry And it is for the Common Wealth that Copy-holder of Inheritanc might cut them by such custome for otherwise he would not be incurraged to plant and preserve them And notwithstanding that in this Case the custome be generall that the Copy-holder may cut down all yet that shall have a reasonable construction avd that this notwithstanding he leave sufficient for House-boot as if a man grants Common without number yet the Grantor shall not be excluded but shall have his Common there for excesse shall not be allowed As if a man which distraines another for Rent he shall not take excessive distress the Lessee for life excessive Tallage of villaines nor upon excessive Fines of Copy-holders and so it was adjudged in Heyden and Sir John Lenthorps Case that the Lord shall not take all but leave sufficient for reparations and so was the opinion of Wray cheife Justice in the 33 of Eliz. In evidence to a Jury but here he is in nature of Tenant in Fee-simple and it shall be intended that he hath cherished the Timber and every Copy-holders Estate granted is as a new Grant and hath affinity with Tenant in Fee-simple and he agreed that if Lessee for life the Remainder for years Remainder for life be and the first Lessee for life makes a forfeiture he in Remainder for years shall take advantage of that and that it hath been adjudged that the Lord of the Mannor shall take advantage of forfeiture made by the Copy-holder without presentment made by the Homage and in one Bacon and Flotsims Case and so Lessee for yeares of a Mannor shall take advantage of Forfeiture notwithstanding the Imbicillity of his Estate but the principall matter upon which he relyed was that the Trees were severed from the Free-hold and if the Lessee dy his Executors shall have them insomuch that they are meer Chattells and this First in respect of the Words of the Lease that is demise and to farm let the Mannor but bargain sell give and grant the Timber Trees to be felled and carried away at his Will As if a man makes a Lease for years except the Wood and after grants the Trees the Lease determines the Lessor shall not have the Trees again Secondly They are in two divided Sentences and also in respect of divided properties for the Executor of the Lessee shall have them and Quando duo Jura concurrunt in una persona equum est ac si esset in diversis also past at severall times for the Trees pass by the delivery of the Deed and the Land
if a Copy-holder be of twenty Acres and the Lord grants Rent out of those twenty Acres in the tenure and occupation of the sayd Copy-holder and name him There if this Copy hold Escheat and be granted againe the Copy-holder shall hold it charged for this is now charged by expresse words Trinity 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Kings Bench. Goodyer and Ince GOodyer was Plaintiff in a Writ of Error against Ince and the Case was this Ince brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation in the Common Bench against Goodyer and had Judgment to recover and by his execution prayed an Elegit to the Sheriff of London and another to the Sheriff of Lancaster and his request was granted and entred upon the Roll after which went out an Elegit to the Sheriff of Lancaster upon a Testatum supposing that an Elegit issued out to the Sheriff of London which returned Nulla bona and Quod Testatum sit c. That the Defendant hath c. in your County c. upon which Elegit upon this Testatum the Sheriff of Lancaster extended a forme of the Defendants in a grosse sum of a hundred pounds and delivered this to the party himselfe which sold that to another and now the Defendants brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that this Elegit issued upon a Testatum where no Writ of Elegit was directed to the Sheriff of London and so this Writ issued upon a false supposall and upon that two points were moved in the Case First As this Case is if this were Error in the Execution or not Secondly Admit that it were Error if the Plaintiff shall be restored to the tearme againe or if to the value in Money and it was moved by Davenport of Grayes Inne that this was no Error and to that he took this difference That true it is when a man brings an Action of Debt in London and hath Judgment that without request of the Plaintiff he is to have his Elegit to the Sheriffs of London where originally the Action was brought and in such Case he cannot have Elegit to the Sheriff of another County without surmise made upon the returne of the first Elegit and the surmise ought to be true or otherwise it is Error but where upon the request the Elegit is granted to both Counties at the first and so entred upon the Roll It seems to him that insomuch that he may have both together that if the surmise be false that this is but a fault of the Clarke which shall be amended and shall be no Error and to that he cyted the Case of 44 Edw. 3. 10. Where an Elegit issued upon a Recognizance of a hundred Markes and the Writ of Extent was a hundred pounds and the Sheriff extended accordingly of the Land of the Defendant and he came and shewed this to the Court and praied that the Writ should abate and a new Writ to the Sheriff that he might have restitution of his Tearme and Thorp said this is but a misprison of the Clark and the Roll is good and he shall have the Land but till the hundred markes are Levied and after this you shall have restitution of the Land which case proves as he conceives that if the Roll warrant a writ in one manner and the Clark makes it in another manner that this shall not be Error and so in this case the Roll warrants an Elegit originally to the Sheriff of Lancaster and though that this is made upon a Testatum this shall not be Error because warranted by the Roll And to the second point he would not speake for if that were no Error the second point doth not come in question Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. in the Kings Bench. Marsam against Hunter IN Trespasse the case was this Copy-holder of a Mannor within which Mannor the custome was that the Copy-holders should have Common in the wast of the Lord The Lord by Deed confirmes to a Copy-holder to have to him and his Heires with the appurtenances and the point was insomuch that his Copy-hold was now distroied whether he shall have his Common or not And Davyes of Linclones Inne argued the Common is extinct and his reason was that this Common was in respect of his Tenure and the Tenure is distroid Ergo the Common and he cited the case of 5 Ed. 4. fol. ult Where the office of the King of Herraulds was granted to Garter with the Fees and profits Ab Antiquo and also ten pound for the office and there it is resolved if the office be determined the Annuity is determined also and the case in 7. Ed. 4. 22. b. Where an Annuity was granted to John Clark of the Crown and for Tearme of life and after he was discharged of the office and the oppinion of the Justices then was that the annuity was determined and in 19. Ed. 3. Assis 83. 12 Assis 22. A man gives Land to his Daughter and I. S. within the years of marrying in frank-marriage the Husband sues Divorce the marriage being dissolved the Wife from whom the Land first moved shall have the Land againe so in the principall case insomuch that this common was in respect of Tenure the Tenure being distroied the common is gone and this was all his argument and he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and another day Brautingham of Grayes Inne seemed that the common remaines for three reasons First of the nature of a prescription and to that there are three manner of prescriptions First personall prescription and in that Inhabitants may prescribe as for a way or matter of ease as it is said in 7. Ed. 4. 15. Ed. 4. and 18. Ed. 4. and 6. Coke Gatwoods case Secondly reall prescription and this is Inherent to the Estate and this is where a man prescribeth that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Thirdly locall prescriptions an that is where a man prescribes to have a thing appendant or appurtenant to his Mannor and this is so fixed to the Land that whether soever the Land goes the prescription is concommitant unto it and it seemes to him that this common is annexed to the Land by prescription and so locall and cannot be seperated but alwaies shall go with the Land into who soever hands that comes but Dixit non Probant And for this he supposed that the custome of Copy-hold is that the Copy-hold shall discend to the youngest Son if the Copy holder purchase the Free-hold and the Fee-simple of the Copy-hold so that this is made Free-hold this shall discend to the youngest Son so if a Copy-holder by custome is discharged of payment of Tythes in kind so the office of the master of the Rolles hath many liberties pertaining to it and this is granted but Durante placito yet if the King grant that in Fee as he may yet he shall have all the Fees and Priviledges annexed to that and so it seemes to him that
was a good Custome insomuch that this was annexed to an Estate created by custome and for that he cited one Skeggs case to be adjudged in 24 yeare of Eliz. and was thus that is The custome of a Mannor was that a marryed wife Copy-holder might surrender to the use of her last will and after might devise to her Husband and it was adjudged insomuch that this was annexed to her Estate which begun by custome this was a good custome and the 3 of Ed. 3. At the common Law such custome is voyd and after he cited a Judgment in the point given in this Court 23. of Eliz. Rot. 5014. or 504 or 5004. that the same custome was adjudged a good Custome after he answered some objections which might be made against this custome that is First for the uncertainty of the time when the presentment shall be by the Homage and to that he sayd that the Lord may make that when he will and the time doth not take away the offence and no prejudice upon that discends to the Heir but is to his advantage Secondly Because no number certaine of the Homage and that every tryall must be by twelve and to that he answered that we are not now in point of Tryall but only for the information of the Lord. Thirdly this is against the nature of a Court-Baron to inquire of Felonies and to that he said there is not any inquiry made here but only to inform the Lord and such a thing is not against the nature of the Court which inlargeth this Fourthly The offence is against the King and a common person shall not have the punishment of that to that he sayd the King shall not have any benefit of it for he shall not have any Escheat of Copy-hold lands for Treason or Felony Fiftly This is against the Kings Prerogative to that he sayd that Custome may be against the Prerogative of the King as if a man claim Waife or stray by prescription these are things given to the King by his Prerogative and yet Prescription for them is good and so he concluded this first point that the custome was good To the second point he conceived that this verdict and acquittall shall not conclude the Lord and for that he sayd that at the Common Law if a Verdict had been given and no Judgment upon it the party was not concluded to bring the same Action 18 Ed. 3. 35. Then comes the Statute of 2 H. 4. And this outs non-suit after verdict and yet if verdict be imperfect or finds a thing not in Issue there non-suit may be after verdict as it is sayd in 22 Ed. 4. 10. And if verdict be given in the point and Judgment upon that doth not conclude the party to have action of more high nature as it is sayd in 3 Ed. 3. and 3 Assise 1. and Hudsons ease in the 4 Coke and as it is in Tryalls of Land so it is in tryalls of life as 2 R. 3. 14. 7 H. 4. 34. Then if the party himself shall not be bound by verdict A fortiori a stranger shall not be also every Estoppell there ought to be a matter of estoppell for the Jury is not sworn to give their verdict according to the truth in Deed but according to the evidence to them given and then if faint evidence or no evidence be given it shall be hard that this shall conclude any of his right also there is no party to be estopped because a stranger as is aforesayd also the acquittall is in such manner that is that he hath not committed the Felony in manner and form as in the Indictment is alledged and this doth not answer the Custome because generall so it seems to him that this shall not be any conclusion to the Lord and so for both points the entry not congeable And Stevens to the contrary and it seems to him breifly that the custome was not good and he denyed the Rule that is that this might have reasonable beginning by agreement of parties shall make a custome good and for this Littleton saith in his chapter of villainage that if the Lord of one Mannor will prescribe to have Fine if any of his Tenants marry their Daughters without his license this is a void custome and yet it may be such agreement between the parties at the first and it seems the custome not reasonable for it is too generall that is if any Tenant and this doth not exclude Infants Secondly if any Felony be committed and this includes petty Larceny and Maime by involuntary means for these are Felonies and for that see 13 H. 7. 19. 6 H. 7. That in Appeal of Mayme a man shall count Felony and yet it shall be hard that a man shall loose his Land for these Felonies Secondly Homage cannot inquire of the fact of Felony but of the conviction of Felony and so it seems to him the custome ill and to the other point it seems that the Lord shall be concluded and to that that hath been objected that the Lord is a stranger to the verdict and for that cause shall not be estopped he said that the Lord is no stranger for in this case every man is party and every man may give Evidence for the King and he cited the case in the time and title of Mortdancester where the case was where a man was as principall for the Death of J. S. and another as accessary in receiving the Principall after the principall was out-Lawed and the Accessary hanged and the Lord seised the Land of the Accessary for Escheat after came the principall and reversed the Out-Lawry and was found not guilty and the Heir of him which was hang'd entred upon the Lord and adjudged insomuch that there cannot be an Accessary unless there be a principall that the entry of the Heir was lawfull in this case so he sayd in this case insomuch that the Copy-holder is acquitted by verdict and found not guilty and seems to him that the entry of the Lord should not be lawfull and by the whole Court the custome was good but they did not deliver any opinion upon the second point for they moved the parties to Composition Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Barwick and Fosters Case A Man made a Lease for two years at Michaelmas rendring two shillings yearly during the Tearm at the Feast of the annunciation of our Lady and Michaelmas or ten dayes after at the Feast of Saint Michaell in the last year the Rent is not paid the question was what remedy the Lessor hath for his Rent of this halfe yeare and the opinion of Flemming cheife Justice and Williams was that he hath no remedy And first they sayd as this case is the Lessee hath election to pay either upon the Feast or upon the tenth day after and that is for the benefit of the Lessee then he hath made his Election not to pay that at the Feast of Saint
