conjunction 4. WAlmisley moved concerning the Quare impedit brought by the Queen And he thought that she shall recover Avoidance for the avoidance is by Privation and the same party is presented again and and if these shifts may be used the Queen shall never have a Lapse for then the Incumbent shall be deprived and the same Incumbent presented Fenner to the contrary and said that where her title is restrained to a time there she shall have no Prerogative to the prejudice of a third person nor to alter their Estates And for that in 1 Ed. 3. if the King have a Lordship and Rent and he grant the Lordship over and retain the Rent and after the Land escheats the Rent is gone The year day and Waâ—t as in the case of a common person and the Queen shall have the year day and Wast but if Tenant for life dy she shall not have it Dower against Guardian And in Dower against the Guardian if the Heir come to full age the Writ shall abate 5. AN Action upon the case was brought for calling the Plaintif Bankrupt Bankrupt and a Verdict passed for the Paintif And now Shutleworth shewed in arrest of Judgement that the Plaintif had not declared that he was a Merchant or of any Mystery or trade And the Court held the Declaration insufficient for the same cause and made a rule for stay of the Judgement accordingly 6. IN a Replevin brought by Mary Colthirst against Thomas Delves Discent of a third part it was agreed by three Justices Anderson being in the Starchamber that if a man have Lands held in chief to the value of 60 l. that he may Devise Lands to the value of 40. l. if he suffer the rest to the value of 20. l. to descend to his Heir And therefore they overruled it upon evidence to the Jury that where one Barners was seised of the Mannor of Toby in the County of Essex and was allso seised of the Mannor of Hinton in the County of Gloucester Entire Mannor and all those were held by Knights service in chief and deviseth the Mannor of Toby to his Wife for life that his Heir at the Common Law shall have no part thereof if the Mannor of Hinton amounteth to the third part of all his Lands Allso they overruled that if a man after Mariage convey a Joynture to his Wife and dy that after the Wife may refuse the Joynture Refusall of Joynture and demand her Dower at the Common Law Allso that by refusall in the Country she may wave her Joynture and hold her to her Dower and that this is a sufficient Election Allso they held that if a man makes a Joynture to his Wife during the Coverture Devise for Joynture and after by his Testament deviseth other Lands to her in stead of her Joynture that she may refuse the Joynture and hold her to the Devise and that this shall be good by the Statute and yet Gawdy moved to the contrary because the Statute is that she may refuse the Joynture and hold her to the Dower but the three Justices overruled it clearly and said that such was the meaning of the Statute No wayving after agreement but they agreed that if she have once agreed to the Joynture that she cannot waive it afterwards Allso they agreed that if a Wife do once refuse her Joynture in her own house amongst her servants and not to the Heir that yet this is a good Refusall And Peryam said for Law that where a Joynture is conveyed to the Wife during the Coverture Refusall by bringing Dower and after the death of her Husband she say nothing but bringeth a Writ of Dower that this is a good Refusall aud so he hath seen in experience 7. AN Action upon the case was brought by John Cuttes against an antient Attourney of the Court Slander for these words viz. John Cutts was one of those which robbed Humphrey Robbins And they were at issue and it was found for the Plaintif And it was alleged in arrest of Judgement that the words were spoken in Queen Maries time as appeareth by the Declaration And yet the opinion of the Court was that he should have his Judgement allthough peradventure robberies were pardoned by Parliament after that time 8. CArleton brought Entry sur disseisin against Carre Abatement for part who for part pleaded that he had nothing but in Right of his Wife not named c. and so demanded Judgement of the Writ and for the rest he pleaded in bar and they joyned issue for both and the Jury appeared at the bar and found both the issues for the Defendant And now the question was whether the Writ shall abate for all or no because for part it was found that the Defendant had nothing but in right of his Wife or whether it shall abate but for this part onely And Shuttleworth argued that it should abate for part onely and he resembled it to Joyntenancy in which case it shall abate but in part and he cited Dier 291. 7 R. 2. titulo joint 8. E. 1. titulo breif 860. Severall Tenancy And VValmisley said that it was more like to a severall Tenancy in which case all shall abate as in non tenure but Peryam said to him put a case where severall Tenancy shall abate all the Writ Anderson Joyntenancy and seised in right of his Wife is all one to this effect and intent Joyntenancy for in Joyntenancy he confesseth that he is sufficient enough but that another hath right as well as himself allso And so where he confesseth that he is seised in right of his Wife he confesseth that he is Tenant but that another ought to be named with him Peryam True it is that there is no difference concerning this purpose and intent and if the Recovery be had against the Husband sole he shall be bound And at length all the Iustices agreed that the Writ shall abate but in part and that Judgement shall be given for the rest and so for that residue the Judgement was nihil capiat per breve vide 3 Hen. 4. 