Michaell then it is cleer that the Lessor hath no remedy by way of distress for the Tearm is ended before and by Action of Debt upon the Contract he hath no remedy as it seems as this case is for the Contract is that the Rent shall be paid yearly during the Tearm then when the Tearm is ended the contract is determined and for that the cheife Justice sayd That if a man makes a Lease at Michaelmas for a yeare rendring Rent yearely at our Lady day and the ninth of October which is after Michaelmas that the Lessor hath not any remedy for the Rent of the last halfe yeare for that is not reserved to be payd yearly according to the contract And Yelverton Justice agreed that the Lessee hath election as above but he saith when that is behinde the tenth day after Michaelmas then the Lessor shall bring his Action of Debt and declare that the Rent was behinde at the Feast of Saint Michaell and shall not make mention of the ten dayes after and Coke Justice sayd That it seems to him that the Lessee shall not have the benefit of these ten dayes after the last Feast for the words of the Lease are rendring Rent yearly during the tearme at the Feasts aforesayd or ten dayes after so that the Lessee shall have the benefit of these ten dayes during the tearme but not after then he shall not have these after the last Feast of Saint Michaell for then shall the tearme be ended And after in Trinity Terme 8 Jacobi The Case was moved againe and then Flemming cheife Justice conceived That the Lessee shall not have ten dayes after the last Feast and this upon construction to be made reasonably for otherwise the Tearm being ended the Contract should be determined with the Tearm and so the Lessor should be without remedy for his Rent and he sayd that reservations are not taken so strictly according to the letter And for that he cited the case of Hill and Granger in the Com. fol. 171. Where a man makes a Lease for a year And the Lease was made in August rendring Rent yearely at the Annunciation of our â—ady and Michaelmasse upon condition of Re-entry In this case the first payment shall be at the next Michaelmasse after the making of the Lease and not at the Annunciation of our Lady though this is first in words and this by reasonable construction for otherwise this word Yearely shall not be supplied and of this see the Action and so he said in this case Rent is reserved yearely during the Tearme at the Feasts of the Annunciation of our Lady or Michaelmasse or ten daies after he shall not have ten daies after the last Feast But Williams held his old opinion that the Lessor hath no remedy for the last halfe years Rent and it was adjourned Hillary 7. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. Grymes against Peacocke IN Terspasse for his Close broken The Defendant justifies that it was used within the Mannor of D. that every Farmer of such a house and averred that that had been allwaies let to Farme had Common in the Lords wast The house came into the hands of the Lord in Possession And he granted the house and the wast to J. S. in Fee J. S. Bargaines and Sells the house to J. N. with all Commons Profits and Commodities used occupied and pertaining to the same And after grants the wast to another If the Grantee of the house shall have Common in the wast was the question And Yelverton argued that the Common was gone for if he shall have Common this shall enure as a new Grant of a Common but this cannot so enure for two reasons First when a man will grant a Common he ought to shew the place in certaine where the Grantee shall have this Common or otherwise the Grant is void But here no place is shewed and for that it cannot enure as a new Grant of a Common Secondly If that be a new Grant yet this hath reference to the usage that is Quod Vsitatum est c. And this Vsitatum is void for it seemes to him that Lessee for yeares cannot alledge a usage for every Vsitatum ought to go in one selfe same currant not interrupted as in ths case of a Coppy-hold But here every new Lease is a new contract and so the usage is interrupted and then the Grant having the reference to the usage and that is void usage nothing shall passe by this Grant and for that in Long 5. Ed 4. 40. If a custome be against Law And that is confirmed by the Act of Parliament this is void confirmation for it hath reference to a void custome so here this Grant hath reference to the usage and for that it seemes to him that the Common is gone Hutton Serjeant to the contrary and that the Grantee of the Messuage shall have common for this usage is not a thing by strictnesse in Law appertaining to the Land but this hath gained his reputation that that shall passe very well in a conveiance by apt words And for that it will not be denied but if a man makes a Lease for years to one and grants him Common for all his Kine c. And after this Lease expires and he makes a new Lease and grants such Commons as the first Lessee had that this shall be a good grant of Common to the Lessee So he said in this case this grant of the house with all profits and commodities used occupied and appertaining to the said Messuage shall be said a grant of such Common which other Lessees of this Manner have used and this by reasonable construction in Law to make good the conveiances of Lay-men according to the common speaking for Benigne sunt Faciende Interpritationes Chartarum c. and for that he cited the case of Hill and Grange in the Comment Where the case was That a man made a Lease for yeares of a house and a hundred Acres of Land appertaining to that though the Land be not appurtenant to the house yet insomuch that this hath been usually occupied with the house this shall passe as appertaining to it and so 26. Assis 38. A man makes a Lease for life rendring Rent and after grants over the Rent to J. S. and dies The Heire grants and confirmes to the Grantee and his Heires the same Rent with clause of distresse and the Tenant for life dies now is the Rent reserved upon the Estate for life determined and yet this shall enure as a new grant of another Rent in quantity So in Sir Moyle Finches Case the case of uses and Durham in Ejectione Firme A Lease was pleaded of a Mannor whereof the feilds in which c. Were parcell And Issue was joyned Quod non Demiset Manerium And upon this Issue found it was that there were not any Free-holders but diverse Copy-holders and this was allwaies knowne by the name of a Mannor and it was adjudged that
this shall passe for him which pleads the demise of the Mannor Then if in Judiciall proceeding the Law makes such favourable construction to make that passe by a Mannor which is no Mannor in truth because it hath been usually known by the name of a Mannor then it seemes to him a Fortiore that no more beneficiall construction shall be made in conveiances which allwaies shall be construed to the intent and meaning of the parties and so it seemes to him that the Common remaines and Crooke Yelverton and the cheife Justice Flemming conceived that in reason he shall have the Common but they did not give any absolute opinion as to that But Williams Justice to the contrary and that the Lessee for yeares cannot have more then he contracted for in his Lease and then the Vsitatum void and the Lessees have taken that by wrong And this Grant having reference to a void and wrongfull usage is not good and it is adjourned Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Stydson against Glasse Stydson brought an Ejectione Firme against Glasse and upon speciall Verdict the case was this that is That one Holbeame was seised of the Land in question in Fee and made a Lease for life to Margret Glasse and after covenanted with John Glasse Husband of the said Wife Lessee that before such a day he would Levie a Fine to A. B. and to the Heires of A. of the same Lands which Fine should be to the use of the said Glasse for sixty yeares to begin after the death of the said Margeret Glasse with Proviso within the same Indentures that if the said Holbeame at a certaine day should pay to the said John Glasse a hundred pounds that then the Lease should cease and then of that the Conusees should stand seised to the use of the said John for his naturall life and after the said Holbeame disseised the said Margeret Glasse the Lessee and made a Feoffment to the use of himselfe and one Alice with whom he intended to marry and to the Heire of their two bodyes begotten the remainder to the right Heires of the Feoffor and after the sayd Feoffor and Alice intermarried and after the said Holbeam tendred a hundred pound to the sayd John Glasse the Lessee for years and after the sayd John Glasse assigned over his Tearme and after the sayd Holbeam by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the said Land to the said John Glasse and his Heir and after Iohn Glasse dyed and the Inheritance discended to the said Margeret Glasse Lessee for life the Conusor dies his Wife enters and lets to the Plaintiff the Defendant enters upon him and the Plaintiff re-enters and brings Trespass against the Defendant which justifies as servant to the Assignees of the Tearm and if upon all the matter c. And it was argued by Nicholls Serjeant for the Plaintiff and he moved three points in the case First if by this feoffment upon such condition as this is had been Extinct at the Common Law or remaines to the Feoffor notwithstanding the feoffment for if he have interest in the Land then it is extinct by the Livery for it is given of the Feoffor and past out of him and yet the Feoffee cannot have and for that it is extinct but if it were but Authority as in 15 H. 7. Authority to sell the land of the Devisor then the Authority remaines and is not extinct by the Feoffment of the land so power of Revocation to a stranger which is but authority is not extinct by a feofment Albaines case Coke 112. a. But if it be right in Interest then it is extinct by the feofment as power of revocation to the Party himself resolved to the point in Albains case so of Title to a Writ of Deceit 38 Ed. 3. So of a title to be Tenant by the Curtesie 9 H 7. 1. But by 42 Edw. 3. by a Feoffment made by a Parson of Land of his Rectory the Tythes of that Land are not extinct but remaines notwithstanding the Feoffment for that it was collaterall to the title of the Land as the Cases of Authority are which were put before then if this power to alter a Lease by payment of a hundred pound be not any right nor Interest but a collaterall power and the authority not extinct by the Feoffment but remaines but admitting that it is in nature of an ordinary Condition and that before the Statute it should be extinct by the Feoffment for that it is the gift of the Feoffor and yet it is not transferable to the Feoffee If now by the Statute of 32 H. 8. which inables Grantees of reversions to take advantage of Conditions if the condition be not transferred to the Feoffees and so over to he to whose use that then by consequence this remaines to the Feoffor which was the he to whose use and then the tender of the money after well may alter the Lease it seems that so for before the Statute if a Lease for yeares had been made upon condition to cease and after the Lessor enters upon the Lessee and makes a Feoffment and the Lessee re-enter and breakes the condition the Feoffee shall take advantage of that condition being by way of ceasing of an Estate so after the Statute the Feoffee of the Lessor shall take advantage of the condition of Re-entry and of every other condition annexed to the reversion as well as of one condition to cease before the Statute and as well that every Grantee shall doe since the Statute for though that he comes in by Feoffment which is wrong to the Lessee yet after the re-entry the Lessee is in nature of a Grantee And he cyted the Case of Clyfford Error 7. Ed. 6. to be that Lessor entred upon his Lessee and made a Feoffment if the Lessee re-enter the Rent and the Condition are revived againe and the Feoffee shall have both see Cliffords Error 7. Ed. 6. Dyer the last case and 1. M. Dyer 96. 43. but there is not any such matter and for that it seemes that he hath another report of this case of Cliffords Error or otherwise he meant some other case and not Cliffords Error so is our case the condition being inherent to the reversion shall passe with the reversion be that by grant or feoffment and when the reversion is revived by the entry of the Lessee the condition shall be revived also and it is the more strong insomuch that the Condition is that upon the payment of the money the Lease for years shall cease and not that the Lessor shall re-enter that such Feoffee shall take advantage of a condition by way of ceasing of that at the Common Law 2. point and for the second point he would not argue against that that he took to be cleer and for that he conceived the Law to be against his Clyent in this point though that after the Disseisin and Feoffment the free-hold could not accrue
cited the book of 24 Ed. 3. Where a Tales was returned by the Sheriff of Middlesex and the party challenged the Jury because he sued the Sheriff for the death of his Servant and this was a principall challenge for in such case his life was in question the same Law in case of Maintenance and Champerty for the Law hath inflicted great punishment upon such Offences so these matters tend to utter subversion of his Estate and life but otherwise in Actions of Trespasse and so he concluded no principall challenge To the abatement of the Writ it seemes no Error First he conceived that there is no entry and for the reason that Crooke had given before that is because he entred to hunt and not to keep possession and hath not shewed any Warrant to kill the Buck and he cited the book of the 5. of Ed. 4. fol. 60. Where Babington brought an Assise of the house of the Fleete and hanging the Assise Babington came to the Jury within the house when they had the View with his Councell to shew Evidence for the view and this was not any entry to abate the Writ and so the entry to hunt is an entry for another purpose then an entry to keep possession not being by warrant as it is not found and for that no entry to abate the Writ But admitting that this had been an entry to abate the Writ yet being a thing which doth not abate the Writ without Plea and that cannot be pleaded as the case is he conceived was no Error but if it had been a thing which abated the Writ in Facto without Plea then to give Judgement upon a Writ abated is Error As if the party die hanging the Writ or if a woman sole brings an Assise and takes a Husband hanging the Assise or if the Plaintiff in a Assise be made Judge of Assise as the 15. of Assise in all these cases the Writ is abated in Facto without Plea But entry shall not abate the Writ without Plea and so it seemes to him no error But he conceived that there were two other errors for which he reversed the Judgement The first was that this Assise was de Libero Tenemento in Clepson and the plaint was of the keeping of the Park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and Paunage of the Parke aforesaid called Clepsom and made his Title for Herbage and Paunage of the Park of Clepsom and so he conceived that there is variance between the Plaint and the Title and Park of Clepsom and Clepsom cannot be intended one without speciall averment and for that he conceived it to be errour And to that he cited the case of twelve Assises two Where in attaint the first originall was of the Mannor of Austy and the Attaint was of the Mannor of Auesty and yet for that that the Attaint is founded upon the Record and not upon the Originall and the Record was of the Mannor of Auesty this was very good but the Booke saith that this variance between the Originall and the Record was sufficient to reverse the Record for errour and the case in 42 of Ed. 3. Where Scire facias was brought of Tenements in Eastgrave and the Fine was of Tenements in Deepgrave and for the variance the Writ abated and in the case of 5 Coke 46. Formedon was brought of the Mannor of Isfeild and the Tenant pleads in barr a recovery of the Mannor of Iffeild and this shall not be amended unlesse it appear that this is a misprision of the Clark or by other averment he cited also the case of 3 H. 4. 8. Scire facias upon garnishment in a Writ of Detinue of writings the Originall name John Scripstead and the Scire facias was made Iohn Shiplow and therefore agreed that he shall sue a new Scire facias so he said in the Principal case the Plaint being of Herbage and Paunage of Clepson Parke aad the title being at Clepsom Parke these shall not be intended to be the same Parke without averment and there in no averment in our case and for that such variance is such errour that shall reverse the Judgment The second errour for which he reversed the Judgment was that which was moved by Justice Crook that the Jury have not found any seisin of the Paunage for it seemed to him that a Horse could not take Seisin of paunage and for that he defined paunage and he sayd that Linwood title-Tithes saith the Paunagium est pastus Porcorum as of Nuts and Akornes of trees in the wood and Crompton saith that this is Pastus Porcorum and he saith that Paunagium is either used for Paunage or the Paunage it self and the Statute of Charta de Foresta saith that every Freeman may drive his Hoggs into our royall Wood and shall have there Paunage but he doth not say Horses or other Beasts but he conceived that if the Earle of Rutland had right in the Park that this had been sufficient seisin of Herbage and Paunage also for Hoggs will feed upon grass as well as upon Akornes and he cited the Book of 37 H. 6. saith that Seisin to maintain an Assise ought not to be of a contrary nature to the thing of which seisin is intended to be given but in one case only and that is where the Sheriff gives seisin of a Rent by a Twig or by a Clod of Earth and this is in case of necessity for the Sheriff cannot take the Money out of the purse of the Tenant of the Land and deliver seisin of that and for that he cited the case in 45 Ed. 3. Where Commoner comes to the Land where he ought to have Common and enters into the Land and the Lord of the Waste or the Grantor of the Common outs him he cannot have an Assise of his Common upon this outing for this was not any seisin of the Common so it is in this case the Horses cannot take Seisin of the Paunage and so there is no seisin or disseisin found by the Jury and then no Assise and this being after Judgment no abridgment may be of the Plaint and so for these last reasons he reversed the Judgment And at another day the case was rehearsed again and argued by Yelverton and Fenner Justices but I did not hear their Arguments insomuch that they spake so low but their opinions were declared by the cheife Justice and Yelverton affirmed the Judgment in all First he held that this entry shall not abate the writ Secondly admit that it is abated yet being between Verdict and Judgment shall not be assigned for errour Thirdly he held that no principall challenge Fourthly he held both the grants good Fifthly that Clepsam and Clipsam are all one and not such variance that shall make Errour And lastly that a Horse may well take Seisin of Paunage and Fenner agreed in all but he held that this was a principall challenge and not being allowed this
was Error and for this cause and another exception to the Record which was not much materiall he reversed the Judgment And at another day Flemming cheife Justice rehearsed the case and this argued and to the first matter he conceived First That it is no such entry that abates the Writ Secondly Admitting that it were yet this cannot be assigned for Errour And to the first matter he took this ground That every entry which may abate a writ ought to be in the thing demanded and for that he sayd if a man brings an Assise of Rent or common and hanging this Assise he enters into the Land this is not any Entry which will abate the Writ and he sayd that the Park and the keeping of the Park are two distinct things and for that the entry into one that is the Park will not abate the Writ for the keeping of that and to that which is sayd that he took a Fee that is a shoulder of a Buck that doth not make any matter for two reasons First he hath not shewed a Warrant he had to kill the Buck. Secondly the taking of the fee is no entring into the Office but the excercising of that but admit that this were an entry or the thing it self yet he sayd every entry into the thing shall not abate the Writ and to that he sayd that if this entry of the Earl of Rutland to hunt was no such entry that shall abate the Writ for his office was not to hunt and for that his entry being to another purpose it shall not be sayd an entry to abate the Writ and for that he cited a case which hath been cited as he sayd by Justice Yelverton that if a man have Common in the Land of J. S. between the Annunciation of our Lady and Michaelmas and the Commoner brought an Assise of his Common and at Christmas put in his Beasts and this shall not be any entry to abate his Writ for it cannot be intended for the same Common which case is agreed to be good Law and he cited the case put by Brooke in Assise of Freshforce before remembred Com. 93. Where hanging a Formedon the Tenant pleads in abatement of the Writ that the Demandant hath entred after the last continuance and upon the evidence it appears that many were cutting wood upon the Land and the Demandant comes into the Land to them and warnes them upon the perill that might ensue to them that they should do no more then they could do by Law and this was found no entry Also the case of 26. Assise before cited by Justice Crooke and he sayd that the Statute of Charta de Foresta chapter 11. willeth that every Arch-Bishop Bishop Earl or Baron comming to the King by his command and passing by his Forrest c. Was licensed to take one Beast or two by the sight of the Keeper c. Put case then that the King had sent for the Earl of Rutland and he had passed through this Park and had killed a Buck had this beene an entry to abate this writ Quasi diceret non for this was entry to another purpose so he sayd in the principall case the entry to hunt and so no entry to abate the Writ but admitting that this had been an entry which would abate the writ then let us see if this entry hath so abated the writ being Mesne between the Verdict and the Judgment it cannot be assigned for errour and to that he agreed the diversity before taken by Crooke and Williams where the writ is abated by Plea and without plea and he cited a Judgment in the Kings Bench between Jackson and Parker 2 Eliz. where in Ejectione firme the Plaintiff entred Mesne between Verdict and Judgment and this was assigned for Errour in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment notwithstanding affirmed and he sayd that if Memorandum had been made of it or if a Jury had found it and it had been prayed that that might be Recorded yet this had not been materiall and that that be not assigned for Errour And to the matter moved by my Brother Williams that there should be a variance between the plaint and the Title he conceived that there is no such variance that shall make the Judgment errronious and to that he examined the matter First that the Assise was of a Free-hold in Clepsom and his title is made of the parke of Clipson that that cannot be otherwise intended but that of necessity it ought to be the same park For first there is but one park by all the Record Secondly the plaint saith De parco predicto which hath reference to Clepsom park and there is but one park put in view by all the record Fourthly It shall be so taken according to the common speaking Fiftly when he hath made his plaint of the custody of the park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and paunage of the park aforesaid called Clepsom these words called Clepsom are but Idle and Trifles and that which is but Surplusage shall not annoy Also he said that J. and E. are letters which do not much differ in pronunciation and they are all one as I and he shall be pronounced as hi and he cited the Book of 4 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt variance was taken between the writ and the Obligation that is Quatuordecem pro Quatuordecim and this variance was not materiall but that the writ was awarded good and so he conceived that in this case the variance of Clepsom and Clipsom shall not be such a materiall variance that shall make the Judgment erronious and to the title First to Markhams grant that is where the Jury have found Quod ulterius concessit c. And doth not say Per easdem he held that good without scruple and this for the necessary relation that this had to any thing before granted for he sayd that this should be a strange and marvelous patent which begun in such a manner that is Et ulterius Rex concedit c. And there was not any thing granted before And for that he cited the case of 11 Ed. 4. 2. where Debt was brought upon an Indenture against the Abbot of Westminster and the Indenture was between the Abbot of the Monastry of the blessed Mary of Westminster and rehearsed divers Covenants for performance of which Covenants the Abbot of Westminster bound himself in twenty pound and doth not say that the aforesayd Abbot and yet good for it shall be intended the same Abbot for he is party to the Deed and the case of 10 H. 7. 12. Where in Assise of Common the plaintiff makes his plaint of Common appurtenant to his Free-hold in D. and shews for Title that he was seised of a Messuage and of a Carve of Land in D. to which the Common is appurtenant and that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estates c. have used Common of pasture with ten Beasts and exception
taken to the title because he saith that he was seised and not saith that he is and yet good by this word Fuit for that shall be intended that he continues seised so he sayd that things which are necessarily to be intended though they be not so particularly expressed yet shall be good by Implication and so he concluded that this is no Error for which the Judgment shall be reversed And to the challenge he conceived that this is not any principall challenge and to that he put this difference that if a man brings an Assise of certain Land and hath an Action of Trespass hanging against the Sheriff for entring into the same Land there shall be a principall challenge to the Array but if it be for entry into other Land not in demand otherwise it is and what is principall challenge and what not he cyted the Bookes of 3 Ed. 4. 12. 6 Ed. 4. 1. 21 Ed. 4. 67. 14 H. 7. 1. 21. Ed. 4. 10. And to the point in question he cyted the Bookes before remembred by Crooke and Williams and no others and for that I omit to recite them and he agreed also that in actions which concern life Honesty Mayme Battery to say that he hath such action hanging against the Sheriff shall be a principall challenge but Trespass for entring into Land not for in Trespass there is no Land to be recovered also no damages but to the value of the Trespass And in Debt a man shall recover more then in Trespasse And yet it is agreed that this is no principall Challenge to say that he hath an Action of Debt hanging against the Sheriff as the Book of 11 H. 4. is which hath been remembred and for this I conceive it no principall challenge And to the seisin of the Paunages if a Horse may take seisin of that it seemes that yea for I conceive that the taking of seisin doth not consist in the eating or not eating of that of which the seisin is to be taken and for that he cited that if a man grant to me the Herbage and Paunage of his Parke and I come into the Parke and take the Grasse and Herbs into my hands or if I gather Akornes this is sufficient seisin for me to have Assise though that I do not eate the Grasse nor the Akornes and for that let us put the case that a man hath Herbage granted to him and he puts in his Beasts and before that they eate the grasse they are driven out none will deny but that that shall be good seisin for so is the Book of the 22. Assise 84. Where a man hath Common granted to him and he takes the Beasts of a stranger and puts them in and them forthwith drive out that shall be a good seisin of the Common to have Assise so that he said that the eating is not to purpose also he said Horses will eate Akornes as well as Cowes And he saith that in the Country where he inhabits being a wood-Wood-land Country they will not suffer the Beasts to go into the Woods at a certaine time of the yeare and this is when Crabs are ripe for then their Beasts will eate Crabs and set their teethes an edge and then not being able to chew Akornes do swallow them whole and then those Ackornes being swallowed whole will grow in the Mawe of the Beast and so kill them And he saith that though that Horses be not so proper Beasts to take seisin of Paunage as Porkes are yet being put in for the same purpose if they are disturbed that shall be Seisin and Disseisin and it seemes to him that when things are granted to one that it shall not be strange to say that seisin of one shall be seisin of both and for that if a man grants all his arrable Land all his Meadow and all his Wood Livery and Seisin in one suffices for all but I conceive that this is in respect of the soyle which passeth and so are all of one self same nature and so he conceives that this is sufficient Seisin and Disseisin found to have Assise And lastly to the Title of the Earle of Rutland he said that this was good and to the Grants of the King he said two things are necessary in all Grants of the King that is a Recitall and a certainty and when a recitall shall be necessary and when not and he said that in all cases when a common person makes a Lease for years or for life and the reversion is conveied to the King if the King will make Estate to another he shall not recite this Lease for this not being of Record the King cannot take notice of it and so he shall not recite But in all cases when the King makes a Lease for life or for years and after will make a Grant to another he ought to recite the first Estate because that is of Record And Justice Yelverton as I heard of those which were next unto him put this case That if the King grants a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and after the King reciting the Lease grants that to another for years or grants the reversion to another and doth not recite the Rent which was reserved upon the first Lease that this second Grant shall be void for the not recitall And the cheife Justice cited one Phillpotts Case to be adjudged in the 2. of Eliz. That where the King made a Lease for one and twenty yeares and after reciting the said Lease grants the reversion to another and before that the second Letters Patents were sealed the first Lessee surrendred And said that the second Grant was adjudged void for the King intended to passe a reversion and now he shall have a Possession and all that which is said to be in case of Land Now let us see how it shall be in case of office and for that if a common person hath â—n office in Fee and grants that for life and after grants the Fee simple to the King and the King will grant that to another there he ought to recite the common persons Grant as well as if it had been his one Grant for there is not properly a reversion of an office as the Book cited by my Brother Williams sayd Secondly if the office be recited in Esse and be not in Esse the Grant is void as Blanyes Case is in the Lord Dyer 3 Eliz. 197. 47. And this sufficeth for recitalls Then for certainty of the Kings Grant it is said in the 2. R. 3. it is said that the Grants of the King ought to be made in certaine and for that where the King there Grants to Sir John Spencer that he shall not be Sheriff this was void for the incertainty of the place But if the Grant had been of such a County or such a County the Grant should be good Also there ought to be certainty of Estates as it is in 18. H. 8. Where the King gives Lands to