2. 13 Eliz. fol. 301. 9. AT this day Walmisley prayed Judgement in the Quare impedit for the Queen Lapse Anderson we are all agreed that the Queen shall have Judgement for the reason of the mischief For otherwise when the Queen hath a Lapse divolved unto her one shall be Presented and afterwards deprived so that the Queen shall never have her Lapse And it differeth much from the case of that avoidance which cometh by the Act of God for this is by the Act of the party and the refore Covenous And so let Judgement be entred for the Queen 10. A Writ was ad respondendum I. S. Fidei uxori ejus and the Defendant pleaded in abatement of the Writ because the name of the Wife was Faith in English therefore they pretended that it should
be Fidi Rodes I know a Wife which is called Troth in English and she was called Trothia in Latin and it was good And all the Court adjudged this Writ good here 11. AN Action upon the Statute of Winch. was brought against a hundred in Gloucester Hue and 〈◊〉 and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that the money was delivered to a Carrier of Bristow to be carried to London who packed it up And as he was on his journey certain Malefactors came to him in an another Hundred and there took his Horse and Pack and led him into a Wood within this Hundred against which the action is brought And if this Hundred be guilty or no they prayed the advise of the Court And all the Justices agreed that this was a robbery in the first Hundred and not in the second for upon the first taking he was robbed but if the Carrier had led the Horse himself Possession then it should be adjudged to be in his own possession and no robbery untill he came into the second Hundred and if a man have money and the Malefactors take him in one Hundred and carry him unto another Hundred and there Rifle him this shall not be a robbery in the first but onely in the second Hundred for he is allwaies in possession per totam Curiam and Judgement was given accordingly So of the purse picked in the Kings Bench and the thief taken with the manner but a key being fastened to the purse still stuck in the pocket and 2 Justices against two that the man was still in possession of his purse and so no robbery 12. WAlmisly shewed Termor how a woman brought Dower against her two daughters and another and in truth the third was but a Termer and the Wife hath no cause of dower but that this was onely to make the Termer to lose his term for they all have made default at the grand cape and now he prayed to be received and shewed cause that the Husband made a lease for yeares and after the Lessee levied a fine to the Lessor and they granted and rendred back again to the Lessee for the same yeares rendring the same rent and the Statute of Gloucester is if the Farmour have c. that is if he may have covenant as in 19 Ed. 3. and here he may have covenant Ejectione firme and prayed to be received and shewed his plea. Shuttleworth You are at no mischief for you shall have an ejectione firme if you be ousted where she hath no cause of Dower Walmisley But we shall be put out of possession which shall be no reason Anderson I hold that a Termer may falsify by the Common law Falsify Shuttleworth But his lease is after our title of dower Lesser may plead destruction of dower Peryam although that it be after yet if he have matter which goeth in destruction of the Dower he shall falsify well enough as if she have title of Dower and five yeares pass after the fine levied And Anderson and Peryam said that the Statute of Gloucester was made that a Termer should not be put out of possession but here the Termer is named ideo quare And after at another day Shuttleworth moved it again Resceit of the partie to the Writ and said that the Termer shall not be received because he is named in the Writ and the Court was of the same opinion then but they said that he might plead speciall non tenure Shuttleworth first he ought to save his default for he commeth in upon the grand cape Rodes by 33 H. 6. 2. he may plead non tenure before default saved by Prisot there Shuttleworth Then I shall have judgement against the two which made default at the grand cape Conusance Curia you had best be advised lest the Writ should abate by non tenure of parcell Cemurier Shuttleworth by my Conusance of non tenure of parcell Difference all shall abate but if I demurr upon his plea then it shall abate but for one parcell 13. LEonard White brought a Formdon in Discender and declared of a gift in tayl made to his father Estoppell who died and the land descended to the elder brother of the Demandant who also died without Issue and so conveyed to himself as heir in tayl c. The Tenant pleaded that the elder brother had Issue a Daughter who levied a fine to him and he relied upon the fine and proclamation Inducement doth 〈◊〉 make a plea double Walmisly this Plea is double the one is the Issue the other the fine Curia forasmuch as he cannot come to the one without shewing the other it shall not be double also here he relieth upon the Estopple vide 18. E. 3. 