every Knight and that diverse of those Fees were received and this office being litigious were delivered to be detained in Deposito and to be delivered to him which was Officer and the plaintiff brought an Action by the name of Chester as Officer and recovered those Fees and this was resolved good Seisin and also that Seisin after the grant of the Office and before the investing of the Patentee by the Marshall was good for the Investing was but a ceremony it was also resolved that where an office extends to all the parts of England and that here an Assise doth not lie in any County though that the dissesin were made in one County but the Assise be brough for the profit of the office in one County and not for the office it selfe 43. Ed. 3. Feoffments and Deeds That by Grant of the profits of a Mill and Livery the Mill it selfe passes so that taking of the profits is dissesin of the office also it was objected that the Demandant was no officer for though that he hath a Patent of it yet he was not Invested nor Installed in the office which appeares to the Marshall and for that he was no Officer and so hath no cause to have Action And that this is an office which is incident and annexed to the office of Earle Marshall and though that he be not Earle Marshall yet there are Commissioners have his power and authority and for that the Investing and Instalment of the Plaintiff in the said office appeares to the said Commissioners but it was resolved cleerely by all the Justices that the Demandant was Officer by the Kings Grant without any Installation or Investing and that this without that all the Fees and Profits of the office appertayning to him and that the Investing and Installation was but a ceremony in the same manner as if the King hath a Donative and gives that to another the Donee shall be in actuall possession by the gift without any Induction or other ceremony But admitting that the office were annexed to the office of Earle Marshall then it was agreed that the Commissioners cannot give it as the cheife Justice of the Common â—ench hath divers offices appertaining to his place and he may dispose of them But if he die the King in time of vacancy nor the most ancient Judges cannot give or dispose of any of them being void as it appeares by Serrogates Case Eliz. Dyer And so the cheife Justice is made and allwaies hath been made by Patent and so are the other Justices and for that they cannot be made by Commissioners and so the cheife Justice of England hath all times been made by Writ and for that cannot be made by Patent nor by Commission And so in the case at the Barr though that the Commissioners have the power and authority of the Earle Marshall yet they are not Earle Marshall it was also objected that the Fees were not due to the Plaintiff for that he did not attend But to that it was answered and resolved that the Fees were due to the office and for that non attendance of the office was no forfeyture of the Fees And upon these resolutions the Recognitors found for the Demandant according to the direction of the Court. Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Godsall GODS ALL and his Wife The Proclamations of the Fyne were well and duly entred in the Originall remaining with the Chirographer But in the Transcript with the Custos brevium was error and it seemeth that this notwithstanding the Fyne was good but the Transcript was amended Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench The Town of Barwicke THE King which now is by his Letters Patents Incorporated the Mayor Bayliffs and Burgesses of Barwicke and granted to them the execution of the Returne of all Writs And after a Writ of Extendi facias was directed to them and they made no returne of that and upon this was the question if that shall be executed by them or by the Sheriff of Northumberland And it seemed to Nicholls Serjeant that argued for the Plaintiff in the extent that desired execution and the returne of that that they ought to make execution and returne for it seemes to him that this was English and that this appeares by the Act of Parliament by which the Incorporation was confirmed and so it appeares also by the Letters Patents of the King by which the Incorporation is made for if it were not English neither the Letters Patents nor the Act of Parliament are sufficient to make Incorporation of that and also they certified Burgesses to the Parliament of England And the Kings Bench sent Habeas Corpus to it and for the not returne of that inflicted a Fyne upon the Corporation See 21. Ed. 3. 49 and 1. Ed. 4 10. But Hutton Serjeant seemed to the contrary and that they ought not to make execution for he said it is a part of Scotland and not part of England and it was conquered from that and it was a Sherifwicke and hath the same priviledges of ancient times which they now have by their new Grant See 24 Ed. 1. and 2. Ed. 2. Obligation c. That one Obligation dated there shall not be tryed in England and also that it is not within the County of Northumberland nor part of it nor the Sheriff of Northumberland cannot meddle in it see 2. H. 7. 31. 26. H. 6. 23. and it is adjourned It seemes that Jacob and James are all one name for Jacobus is-Latine for them both but Walmesley conceived that if he be Christened Jacob otherwise it is as if one be Christened Jacob and another James then they are not one selfe same name Note that Coke cheife Justices said that if Commissioners by force of Dedimus potestatem take a Fine of an Infant that they are Fynable and ransomable to the value of their Lands and that this shall be sued in the Star chamber Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609 In the Common Bench. Robinson RObinsons Case A man devises Lands to his Wife for life the remainder to his Son and if his Son dies without Issue not having a Son that then it should remaine over and it seemed that this it a good Estate tayl and it was adjudged accordingly If a man makes a Lease for three yeares or such a small Tearme to his Son or Servant to try an Ejectione Firme or if it be made to another Inferion by a Superior which cannot countenance the Suit it shall not be intended Maintenance nor buying of Tytles which shall be punished Trinity 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. NOte an Attorney of the Common Bench was cited before the High Commission and committed to the Fleet for that he would not swear upon Articles by the Commissioners ministred and Habeas Corpus was awarded to deliver him and a Prohibition to the Court of high Commission see 1. and 2. Eliz. Scroggs case
against three Executors two of them are out lawed and the third pleads and Verdict against him and it was resolved that the Judgement shall be against all by the Statute of 9. Ed. 3. for they all are but one Executor and the Cost shall be against him which pleades if the others confesse or suffer Judgement by default And there shall be but one Judgement and not diverse see 17 Ed. 3. 45. b. 11 H. 6. Upon a Venire Facias awarded the Sheriff returnes but 21. and the Habeas Corpora was against 21. only and this was also returned and upon that ten appeared and upon this Tales was awarded and triall had and but ten of the principall Pannell sworne And this was Error but if twelve of the principall Pannell had appeared and served it seemes that it shall not be error for so it was resolved in Graduers case where twenty three were returned but twelve appeared and tryed the Issue and this was resolved to be good and no error Michaelmasse 7 Jacobi 1609. In the common Bench. Buckmer against Sawyer A Man seised of Land in Gaelvelkind hath Issue three Daughters that is A. B. and C. deviseth all his Land to A. in tayl the remainder of one halfe to B. in tayl the remainder of the other halfe to C. in tayl and if B. died without Issue the remainder of her Moytie to C. and her Heires and if C. died without Issue the remainder of her Moytie to B. and her Heires the Devisor dies A. and B. dies And the question was if C. shall have a Formedon in remainder only or severall Formedons for this Land And it seemed to all the Justices that one Formedon lieth well for all for that that it was by one selfe same conveiance though that the Estate come by severall deaths and this Action was to be brought by the Heire of C. after the death of C. See the three and four Phil. and Mary Dyer Note that after appearance of a Jury and after that divers of them were sworn others were challenged so that it could not be taken by reason of default of Jurors But a new Distringas awarded and at the day of the returne of that these which were sworn before appeared and then were challenged But no challenge shall be allowed for that that they were sworn before if it be not of after time to the first appearance Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609 In the Common Bench. Baylie against Sir Henry Clare BAYLIE against Sir Henry Clare the Writ was of two parts without saying in three parts to be divided And it seemed to Nicholls Serjeant which moved this that it was not good but error But the opinion of the Court was that it was good See 17. Ed. 3. 44. 19. Ed. 3 breife 244. 17. Assise with this difference that if there are but three parts and two are demanded there it is good without saying in three parts to be devided for when parts are demanded it is intended all the parts but one and that it is only one which remaines see the Register fol. 16. 12. Assise And it was adjudged in the Kings Bench in the case of one Jordan that demand of two parts where there are but three parts is good see 39. H. 6. Salford against Hurlston in Formedon which demanded two parts where there is but three and so of three parts where there is but four it is good without saying in three or four parts to be divided But if a man grant his part this shall be intended the halfe for Appellatio partis dimidium partis contenetur and a Writ of Covenant ought to be of two parts without saying in three parts to be divided for so is the forme and if in such case in three parts to be divided be incerted the Writ shall abate see Thelwell in his digest of Writs 146. and by Coke if a man bring Ejectione Firme for ten Acres and by evidence it appeares that he hath but the halfe Ex vigore Juris it shall not be good but he said he would submit his opinion to the Judgement of ancient Judges of the Law which have often time used the contrary Note that the Husband may avoid his Deed that he hath Sealed by the duresse of Imprisonment of his Wife or Son But not of his Servant and so Mayor and Commonalty may avoid a Deed sealed by duresse of Imprisonment of the Mayor for it is Idemptity of person between the Husband and the Wife See 21. Ed. 4. and 7. Ed. 4. A man may avoid Seâ—sin for payment of Rent by coersion of distresse but not his Deed. Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Payn and Mutton IN an Action upon the case by Payne against Mutton the Plaintif counts that the Defendant called him Sorcerer and Inchantor And agreed by all the Justices that Action doth not lie for Sorcerer and Inchantor are those which deale with charmes or turning of Bookes as Virgill saith Carminibus Circes socios mutavit ulissis which is intended Charmes and Inchantments and Conjuration is of Con et nico that is to compell the Divell to appeare as it seemes to them against his will but which is that to which the Devill appeares voluntarily and that is a more greater offence then Sorcery or Inchantment which was adjudged that Action doth not lie for calling a man Witch and said that he bewitched his Weare that he could not take any Fishes Dodridge the Kings Serjeant saith that an Action lieth for calling a woman gouty pockye Whore and said that the Pox had eaten the bottome of her Belly out and so it was adjudged that it lieth well for these words get thee home to thy pokey Wife the Pox hath eaten off her Nose But for the Pox generally Action doth not lie But if he saiâ—h that he was laid of the Pox then Action well lieth for then it shall be intended the great Pox. Note that in Prohibition and Replevin the Defendant may have nisi prius by Proviso without default of the Defendant for he himselfe is re vera Defendant and there are two Actors that is the Plaintiff and Defendant But the Court appointed that Presidents should be searched the Plaintiff is not bound to prosecute Cum Effectu in this Court as he is in the Kings Bench And it was agreed that the manner of Pleading was agreement as for Returno Habendo in the Replevin and Pro consultatione habenda in the Prohibition Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench Miller and Francis MYLLER Plaintiff in Replevin against Thomas Francis the case was Richard Francis was seised of Land held in Socage and deviseth that to John his eldest Son for a hundred yeares the Remainder to Thomas his second Sonn for his life and made his four other youngest Sonns his Executors and after made a Feoffment to the sayd uses the Remainder to the sayd John his eldest Son in tayl
annex Fee to a necessary Office to be taken of the Subjects but it was objected that the Alneger had no Fee and if he had that he was abridged of that by the Statute of 2 Ed. 3. 14. Where it is sayd that they shall be ready to make proofe when they should be required to measure without taking any thing of the Merchant but this refers only to the Maiors and Bailiffs of Towns where such Cloathes shall come and not to the Alneger and that the Statute of 11 Ed. 3. chapter 3. consists upon two parts First that Clothiers may make Cloth of what length and breadth that they will The second that no Cloth shall be brought into England Wales or Scotland but that which is made in them and then if the Clothiers have such liberty to make Cloath of what length and breadth they will then there is no need of Alneger As to that it was answered that there was need of him to see and search the Goodness of that as well as the length and breadth And also the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. chap. 4. Provides that all Clothes vendable which shall be sold whole Cloathes in England in whose hands soever they are shall be measured by the Alneger of the King and the Statute of 27 Ed. 3 chapter 4. Statute the first provides that no Cloathes shall be forfeited though they be not of the same Assise but the Alneger of the King shall measure the Cloath and mark it with such a mark that a man may know how much that contains so for these Statutes and for the reasons aforesaid it appears that it belongeth to the Office of an Alneger to survey measure and marke Cloathes as well by the Common Law as by the Statute Law It was objected first that the Statute of 27 Ed. 3. limits and appoints that the Alneger should measure broad Cloath and doth not make mention of any other Cloathes but broad Cloathes and for that it seems that he shall not meddle with any other Cloathes but it appears by diverse Accounts that he should meddle with Wadlowes and Sayes and the Statute of the 17 R. 2. chap. 2. Provides that none shall sell any Cloath before that it be measured by the Alneger of the King and that none shall make any deceit in Kerseys The second Objection that Cloathes of Lesser Assise then halfe broad Cloath the Alneger shall take nothing by the Statute of 27 Ed. 3. This is intended of Broad Cloath which hath used to be sold and these be in lenght above the broad Cloath and in breadth as Kerseyes and others were but as Remnants which have not been used to be sold no subsidye was due by the Common Law for that is granted by the Statute of 27 Eliz. And in this Grant two things are to be considered First the Statute of 2 Ed. 3. and the Statute made at Northampton where it was petitioned to the Parliament that the King would remit the penalties aad the Kiug should have recompence for the loss and for this the Statute gives subsidy this was no private gift but a publick gift and the reason of this was the retribution of his loss and the King payd for it and that for this he should have a Subsidy Secondly Woolls are the continuall Treasure of the Realm and let them be of what nature they will they are called Panui And for that when the King hath a settled Inheritance it is no reason that the slight of an Artist should prejudice the King And it appeares by the Statute of 11 H. 4. 7. that was made to prevent the barrelling of Clothes and the making of them into Garments and the transporting of them beyond Sea And also the third reason is usage for all other clothes pay Subsidy and there is no other Law to charge them but the Statute of 27 Ed. 3. 4. That this subsidy is setled in the King and no devise of man may divest it the Statute of 27. Ed. 3. and 47. Ed. 3. Set down and alter the length and breadth of clothes and yet the Custome remaines The fifth objection that the Statute doth not extend in equity to a thing which is not in Rerum natura at the time of the making of the statute which is false position for how can makers of statutes prevent all mischeifes Eaton and Studdes case Com. Aristotle in Ethicks liber 5. chap. 10. saith that Equitas est correctio legis generatim late qua parte deficit And Bracton in his first Book of new Division Ch. 3. saith that Equitas est rerum convenientia que in paribus causis paria desiderat jura omnia bene coequi paret dicitur equitas quasi equalitas and for that it is enacted by the Statute of 11 Ed. 1. Acton Burnell for understanding of the Statute that if praysers of Goods prayse them at too high a value that they themselves shall have them at the same price at which they were praysed and after another Statute is made which provides that lands shall be extended upon a Statute which is taken to be within the Statute of Acton Burnell which was made before and so it appears by Littleton that the Statute of Glocester provides that warranty by Tenant by the Curtesie shall not bind the Heir without Assets and an Estate tayl was not then created but it was afterwards created by the Statute of Westminster 2. which was made the 13 of Ed. 2. Yet this Warranty shall not binde the Heire in tayl and also two objections have been made against the Patent First That it was against an expresse statute Secondly That it did not observe any rate or proportion proportionable to the quantity of the peece to that he answered that it is not against any statute see 7 Ed. 4. 2. 27. H 7. 5. H. 8. 2. 1. and 2. Phil. and Mary It is not against any of those for those provides and ordaines that there shall be Wardens for the better performance of all things which are to be done by the Alneger and doth not deprive the King of any thing given to him by any former statute but adds further care and deligence and when there is a Law which adds care and Manner and Forme to a former Law That doth not abridge and deprive the former Law of any thing given by that and if the Wardens do not do their Office yet that cannot prevent but that the Alneger may do it which to him belongeth as in 1 Ed. 4. 2. For Indentures taken in Sheriffs Turnes which should be delivered by Indenture to the Justices yet the Justices may proceed though they be not delivered by Indenture and so it is in 43. Ed. 3. 11. The Sheriff ought to array his Pannell four daies before the taking of that and adjudged that if he doth not it shall be no error in 43. Ed. 3. Assise 22. and so the Statute of 5. and 6. of Ed. 6. provides that the Mayor appoints
to viewers and searchers this doth not abridge the power of the Alneger for this is but an addition of greater care and diligence and by the statute of 39. and 43. Eliz. If upon a search they find any forfeyture they shall have it but if they do not find the Alneger may find it and then the King shall have it And to the Second he answered that true it is for every 64. of clothes the Alneger ought to have foure pence for his Fee and though that some peeces of cloth are more broade then others yet the lobour of the Alneger to measure them is all one So he concluded and demanded Judgement for the plaintiff Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Rutlage against Clarke IN Account the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant hath received of his money by the hands of a stranger to give an account The Defendant pleades in Bar that he received to deliver over to a stranger the which he hath done accordingly without that that he received it to make any of account otherwise then in this manner and it was resolved that the Plea in Bar was good without traverse for when he received the money he is to deliver it over or to give an account of it to the Plaintiff so that he is accountable Conditionally but the traverse is repungnant to the Plea though it be otherwise or another way against the Book of 9. Ed. 4. 15 See 41. Ed. 3. 7. 1. Ed. 5. 22. H. 6. 49 21 Ed. 4. 4. 66 1. Ed. 5. 2. that it is a good Bar without traverse But Brooke in abridging the case of 21. Ed. 4. 66 in Title of account saith that it seemes that the traverse ought to be without that that he was his receiver in other manner and there and in the Book at large are that Justices that is Coke Nele and Vavasor against Bryan that it ought to be traversed But here in the principall case it was adjudged that the traverse made the Plea ill Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Dunmole against Glyles THE case was this Grand-Father Father and Son the Grand-Father was possessed of a Tearme for two and twenty yeares to come devised to the Son the Land for one and twenty yeares and that the Father should have it during the Mynority of the Son and makes the Son his Executor and dies the Son being within the age of one and twenty yeares the Father enters into the Land and makes a Lease for seven yeares by Indenture untill the Son came to full age the Father makes his Son his Executor and dies The Son enters by force of the devise made by the Grand-Father And the question was if the Son shall avoid the Lease made by his Father and it was agreed that he might in proofe of which a Judgement was cyted which was in the Kings Bench Mich. 5. of Eliz. Rot. 459. or 499. In the Prioresse of Ankoresse Case where a Tearme was devised to one and if he died within the Tearme then to such of the Daughters of the Devisor which then should not be preferred the Devisor dieth the Tearme was extended for the Debt of the first Devisee and then he died the extent was avoided by the Daughters not preferred and they grounded their Judgement upon the former Judgements in Weltden and Eltingtons case and Paramores and Yardleys case in the Comment and for that the Law intends that a Devisor is Inops consillij and for that his devise shall have favourable construction according to his intent appearing within the devise and it was said by Coke that in many cases a man may make such an Estate by devise that he cannot make by an Act executed in his life time as it was adjudged in Graveners case where a man devises his Lands to his Executors for payment of his Debts that there the Executors have Interest that there the Executor of Executors shal have that and such Estate cannot be executed by Act in the life of the Devisor and so it was concluded by them all that the Son shall avoid the Lease made by the Father for the Devise was Executory and doth not vest till the full age of the Son and then Executor and shall avoid all Acts made by the Father by which Judgement was given accordingly Freeman against Baspoule See 9. Coke 97. b. THE case was this A. was indebted to B. and they both died the Heire of A. for good consideration assumed to the Administrator of B. that he would pay to the said Administrator the said Debt and for the not payment of that according to the Assumption the Administrator after brought an Action and then the said Heire and the Administrator submitted themselves to the award and arbitrement of C. and became bound one to the other to stand to the award accordingly so that the said Arbitrator makes his award of all the matters and controversies between them before such a day C. the Arbitrator before the day recyted the Assumpsit and the debt as aforesaid and agreed that the Heire should pay the Administrator so much money and that published according to their submission And in Action upon the case Nullum fecit Arbitrium was pleaded and upon demurrer it was objected that the award was void First For that it was for one party only and nothing was arbitrated of the other and to prove this the Book of 7. H. 6. 6. was cited and 39. H. 6. 9. see 2 R. 3. 18. b. And this also appeares by the pleading of an award for he which pleades it that he hath performed all things which are to be performed of his part And that the other pleades performance of all thing which are to be performed of his part by which it appeares that there ought to be performance of both parts and by consequence one award to both parties according to 22. H. 6. 52. Secondly that the award was void for that that the submission was of all controversies so that the Arbitrator delivered his award of all controversies c. And there was no award of the said Suit between the parties and for that he hath not made an Arbitrement of all controversies and by that the award was void and to prove that the Bookes in 4 Eliz. Dyer 216. Pumfreies award and 19. Eliz. Dyer 356. 39. and 39. H. 6. 9. Where it is said that if the submission were of all things and the Arbitrement of one only that is a void Arbitrement Thirdly For that it was not limited within the award at what day nor at what place the money should be paid by the Heire to the Administrator and for this cause also it shall be void for it ought to be payd immediatly and if the Heire cannot find the Administrator he forthwith hath forfeyted his Obligation and for that in this point it is uncertain and for that shall be void as it is in Samons case 5. Coke 77. b. Where
Booke of 33 H. 6. 47. is but the opinion of Prisot and Lacon And the principall case there depends upon another point Fitz. 246. before cyted is but a quere and Eitz himself doubted of it and the book of 44 Edw. 3. Fitz. Execution 41. is but the opinion of Percye But the Judgment upon the principall point is otherwise And the principall case in Blunfields case 5 Coke was upon another point also as it appears by the Booke and so he concluded with the Judgment before cyted to be in the Kings Bench Pasche 43 Eliz. between Williams and Cuttris which was direct in the point according to his opinion and prayed Judgement for the Defendants in the Scire Facias and it is adjourned This Case was argued in Trinity Tearm next ensuing by all the Judges of the Common Pleas and first Foster the youngest Judg argned that the death of the Defendant in Prison being in Execution was no satisfaction but the Plaintiffe may have a new execution against his Executors for he said it was an old saying That debts went before deadly sinne And that every one ought to satisfie his debts by the Law of God before Legacies given to charitable uses And so by the Law of the Realm if it be not the default of the Plaintiffe as it was not in our Cause for the death of the Defendant in Prison was the act of God and the Executors have confessed by pleading that they have assets and the Plaintiff hath nothing but griefe and pain and he said as before that at the Common Law no Capias lay till the Statutes of Marlebridge Chap. 23. and Westminster the 2. Chap. 11. Capias was given in Accompt and then the statute of 25 Edw. 3. Chap. 17. gives such like Processe in debt which was in Accompt and then in Accompt Capias ad Computandum lyes and in debt Capias ad Satisfaciendum And if in Accompt the Defendant was adjudged to accompt and Capias ad Computandum be awarded and he taken by force of that and committed to Prison and here dyes a new Writ shall be awarded So in debt if the Defendant be taken by Capias ad satisfaciendum new Writ shall be awarded against his Executors see 1 Edw. 3. 24. 1 H. 7. 5 Coke 92. Blundfields case for it is only the default of the Defendant that the debt is not satisfied and for that it is no reason that the Plaintiff should be prejudiced by that and 11 H. 4. 44. and 45. by Skreene Debt upon an Escape doth not lye against the Executor of the Sheriff but new Processe shall be awarded against the Prisoner which is escaped for a man shall not take advantage of his own wrong as in the case of Littleton If the sonn makes disseisin and enfeoffs the Father which dyes the sonne shall not take advantage of this Discent because he was particeps criminis and he said it was no wrong to any if execution were made of the goods of the Testator and it is mischievous to the Plaintiffe for he shall loose his debt And to the Objections which have been made that there is an end of Processe when the Defendant is taken by Capias and dyes in Execution the which he agreed as long as the Defendant lived but after his death he may make new election 47 Ed. 3. Fitz. Execution 41. by Percye And it appears by the pleading in 17 Ed. 3. That Judgment Execution without satisfaction is no Plea in Bar. And also he cyted the Register 285. and Fitz. Na. Bre. 246. 19. Ed. 3. 21 H. 6. 5. where the Plaintiff had effectual execution which was satisfaction 44 Ed. 3. 21 Edw. 4. 1 Edw. 4. 8 H. 7. 16 H. 7. to the same purpose for which Dodridge cyted them before And also he said that the Judges have always had respect to the satisfaction of Debts and for that would not bayle one in Execution upon a Writ of Errour where Errour indeed was assigned but suffers him to remain in Prison till the Judgment were reversed But here the Plaintiff hath neither Bale nor any satisfaction but griefe and pain And in the 21 of H. 7. the Sheriff returned that the Defendant had no land but lands in use and was adjudged that he should execute the Elegit upon these Lands such was the respect that the Judges have to Executions and to the Case of 35 H. 6. 47. This is but the opinion of Lacon which erred in the principall case and may as wel erre in this point and his opinion also is so intricately penned that he cannot understand it And Martins opinion also in 7 H. 6. 7. is against the Judgment of the principall case And to the Objection that the Party had determined his Election by the Execution of the Capias he agreed to that with this difference that is if the Plaintiff sue Scire facias the Sheriff levyed part that this notwithstanding the Plaintiff may have Capias for the residue and so Elegit after Fieri facias or Capias for there is not any Entry made of awarding of fieri facias or Elegit But the Plaintiff only sued that out of the Court see 44 Edw. 3. 18 Ed. 4. 31 Ed. 3. 17 Ed. 3. 20 Ed. 2. 22 Assis 17. H. 7. 1. And so he coucluded that the Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff in the scire facias Warburton Justice conceived the contrary that is that the Plaintiff in the Scire facias shall be barred And he agreed and said that none will deny but that Debts shall be paid but that ought to be according to the rules of the Law For by the Common Law the body of the Defendant was not lyable to execution and then it is to examine in what cases he is at this day subject to execution and though in Trespasse Capias lyes at the Common Law but in Debt no Capias lyes till the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. which gives the same processe which was in Accompt and this is as well in the Originall processe as in the Judiciall and Elegit was first given by the statute of Westminst 2. And this was of the half of the Land But Levari facias was at the Common Law of the profits of the Land That in debt Acceptance and Election binds the party and so this remains for the said Statutes being in the affirmative doth not take away that nor abate it and by that if Conusee of a statute accepts Land extended at too high a value he is bound by that 22 Edw. 3. 32. H. 6. 15 H. 7. And that when the Party hath Judgment he hath election to have execution by Fieri facias Elegit or Capias for he hath determined his Election So if he makes his Election of a Capias at first he cannot have Elegit after 30 Edw. 3. adjudged 32 Edw. 3. Processe 52. according Long 5 of Edw. 4. by Markeham and others and the reason which is given in
part this shall not extend to other persons Commoners and it is like to the case in 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. 13. A man makes a Lease for years and covenants that the Lessee shal injoy the Tearm without eviction of the Lessor or any claiming under him if he be evicted by a stranger this shal be no breaking of the Covenant for a stranger is no party to the Deed nor claims under the Lessor and for this his Entry shal not give Action to the Lessee and so is the Case in 21 H. 7. between the Prior of Castleton and the Dean of Saint Stephens which was adjudged the 18 of H. 7. Pasch Rot. 416. Though that no Judgment be reported where it appears that the King Ed. 3. seised al the Lands of Priors aliens in time of War for that that they carried the Treasure of the King out of the Realme to the Kings Enemies and so it was made by H. 4. also during the time of his Reign and then in the second year of the Reign of King H. 5. by a statute made between the King and the sayd Priors aliens al the Possessions of the sayd Priors were resumed into the hands of the sayd King and adjudged in 21. H. 7. 1. before that this shal not extend to the Prior of Castleton which had Annuities issuing out of the Possessions of the sayd Priors for the said Prior of Castleton was not party to the sayd act of Parliament and for that he shal not be prejudiced by that and so it was adjudged 25. and 26. Eliz. In the Court of VVards in the case of one Boswell where the King made a Lease for years which was voydable and after by another Patent granted the Inheritance and then came the statute of 18. Eliz. to confirm al Patents made by the sayd Queen within her time and adjudged that the sayd Act shal not make the sayd patent voyd to the Patentee which is a stranger to the act of the Parliament but only against the Queen her Heirs and successors for by the statute it is made only against one person only and shal not be good against another though there be no saving of such person in the sayd Act. And also he conceived that the statute of 22 Ed. 4. Doth not extend to any woods in forrest in which another hath Common for it doth not extend only to such woods which a common person hath in the Kings forrest or common person and that it may be inclosed for the space of three years after the cutting of the wood in this before the making of the sayd statute and this was no wood in which an Estranger had Common as it appears by the Preamble of the sayd statute and then after in the sayd statute it is sayd such woods may be inclosed And also he conceived where the statute sayth that they may inclose the same Grounds with such sufficient hedges able to keep out all manner of Beasts and Cattell out of the same Grounds but this refers to the quality of the hedge for before it ought to be a small Ditch and by this statute it ought to be with such hedg which shall be able c. And it shall not be referred to the manner of the Cattell But for the difference between Beasts of Forrest Beasts of Chase and Beasts of Warrain see the Register fol. 96. 43 Ed. 3. 13. 12. H. 8. 12. b. Hollinsheads Cronicle fol. 20. b. 32. And he conceived that Sir Francis Barrington is such a Vendee of Wood that is within the statute though that he be Vendee of Inheritance and hath a greater Estate then Vnica vice but for that that he conceived that it was not within the statute for other reasons before cyted he would not dispute it But he conceived if this had been the question of the Case that this was within the statute and also he conceived that this was a generall statute of which the Judges shall take notice without pleading of this And this reason was for that that the King was party to it and this which concernes the King being the head concernes all the Body and Common Wealth and so it was adjudged in the Chancery in the case of Serjeant Heale that the statute by which the Prince is created Prince of VVales was a general statute and for that see the Lord Barkleyes case in the Commentaries Also he conceived that the said statute of 22 of Ed. 4. was repealed by 35. H. 8. for this was in the Negative that none shal cut any wood but only in such manner as is prescribed by the said statute and for that shal be a repeale of the first and that by the first Branch of the sayd statute it appeares that if such giving of Wood in his own Soyl within any forrest he cut to his own use he cannot inclose and by that Branch Commoner is not excluded but by the second Branch it is provided that he may inclose the fourth part of his Wood and cut that in such manner as is appointed by the said statute and then he shal loose his own Common in the three other parts and so he concluded that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff which is the Commoner and Judgment was entred accordingly Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Cesar against Bull. THomas Cesar Plaintiff in Assise against Emanuel Bull for the Office of Clock-Keeper to the Prince this he claims by grant of the King during his own Life with the fee of two shillings a day for the exercising of it and three pound yearly for Livery and the patent purports only the Grant of the Office and not words of creation of the Office as Constituimus officium c. And the Plaintiff could prove that it was an ancient Office and for that was non-suited in the Assise though that the Tenant had made default before Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Heyden against Smith and others THE Plaintiff counts in Trespasse against these Defendants and these Defendants justifie as Servants to Sir John Leventhorp who was seised of a free-hold of Land in which the Tree for which the action was brought was cut and so demands Judgment if action the Plaintiff replyes that the place where c. was parcel of a house and twenty Acres of Land which time out of mind c. have been demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll which was parcel of the Mannor of A. of which the sayd Sir John Leventhorp was seised in his Demesne as of see and by Copy at a Court held such a day and year granted the said Messuage and twenty acres of Land whereof c. To the Plaintiff and his Heirs according to the custome of the said Mannor and prescribes that within the sayd mannor was a Custome that every Copy-holder may cut the boughs of all the Pollingers and Husbands growing upon his Copy-hold for fire to be burnt upon his
22 Assise 24. 48 Ed. 3. 8. Register 47. And in case that one common person hath any Office which he cannot exercise by a Deputy yet if he be imployed in the Kings service as if he be made Ambassador out of the Realm or other such imployment he may during his absence make a Deputy and this shal not be forfeiture of his Office and an Earl in ancient time was not only a Councellour of the King but by his Degree was Prefectus sive prepositus commitatus as it appears by Cambden 106 107. Comes prefectus Satrapas which is Prepositus comitatus and was in place of the Sherif at this day and when that he was Sherif though that he had the custody of the county committed unto him which was a great trust yet then by the Common Law he might make an under Sherif which was but a Deputy the like Holinsheads Chronicle 463. Amongst the customes of the Exchequer he called the under Sheriff Senescallus which agreed with the Definition before for he held the place of Sherif himself and by the statute of Westminster 8. chapt 39. It is sayd that Vice comes est viccarius commitatus and if a Barony discend upon the Sheriff yet he shall continue Sheriff 13. Eliz Dyer and Britton 43. If a Rybaud strike a Baron or a Knight he shall loose his Land And Tenant by Knights service may execute it by Deputy 7. Ed. 3. Littleton And if it be so in the case of a Sheriff which hath the County committed to him that he may make a Deputy by the Common Law upon that he inferred that the Steward which hath but the Mannors of the King committed to him that he may make a Deputy And also he said that the words in the last clause that is Volentes precipentes that the Officers and the Subjects should be attendant expoundes and declares the intent of the Queen for the words are Omnibus premisses and the Grant of the Office of the Stewardship is one of the premisses and so he concluded upon these reasons that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff and that the Grant was good and the Action wel maintainable And oâ— this opinion were Warburton and Foster Justices And Judgement was given accordingly this Trinity Tearm 8. Jacobi And Coke cheife Justice remembred a Report made by him and Popham cheife Justice of England upon reference made to them that this Patent was good and that the Earle of Rutland might exercise this Office by Deputation and he conceived that there were other words in the Patent which were found by the Jury that the said Earle should have the said Office Cum omnibus Juribus Jurisdictionibus c. as full c. as any other Patent hath been had and withall the Appurtenances and it seemed that a former Patentee had power by expresse words to execute that by a Deputy and he conceived though these words Adeo plene c do not inlarge the Estate yet this inlargeth the Jurisdiction of the Officer as in 43. Ed. 3. 22. Grant is made by the King of a Mannor to which an advowson is appendant Adeo plene tam amplis modo forma c. And these words past the advowson without naming that and he said it was adjudged Hillary 40. Eliz. in Ameridithes case where the case was the Queen granted a Mannor Adeo plene intigre in tam amplis modo forma as the Countesse of Shrewshury or any other had the same Manno r and Queen Kathrin had the same Mannor and diverse liberties with it of great value during her life and adjudged that these liberties should passe also by this Patent by these words and so in the principall case if the former Patent had been found also by the Jury and so was the opinion of Popham and him and was certified accordingly FINIS A Table of the Second Part. ARch-Bishops Jurisdiction 1 2. 28. Admiralties Jurisdiction 10 11. 13 16 17. 26. 29. 31. 37. Arbitrement satisfaction what 31. 131. Assumpsit 40 41. 273. Arrianisme one committed for it 41. Assets 47. Almony 36. Apurtenant what shall be said 53 Action sur Case by a Commoner for words 55. 84. 100. 119. 122. Avowry the whole plea 62 63. 102 Agreement what 72 Account 76 Audita Querela 81. 83. 168 Atturnment good by one under age where and why 84 Award void 100 Age not allowed in Dower 118 Administration repealable 119 Accord with satisfaction good plea where where not 131 Attorney ought to finde Baile in an Originall not Bill 134 Action sur Assumpsit 137 Assuâ—psit against an Executor where maintainable 138 Assets in Formedon what 138 Attachment 144. 168 Assent to a Legatee 173 Ayd prayer 191 Attachment for contempt of the Court 216 Accessary null unlesse there is Principall 220 Assignment of an estate suspended 225 Assise of novel Disseisin 229 Abatment of brief per entry 231 232 Abatement de facto and by plea differ in what 235 Agreement and Arbitrement good pleas where 132 Agreement by word to keepe backe tythes 17 Admiralls Commission for measuring of Corne 29 Administration during minority of c. 83 Atturney brings Debt for Trees 99. Arbitrement 130. 131. Arrest of Judgment 167. Acts what to make an Executor de seu tort 184. Attachment of Priviledge for an Estate against the Marshall c. 266. Assise where it may lye sans view 268. Assise the Recognitors challenged ibid Ajournment of the Tearm 278. Annuity or Writ of Covenant where 273. Arbitrement submission and revocation 290. Approvement of Common 297. Account 308. Award submission 309. Arbitrement 310 Arbitrement who it binds 323. Assise del Office 328. B BIshop not displaceable 7. Baron alone cannot sue for not setting forth Tithes without the feme proprietory 9 Ballast granted to Trinity House a Monopoly 13. Baron and Feme joyn where 66. Baron Judgment against an Executor 83 Baron how chargeable pur sa feme 92. 93. 95. Bar in trespass 121. By-Laws whom they bind 180. To what extended 258. Baron and feme take by intirity where 226. Barwick whether part of England or Scotland 270. Bayle 293 Banckrupt actionable 299. C CHase an action not to be divided 56 Cui in vita of Copy-hold 79. Custome for pound breach 90. Common Recovery 16. Copiholder shall hold charged where 208. Confirmation to a copiholder destroys common 209 210. Consultation after it no Prohibition grantable upon the same Libell 247. Cape grand Petit 253 Cause of a commitment traversable 266. Count in trespass after the teste del Breife 273. Covenant to pay Rent 273 Continuance Ibidem Chellenge 275 Customes of London argued by the Justices 284. 285. 286. Certiorari 312. Capias ad satisfaciendum no satisfactory execution 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. Copy-hold at common Law 44. Creditor may sue both heireand Executor 97. Court of Equity not proper after Judgment 97. Copyhold intayled 121. Covenants direct and collaterall how they differ 136.
Condition repugnant voyd 138. Condition in rei in persona diff 139. Covenant where it lyeth 160 Covenant express and implyed or in Law how they differ 162. Copihold customes 197. Covenant P. Administrator 207. Covenant joynt surviveth ibidem 208. Church-Wardens not interessed in church Goods 210 Consultation awarded 216. Challenge for favour 229. Challenge to the Array for action against the Sheriff 230 Consultation awarded 26 Citation for defamation 28. Charter part beyond sea where to be sued 34. Citation out of the Deocess 34 Consultation granted 26. Clerk of a Parish who shall nominate him 38. Covenant destroyed 56. Common Recovery 75. Custome 76. Incertain voyd 85 Voyd for inconveniency 86 Copyhold what Authority 77 Its nature and reason 79 It is within the statutes which speaketh of Lands and Temements 79. 80 It s severall customes 86 87 Consuetudo sola quia non totaliter disallowed 86 Customes unreasonable voyd 87 Commission to the councell in Wales 119 Caveat to a Bishop 119 Coram non Judice where 127 Commoner cannot have an Action of Trespass 147 Chase in possibility not grantable 173 Cinque Ports the custome of taking the Body of a man in Withernam not good 195 196 197 Common of a Copy-holder destroyed by confirmation 211 Corrody granted 211 Common Law where voyd 38 Clam delinquens c. 288 Covenant express doth qualifie covenant in Law where 212 213 Covenant in Law not binding Executors where 214 Copihold custome 12 15 Custome ought to be reasonable 217. Custome in the Isle of Man 217 Custome of London 218 Custome of Hallifax 218 Copyhold custome for a married-wife a Devise to her Husband 218 Court Baron cannot inquire of Felonies 219 Condition entire not to be apportioned 227 Challenge principal what is what is not 240 Cestercians their Priviledge 20 Contra formam collationis to who given 22 Contract made in the straites of Malico 30 Custome for thithing 30 Cpoihold anciently villinage 44 Corporation cannot be limited to a county 244 Certificate of a Bishop 301 Charta de foresta 325 D DEfamation Sint ex officio 28 Debt Sur Judgement 39 Debt Sur Award 48 Sur Judgement 39 40 Damages in dower 41 Devise of lands how taken 74 That executors shall sell c. 100 Devastavit where 81 83 Damages uncertain therefore a fine certain for them voyd 86 Debt Sur bill P. memorand 97 Debt Pur fees P. attorney 99 Devise of lands in cap. and the stat of 32 and 34 H. 8 expounded 105 106 107 Deed without date 107 Dower 118 execution in it 141 Debt against an Administrator 118 Dower ass by the Sheriff without jurors good 141 Damnum five injuria 148 Debt against an administrator 153 Debt sur oblig pur Pf. cove 167 176 177 Debt 177 178 pur penalty of a by-law 179 Demurrer sur evidence 183 Ddvastavit 185 Debet detinet for Rent against an administrator 202 203 Damages found intire where it is error 272 Defendant entred after the habere fac poss executed 216 Dower recompence what 132 Delapidation suit for it 27 Dreprivation for drunkenesse 37 Debt P. executor 283 against executors 183 Demurrer in ejectione firme 128 Discontinuance 142 Dower of tyth wooll 143 Devise of a lease 172 Devise to a corporation 246 Debt against an administrator during minolity 248 Debt against executors 274 Duress where 276 Distress a quasi action 289 Devise enures to bargain and sale where 291 Devise of a Tearm 308 E Ejectione firme 40 Shall not abate if the Tearm end 131 Estrepment 401 68 Election by an Executor 51 Executor refuseth when too late 58 when good ibid Ejectione firme 74 102 103 Accord with satisfaction good 130 131 Elegit 97 sur testatum 208 Extent sur stat 122 Executrix during nonage 144 Ejectione firme 168 172 168 223 Election by an executor of a legacy 173 Executor de seu tort who 184 Executor de seu tort 184 185 Executors two joyntly sued one confesse the action good 286 Elegit sur testatum where it is necessary 207 Ejectione firme Judgement in it 216 Estoppell 219 Escheate 220 Election implicit 220 221 Error sur judgement in assise 230 Entry to abate an assise what what not 235 236 Ejectione firme and a good bar where 133 Executor sued and also the heire 67 Executrix during nonage 144 Expresse covenant qualifies covenantin law 212 213 Exposition of usage 222 Estate increasing sur condition when it ought to vest or not at all 251 Error in ve fa. and hab corp 274 Essoyn day is a day in term 279 Entire services casuall 293 295 Error in prolcamation 300 Error in writ of dower 300 Common of Estovers 329 F FOrm edon lieth for copy-hold lands intayted 43 44 Forgery by Scrivener who lost his eares for it 50 Franchise the lord shal answer for his baily 50 Feme covert what she may do sans Boron 71. how punishable 9495 Fealty seisin of ser au 99 Fine amended where 101 Feoffment to a son for valuable consideration 102 Forstaller regrator and ingrosser who 109 False imprisonment 124 Feme covert how she is bound by joyning with her husb 140 141 142 Fine where it binds 154 155 Fradulent conveyances within the stat 13 Eliz. 188 Fraude what by the statute 27 Eliz 190 Fyling a writ not materiall where 216 Formedon in remainder 274 Frank almoigne gift to the Templers 21 Formedon in discender 79 Fyne and ransome 113 False imprisonment action for it 255 Fyne error in it 270 Fyne by deb potest of an infant 271 Freedome of London how many ways obtained 286 287 Forfeiture of office of the Chirographer 300 G GRants how construed 193 Grant of common extinct 222 Grantee of a reversion of what conditions he may take advantage of by the common law of what by statute 32 H. 8. 228 Generall pardon 37 Gravi queâ—ela 72 Grant le roy when not good 252 Grant le roy incorporate a burough 292 Grant of a reversion 299 Grant del roy of alnage 301 302 303 304 Grant del portership 330 Grant Pro concilio impendendo 336 Grant P. Letters Patents 333 H HAb corp granted to a brâ—wnist counted 3 Heretick his censure 4 High commissioners their jurisdiction 4 5 14 15 16 18 19 Harriot unreasonable 89 Hab. fac poss the Shereffs officers poss the plaintiff refuseth 168 Harriot service 187 Habere fa. possessionem in ejectione firme 216 Hab. corpus and prohibition to the high commissioners 18 Hospitall of St. John of Hierusalem 21 Hab. corpus granted 36 Husband and wife where they shall joyn 66 67 Hab. corpus and prohibition 271 Harriot an entire service 294 ISsue imperfect 47 Justification for calling one perjured 49 Judgment in Debt 76 preferred before a statute c. 81 Innuendo shall not help the Action 84 Jus accrescendi where it holds not 99 Information sur le statute 5 Ed. 6. Chapt. 14 108 109 110 Jurors non concluded by Pleas of the parties 150 Information for
extortion 151 Jeofailes stat 168 Judgment arrested 182 Joynt Tenants for years of a Mill and grants c. 212 Judgment in a Writ of errour 215 Intendment where 234 Judgment Sur breife abatest errour 235 Imprisonment unlawfull 20 Impropriation 24 Instruction for the Presidents of Wales 29 Judgment reversed for the Outlawry only and confirmed for the other 39 Joynture 52 53 Information sur stat 21. H. 8 chap. 13. For non-residency 54 Judgment voyd 127 Informer exhibits a Bill in the Star chamber 151 Imprisonment for a force when or not 266 Justices of Peace and Auditors ought to make Record where and when Ibid. Indemptitas nominas 270 Jurors from two countyes 272 Infant levies a Fine brings errour 278 279 K KIngs Grant voyd for defect in recitall 241 King is specially favored in the Law 249 Kings Patent how to be taken 250 L LIcense from the Ordinary where 1 License how many kinds 3 27 Legates Jurisdictions ibidem License to a Copyholder when pleadable by whom 40 Limitation and Condition their difference 68 Levant couchant what 101 Lease by a Dean 134 Livery voyd where 135 Libellous Letters 152 Law of England of what it consists 198 Lateran Councell concerning Tithes 24 License to appropriate 25 License to a Copy-holder 40 Lord of a Mannor inclose the Demesnes 168 Letter of Attorney cannot be made by a wife 248 London the custome for an Inn-holder 234 Lease to determine upon limitation 292 Letters Patents how expounded 323 License in a Forrest 323 M MArriage disagreed to at yeares of consenting c. 36 Misnosmer in an obligation what it effects 48 Marriage a gift of all goods personall 91 Merchant 4 sorts 99 Meale accounted dead victual within the stat 5 Ed. 6 chap. 14. 116 Mayme is fellony 220 Modus decimandi 33 Murther sur Thames where tryable 37 Maxime in law 43 Misnosmer of a corporation 243 Mainténance 271 Minister arrested 301 Marshall court its jurisdiction 125 126 127 N NOn-suit 41 Nisi prius record amended 41. Non-residencie the statute 21 H. 8. 13 expounded 54 Non-suit after verdict 219 Nisi prius by proviso for whom 276 Notice where requisite 278 O ORdinary cannot imprison 4 Ordinary may imprison a preist by 1. H. 7. 4. Ibid Obligation taken for a legacy incourt court Christian 11 Ordinary may transmit 28 Office granted by a Bishop 137 Occupancy where â—02 Outlary in fellony was reversed 229 Offences exorbitant what 19 20 Obligation to performe covenants 167 Officers gradâ—all of the Kings bench who 282 Obligation with condition against law or impossible 281 Outlary 313 Office exerciseable by deputy where 334 335 P PRohibitionupon the stat of 13 H. 8 chap. 9 Polygamy punishable where and how 7 Prohibitionjoynt and severallcounts 7 Prohibition surle stat de simony 7 for not settingforth of tythes 9 Prescription for tythes 31 33 34 Prohibition to the admiralty 34 to court Baron 34 Prison private and common 41 Prescription for inhabitants 178 Prohibition for common 47 Prescription none after consultation duly granted 36 Parson deprived for drunknesse 37 Proofe what 57 Priviledg out of higher court to inferiour 101 Payment directed how 107 108 Patent of a Judge 122 Papist that not actionable 166 Possibility resonable where 173 Prescription and custome do differ wherein 198 Prescription 210 211 Prohibition to court Christans 215 Prerogative del roy 219 Prescription for waife and stray 219 Paunagium quid 236 Prohibition good sans action pendecit 17 Priviledg determined 22 Processe from the admiralty 29 Prohibition not grantable after consultation 36 Possessio fratris 43 Plurality with dispensation 45 Pardon of one attaint pro false verdict 47 Prescription where good where not 64 Per que servitia 84 Prescription for beasts sans number 101 Physitians colledge the authority 256 Physitans examined by whom 257 Priviledg of attorney allowed before the Deputy Marshall where 267 Partition without naming the parts good where 275 Prohibition to the Court of request 297 Copyholder prescribeth Pro ligno combustibuli 330 Q QUare impedit 45 Quo warranto 217 Quare ejecit infra terminum 133 Quare clausum fregit where it lieth 322 Quare Vi Armis where it will and of what 331 332 334 R RIght to a spirituall Office is temporall 12 Residency where 13 Ravishment against feme covert 59 91 92 93 Replevin 84 52 149 Right the Writ 138 Remainder in a Chattell 173 Release where not good 190 Release of one Church warden shall not bind the other 216 Restitution to the Heir of an accessory where the principall reversed the outlawry 220 Reservation of Rent at Michaelmas ten or dayes after 220 Reservation not taken strictly 221 Right to a tearm not grantable 226 Revocation the power when suspended 228 Return of the sheriff where good 145 Revocation of uses 157 Remainder of a Chattell 173 Request where necessary 176 Release of Dower by Fine 175 Replevin 248 Re-entry after possession executed 253 Release 254 Return of writs granted to a corporation 270 Replevin 297 Release 300 S STatutes ecclesiasticall by whom to be expounded 2 3 Surrender an attornment where 51 Scire fac by baile 76 Scire fac against an Executor 83 Surrender by Cognisor c. 97 Statutes pro bono publ taken by equity 110 111 Summons in Dower 122 Scire facias for whom 145 Seisin of a Rent p. vicâ—â—nt 237 Submission awarded 48 Survivorship not aâ—ongst Merchants 99 Statute penall 112 Scire facias speciall non-tenure a goodplea 146 Seisin to have Assise what sufficient 241 Slaunder of an Attorney what 252 Slaunder 272 276 299 Sheriffs power what 281 Vnder sheriff how limited ibid Sheriff may limit the Authority of his Vnder Sheriff 282 Sheriff committed for taking undue Fees 283 Suit begâ—n hanging another 293 Statutes how to be understood 305 306 307 T TYthes what Lands are free of them P. 8 21 22 23 24 Taxes for Church-Reparations and other like dutyes who are chargeable and how 10 Tithes not grantable P. Parol unless by way of Retainer 11 Tithes where discharged by unity of possession 26 Transmission of causes where 27 Tenant in Dower disseised 41 Tayl its incidents 67 By Copyhold custome 77 Its Creation and nature 79 Testibus lies what comes after no part of the Deed 99 Town cannot be corporate without the assent of the Major part c 100 Trespass for a commoner good 149 By the Lord against the commoner 168 Trespasse for assault 182 Tales challenged 235 Tythes their antiquity 24 Tythes of what not payable 32 33 Trespasse for breaking of a close 65 Teste of a ven fac amended post verdict 102 Trespasse for imprisonment 124 125 Tenant pur view with warranty 191 Testatum where no writ issued 209 Tythes not paid for seven yeares of what 257 Tayl 271 Trade with Infidells without licence 296 U VEn fa. amended after verdict 102 Voucher P. attorney 167 Voucher sur bre abateable the danger 185 Verdict speciall 187 188 189 Verdict doth not cast
c. and that the Plaintif was sued there by J. S. and that hee was summoned and upon a nihill returned a capias issued according to the Custome c. And that he being an Officer there did arrest and the Court ruled him to plead the Custome particularly for holding the Court and to prescribe c. And here it is shewn that the Maior is a Justice of Peace And it doth not appear whether he did it as a Justice of Peace or Maior as 14. H. 7 8. A Justice of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest one without a Warrant in writing in his absence And Popham chiefe Justice said That although the Judges knew the Authority of the Maior by which they arrested men yet because it did not appear to them judicially as Judges it must be pleaded And a Justice of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest one if not in his presence which was granted And Fennor Justice said that the servant is not an Officer to the Maior as he is a Justice of Peace but the Constable and Walker also added that the Plea was that the Maior commanded to imprison him presently without shewing any cause which was held naught for the maior ought to temper his Authority according to Law For the Judges cannot imprison without shewing cause but them and the Maior both may command an Officer to arrest a man without shewing the cause for else before he shall be examined he may invent and frame an excuse and the accessories will flye away And Williams Justice finds that it was incertain for the Plaintif by what authority he commanded it whether as Maior or Justice of Peace and his power as a Justice of Peace the Judges knew by common Law but his power as a Maior they knew not if it be not shewed by pleading and Judgement HVggins versus Butcher Trin. 4. Jac. The Plaintif declared that the Defendant such a day did assault and beat his Wife of which she dyed such a day following to his damage 100 l. And Serjeant Foster moved that the Declaration was not good because it was brought by the Plaintiff for a Battery done upon his Wife And this being a personall wrong done unto the woman is gone by her death And if the woman had been in life hee could not have brought it alone but the woman must have joyned in the Action for the damages must be given for the wrong offered to the body of the woman which was agreed And Tanfield said that if one beat the servant of J. S. so that he die of that beating the Master shall not have an Action against the other for the battery and loss of service because the servant dying of the extreamity of the beating it is now become an offence against the Crown and turned into Felony and this hath drowned the particular offence and prevails over the wrong done to the Mr. before And his action by that is gone which Fennor and Yelverton agreed to BRown versus Crowley Pasch 5. Jac. Action of Trespass brought against Croyley for wounding the Plaintif upon the hinder part of the left legge being rendred in Latin super posteriorem partem levis libaei and the Jury found for the Plaintiff And Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment for hee said that these words levis libaei made the Declaration vitious for the incertainty for he said that levis signified light and it was an improper word for left and that judgment ought to be respited for the incertainty And Yelverton argued that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for he said the Declaration was not vitious for if the Plaintiff had declared generally that he had wounded broken or evill intreated him and had omitted those other words it had been sufficient and then the adding of those words which were not materiall but for damages did not make the Declaration vitious and he said that levus leva levum was Latin for left And whereas he hath said that he strook him super posteriorem partem levis libaei where it should have been levis libaei it was but false Latin and the Declaration shall not be made naught for false Latin And Popham said that hee shewing upon which part of the body the wound was were laid only to incense damages for the Declaration had been sufficient though they had been omitted And Justice Fennor agreed to Popham and he said it had been judged that where a man brought an Action against another for calling him strong Theife and the Jury only found that he called him Theife but not strong Theif yet the Plaintiff recovered for this word strong was to no other purpose then to increase dammages and Judgement was given for the Plaintif VIccars versus Wharton Pasch 5. Jac. Viccars brought an action of false imprisonment against Wharton and others and shews that he was imprisoned two dayes and two nights without meat or drink The Defendants come and shew that King Edward the 1. by his Letters Patents did incorporate one Village in Nottingham-shire with Bailiffs and Burgesses and that the King did ordain and make those Burgesses Justices of the Peace there and that the Defendant was Bailiâ—â— and a Justice of Peace there and that the Plaintiff did speak divers opprobrious and contumelious words of the Defendant by reason whereof they imprisoned him And shews further that the Bailiffs have used from the time of the making their Patent to imprison the disturbers of the Peace and it was held a naughty plea for a custome could not be shewn in such a manner And Tanfield held in this case that a man could not prescribe to be a Justice of peace but Justice Williams held he might prescribe to be a conservator of the Peace And Tanfield held that the King might grant that all the Burgesses and their Heires should be Burgesses which Justice Williams denyed HAll versus White Pasch 5. Jac. An action of Trespass brought against the Defendant for impounding the Plaintiffs Cattel the Defendant justifies for Common And upon that they were at issue in Derby-shire and the Jurors being sworn the Bailiff found one Bagshaw one of the Jurors rending of a Letter concerning the said cause and shewed it to the Judg and a verdict given by the Jury And this matter moved in the then Kings Bench to quash the verdict but denyed by the whole Court because the Letter and the Cause was not certified by the Postea and made parcell of it for otherwise the examination of that at the Barre after the verdict shall never quash it And so it was adjudged between Vicary and Farthing 39. Eliz. where a Church Book was given in Evidence of which you shall never have remedy except it be entred and made parcell of the Record BVtler versus Duckmonton Trin. 5 Jacobi In Trespasse upon a speciall Verdict the Case was that no demised Land to a woman if she should live sole and unmarried
the remainder to John D. bastard in Tail the Remainder to the Defendant Ro. Duckmonton in Fee the woman married with Ro. D. the Defendant the Term expired Jo. D. Tenant in Tail in remainder releases to the Husband and whether this should alter the estate of the Husband he being Tenant at sufferance was the question and adjudged by the whole Court that the Release was void and it was cheifly void because the Release was made to him in the Remainder to take effect as upon the Remainder and there was no privity and he had but a bare possession and no Freehold and 10 Eliz. Dier Lessee for years surrenders and afterwards the Lessor releases to him and held a void Release for the reason aforesaid and 31 and 32 Eliz. it hath been adjudged between Allen and Hill where a Devise was made to the woman for life if she would inhabite and continue in the house and he went and inhabited in Surrey and the Heire released to her and it was held void because she was but Tenant at sufferance and so no privity but Yelverton and Tanfield that such estate for life was not determined without Entry and Yelverton Justice demanded that when the Husband continued in possession after the Lease determined whether he should be in the Right of his Wife and so remain Tenant at sufferance whether he should be in his own Right or be as an intruder Disseisor and then the release made to him was good but no answer was given to him but Judgement was given that the release was void and Fennor put this Case Tenant for life remainder in Tail remainder in Fee he in the remainder in Fee released to Tenant for life a void release because of the mean remainder in Tail and cited 30 E. 3. and no answer was given to it and Yelverton said that if Tenant for life release to him in the remainder in Fee it is void because it shall be void as a surrender and this word release shall not recite as a surrender HOldesden versus Gresill Mich. 5 Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought for breaking the Plaintiffs Close called B. at L. and for taking of two Conies the Defendant to the whole Trespasse but the entring in the Close pleads not guilty and as to the Close justifies because he Common in the Close called B. for five Cowes and because very many Conies were there feeding and spoiling the Common the Defendant in preservation of his Common entred to chase and kill the conies to which the Plaintiff demurred in Law and Judgement was given that the justification was naught for a Commoner cannot enter to chase or kill the Conies for although the owner of the Soil hath no property in the Conies yet as long as they are in his Land he had the possession which is good against the commoner for if the Lord surcharge the common with Beasts the commoner cannot chase them out but the owner may distrain the Beasts of an estranger or dammage feasant or chase them out of the common for the stranger hat no colour to have his Beasts there and also conies are a matter of profit to the owner of the Soil for Housekeeping and therefore because it appears that the cause of Entry was to chase and also to kill which are not lawfull as against the Lord who is Plaintiff therefore the matter of the justification is not good for if the Lord surcharge the Soil with conies the commoner may have an Action of case against him for that particular dammage which is a sufficient remedy against the Plaintiff upon a full and deliberate considera-of all the Judges JEnnings versus Haithwait Mich. 5 Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought to which the Defendant pleaded not guilty the Jury found the Defendant Vicar of D. and that he such a day leased his vicaridg to J. S. for three years rendring rent which J. S. assigned one Acre parcell thereof to the Plaintif and the Defendant was absent severall quarters in one year to wit sixty dayes in every quarter but they did not find the Statute of 13 Eliz. adjudged for the Defendant for the Statute of the 13 Eliz. is a generall Law for although it extends but to those which have cure of Souls yet in respect of the multiplicity of Parsonages and vicaridges in England the Judges must take notice of it as a generall Law and adjudge according to the said Statute and so is the Statute of the 21 H. 8. for non-residence DRewry versus Dennys Mich. 5. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought against a man and his Wife and the Plaintif declares that they did beat one Mare of the Plaintifs and committed diverse other Trespasses and upon not guilty pleaded the Jury found that the Woman beat the Mare and for the residue they found for the Defendant and the Verdict adjudged naught by the Court for it is altogether imperfect for they have found the Woman guilty of the beating the Mare and have given no Verdict concerning that for the Husband either by way of acquittall or condemnation and the finding the Defendant not guilty as to the residue doth only extend to the other Trespasses contained in the Declaration and not to the beating of the Mare And Williams and Cooke Justices said that where a Battery is brought against Husband and Wife supposing that they both beat the Plaintif or the Mare of the Plaintif and upon not guilty pleaded it is found that the Woman onely made the Battery and not the Husband this Verdict is against the Plaintif for it now appears that the Plaintifs Action was false for the Husband in this case shall not be joyned for conformity onely and there is a speciall Writ in the Register for this purpose and is not like a Battery charged upon I. D. and I. S. for there one may be acquitted and another found guilty and good because they are in Law severall Trespasses SAnds and others versus Scullard and others Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiffs brought an Action of Trespass against the Defendants for entring their Close and Judgement was entred against Dawby one of the Defendants by nil dicit Scullard pleaded not guilty whereupon a Venire facias was awarded upon the Roll between the parties as well to try the Issue as to inquire of the damages And the Plaintiffs took their Venire facias to try the Issue between the two-Defendants and the two Plaintiffs And according to that was the Habeas Corpus and Distringas but the Plaintiffs knowing Dawby to be dead took their Record of Nisi prius against Scullard onely and he was found guilty And Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement and shewed the Venire facias and that there was no Issue joyned between the Plaintiffs and Dawby for Judgment was given against him by Nil dicit and the Writ ought to have made mention onely of the Issue between the Plaintiffs and Scullard And their ought to have been
he had notice of the words which his Brother spoke but that this ought to be specially averred and the Count contained that the Defendant justified the aforesayd scandalous words to be true as in these English words following That which my Brother c. and it seemes that this was not sufficient Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Sir Richard Buckley against Owen Wood. NOte It was sayd to be adjudged between these parties that if a man exhibits a Bill in the Srarr Chamber which containes diverse slanderous matters whereof the Court hath no Jurisdiction that an Action upon the Case lyeth so if the Plaintiff affirme his Bill to be true action upon the Case lyeth upon that as it was adjudged upon that as it was adjudged in the same Case Michaelmas 9. Jacobi 1611 in the Common Bench. Patrick against Lowre IN Trespasse the Defendant justifies for that that he was seised of a House with the Appurtenances and prescribes to have Common in the place c. for all manner of Beasts Levant Couchant upon the sayd House and good prescription notwithstanding it doth not containe certaine number and it shall be intended for so many of the Beasts which may be rising and lying down upon the said House and if he put in more they may be distrayned doing Damage and so is the usage and prescription in all Burroughs that is to prescribe to have the Common by reason of the House but the matter upon which Nicholls the Serjeant which moved it insists was the uncertainty that is what shall be sayd rising and lying down upon a House for he thought beasts could not be rising and lying down upon a House unlesse that they are upon the top of the House but to that it was resolved that infomuch that here the common was claymed to the House it shall be intended that it was a curtillage belonging to the House and if it be not that ought to be averred of the other party and then the Beasts shall be intended to be rising and lying upon the Curtladge and if it had been alledged yet it shall be intended so many of the Beasts which may be tyed and are usually to be maintained and remaining within the House for it was agreed that rising and lying down shall be intended those Beasts which are nourished and fed upon the Land and may there live in summer and winter and also Beasts cannot be distrained if they be not rising and lying down upon the Land and receiving food there for some reasonable time but some thought that beasts could not be rising and lying down upon a house without a Curtilage Note that it was agreed that all proceedings in inferiour Court after a Writ of Priviledge delivered out of this Court are void and before no Judge and if they award Execution this Court will discharge the party of Execution Note that a Fine was levyed between Charles Lynne and VValter Long and the Foote of the Fine was Longle and it was amended Michaelmas 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Hamond Strangis Case THe Father for a valuable consideration infeoffs his eldest son and Heir and adjudged that this was not within the statute of those who infeoff their eldest Sons nor a valuable consideration In Avowry the Defendant avowes upon the person of the Plaintiff in a Replevin and the Plaintiff traverses the Tenure upon which they are at issue and at the Nisi prius it is found for the Plaintiff and agreed that this was aided by the Statute of Ieofailes for this is out of the statute of 21 H. 8. and as it was at the common Law or if the Defendant avow upon the person of a stranger the stranger hath no plea but out of his fee which was mischeivous the which was aided by the statute of 11 H. 8. 19. for he thought he would have traversed the Seisin The Teste of a Venire facias was the twelfth of June returnable tres Trinitatis which was the same day that the Teste was and after Verdict it was moved to be amended and to be made according to the Roll the which was done accordingly see 7 Ed. 4. for returning of Distring as which was amended after Verdict and Crompton one of the Prothonotaries sayd that a Venire facias bare date in the vacation after the Tearm returnable in the Tearme before and it was amended according to the Roll and the principall case was the Roll was upon the entering of the issue therefore you shall cause to come here twelve good and lawfull men who neither c. within three weeks of Michaelmas and the return of the Venire facias was made accordingly Michaelmas 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. John Weekes Plaintiff Edward Bathurst Defendant ALSO in Ejectione Firme upon the Joyning of the Issue the Defendant pleads not Guilty and it was entred and the aforesaid Lessor likewise where it should have been and the aforesaid Plaintiff likewise and it was amended See this Case afterwards here the Case was the Defendant pleads that he is not guilty as the aforesaid Weekes which was the Lessor above against him hath declared and upon this he puts himself upon the Countrey and the aforesaid Weekes likewise where it should be the aforesaid John likewise and after verdict upon solemne argument this was amended by Coke Warburton and Foster and Foster cited 11. H. 7. 2. 26. H. 6. to be directly in the point and 14. Ed. 3. Amendment 46. Ed. 3. Amendment 53. and Warburton seemed that first that is Wekes for the aforesaid Wekes c. Is not materiall and the last shall be amended insomuch that this doth not alter any matter of substance Coke seemed that this was amendable the same Tearme by the Common Law if it were before Issue see 5 Ed. 3. 7 H. 6. Which was immediately before the statute of 22 Ed. 4. but in another tearme it was not amendable by the Common Law nor the statute of 14 Ed. 3. doth not extend to that for this doth not extend to a Plea Roll 46 Ed. 3. 13. accordingly but the statute of 8 H. 6. extends to any misprision in the Plea Roll or in the Record and makes that amendable 26 H. 6. Amendment 32. 9 and 10. Eliz. Dyer 260 261. And the difference is where there there is an Issue that gives power to the Justices of Nisi prius to try that then another Misprision shall be afterwards amended and he said that it was adjudged between Sir William Read Lezure in the Exchequer that a Commission of these words and the aforesayd Plaintiff likewise shall not be amended but in the principall case here they all agreed that it shall be amended and it was amended accordingly Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Prowse against Worthinge Leonard Loves Case IN an Ejectione firme speciall Verdict the case was this Leonard Loves the Grand-Father was seised of a
doth not pass till Livery and Seisin be made Also the intent of the parties is not that they shall pass together for if the intent were otherwise the Law would not devide them as it was adjudged Hillary 15. Eliz. in the Lord Cromwells case where Tenant in Tayl was of a Mannor with the Reversion to his right Heirs and he by his Deed gives and grants the Mannor and the Reversion of that and includes Letter of Attorney within the Deed to make Livery but Livery was not made and yet the Reversion doth not pass for his intent appeares that it should pass by Livery and Seisin and not by grant and also in Androwes case the Advowson appendant to a Mannor shall not pass without inrolment of Bargaine and Sale yet there were words there that that might passe by Grant for this was against their intent otherwise if a man makes a Lease for life or years of a Mannor and grants the Inheritance of the Advowson by the same Deed and so of the case of 23 Eliz. Dyer 374. Lessor deviseth Grants and to farm lets the Mannor and the Trees and they passe joyntly and the Reason is insomuch that it is but a Joynt sentence and not severall as it is here also he intended that the life of the Lessee for life is not averred and for that he shall be intended to be dead and for that it is a severall grant of the Trees of the Free-hold for the Interest of them is setled in his Executors for if he had made Sale of them before that the Copy-holder had cut them down then that had not been forfeiture see 5. H. 7. 15 Ed. 4. 14 Eliz. Dyer And then the Case is this Tenant for anothers life of a Mannor makes a Lease for yeares of the Free-hold of which an Estranger hath a Copy-hold Estate for life in Esse Lessee dies and he conceived that the Copy-holder shall not be an occupant for it ought to be Vacua Possessio and this was the reason of the judgment in Adams Case in 18 Eliz. Where a man makes a long Lease for years and after intending to avoyd this Lease makes a Lease to another old man for anothers life to the intent that the Lessee for yeares should be occupant when the old Lessee died and so drowned his Tearm and after the Lessee died and resolved that the Lessee for years shall not be an occupant insomuch that there was not Vacua Possessio and for this it seems to him that if Lessee for anothers life makes a Lease for years and dyes that the Lessee for yeares shall not be an occupant notwithstanding that he made speciall claim and that for the reason aforesaid but he agreed that a Lessee for anothers life makes a Lease at will and dies there the Lessee at Will shall be an Occupant insomuch that his Estate is determined and yet there is not Vacua Possessio according to 38 H. 6. 27. But he did not say there should be an occupant in these cases but cyted Bracton fol. 8. that if the Sea leave an Island in the midst of that the King shall have it and not Occupanti conceditur and so he concluded that the Plaintiff shall be barred and that Judgment shall be entred for the Defendant which was done accordingly and it was afterwards agreed upon motion in this case whether it would not make difference if the Trees were cut by the Copy-holder before that he hath made his nomination or not notwithstanding it was objected that when he hath made his nomination then he was only bare Tenant for life and the Priviledge executed and he in Remainder was also Tenant for life only for he cannot nominate till he comes to be Tenant in possession but this notwithstanding insomuch that they had power to make nomination that is the first Tenant again if the second died in his life time and the second if the first died in his life time and so the Peiviledge continues all the Justices continued of their opinions and according to that Judgment was entred for the Defendant and that the Plaintiff should be barred and should take nothing by his Writ Trinity 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Kings Bench. The Lord Rich against Franke. THE Lord Rich brought an action of Debt against Franke Administrator of one Franke and this was for a rent reserved upon a Lease for yeares made to the Intestate and the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet for rent due in the time of the Administrator and verdict for the Plaintiff and after moved in Arrest of Judgement by the Councell of the Defendant that this Action ought to be brought in the Detinet only and not in the Debet and Detinet and Chibborn of Lincolnes Inne conceived that the Action was well brought in the Debet and Detinet and to that he sayd that Hargraves case 5 Coke is so reported to be adjudged but he saith that he hath heard the councell of the other part insisted upon that that this Judgment was reversed and for that he would under favour of the Court speake to that And hee conceived that the Action so brought is well brought for three Reasons The first shall be drawn from the nature of the Duty and to that the Case rests upon this doubt that is if the Administrator is now charged for this Rent as upon his own duty or as Administrator and it seems to him not as Administrator but as upon his own duty for he saith that it is not Debt nor duty till the day of payment as Littleton takes the diversity in his Chapter of Release between Debt upon an obligation and a Rent and the day not being incurred in time of the Intestate this cannot be his duty therefore that ought to be duty in the Administrator and to the cases of 19 H. 8. 8. Where the Executor of a Lessee for twenty years which had made a Lease for ten years rendring Rent brought action of Debt against the Lessee for ten years for rent incurred in the time of the Executor and this is in the Detinet only and the Case of 20 H. 6. 4. Where an Executor brings an action of Debt upon Arrerages of Account of an Assignement of Auditors by themselves in the Detinet only and he sayd that in these Actions the Executors were Plaintiffs and in all actions brought by Executors where they are Plaintiffs and the thing recovered shall be Asset the Action shall be brought in the Detinet but in our case they are Defendants and so the diversity and to the Objection that may be made to this Contract out of which this duty grows and arises it was made by the Intestate and not by the Administrator himself and so this is a duty upon the first Privity of the contract he answered that there is great difference when a thing comes due by the Contract of the Testator alone and ought to be payed in his time in