25. Tit. Gard. per Wylly 14. A Formdon in descend by three brethren for lands in Gavelkind they were at Issue upon Assetz descended to the Demandants Assets in Gavelkind And the Jury found a speciall Verdict that the Father of the Demandant was seised of those lands and by his Testament devised them to his three sonnes now Demandants and to their heires equally to be divided And if this shall be said a descent to them or no was the question because the Law would have done as much and therefore it shall be said Assetz But all the Court held the contrary and that they shall be joynt-joynt-Tenants or Tenants in common and then they shall not be in by the descent and so no Assetz and Anderson said that if a man devise to his sonne and heir in tayl he shall not take it by descent Peryam if a man may have any more benefit by the Devise than by the descent then he shall take by the Devise Eadem lex per Curiam if he devise his lands to his two daughters and heires they shall be joynt-joynt-Tenants and no coparceners è contra if he have but one son or one daughter only 15. IN the Exchequer Chamber all the Justices of the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer Venus were assembled according to the Statute of 27. Eliz. to reform errors in the Kings bench And Smaleman of the inner Temple shewed how an Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation against one Cheney as administrator who pleaded plenè administravit and the action was laid in Barkshire at Newbery and the Plaintif averred that the Defendant had Assetz at Westwood in the same County and the venire facias was of Newberry whereas it should have been of Westwood And this he assigned for Error And all the Court agreed una voce that it was Error and so the judgement was reversed but the Assetz being transitory might have been assigned at Newbery 17. ANother Writ of Error was there brought by the Lord Seymour against Sr. John Clifton upon a judgement given against him Amendment and assigned for error that the judgement was quod recuperet versus Edward Seymour
Plaintif wherefore if we shall not allow this Plea we shall take the Defendant from his remedy to plead which God forbid And in 2 Ed. 4. fol. 6. b. In Trespass the Defendant shewed speciall matter in London where the Action was brought in Midlesex Tota Curia Nelson Prothonotarie hath shewed a president in 2 Ed. 4. where such a Plea as this was pleaded wherefore the Plea is good 6. NElson Trespass Prothonotary brought a Writ of Trespass against another in effect the case was thus The Abbot of Westminster was seised of Lands Vnity of possession of Common to which he had common in the Lands of a Prior afterwards by the Statute of Dissolutions as well the Lands of the Abbot as of the Prior were given to King Hen. 8. And after that the Dean of Westminster had a grant of the Mannor which the Abbot had and Nelson had the other Mannor which the Prior had into which a Tenant of the Deans put his beasts 11 H. 4. 5. 14 H. 4. 24 E. 3. 25. Br. Extinguishment 14 Ass pl. 20. claiming Common as once it was in the hands of the Prior and Nelson brought his Action of Trespass Walmisley moved that the Tenant should have his Common Peryam Is this a new case It hath been adjudged heretofore that by the union of possession the Common is gone Anderson to Walmisley Have you any reason why the Common shall not be gone Walmisley No my Lord if the Statute will not help us for the Statute is that the King shall have it in the same plight as the Abbot had it and the Abbot had Common ergo c. Windam So is the Statute but the Statute doth not say that it shall continue so in the hands of the King and it is impossible that it shall continue in the hands of the King as it was in the hands of the Abbot therefore the Common is gone Rodes assented 7. MOor brought a Quare impedit Quare impedit after Judgment had a Writ to the Bishop of Norwich and at the alias the Bishop returned that after the awarding of the first Writ and before the receipt of the second the Queen had presented the same Defendant by her Letters Patents who is admitted instituted and inducted so that c. Shuttleworth moved that the Ordinary might be amerced for his evill Return for when he had Judgement to Recover he ought to have the effect of his Judgement for else it shall be in vain to sue a Quare impedit and thereupon he avouched the case in 21 Hen. 7. 8. 21 Eliz. 364. Dyer that the other Clerk shall be removed Anderson the Return is not good for me seemeth in a Quare impedit when one which hath title Paramount presents Title Paramount en qu. imp hanging the Writ then allthough the Plaintif hath Judgement to Recover yet his Clerk shall not be removed but if it be under or after the title of the Plaintif or Defendant then his Clerk shall be removed and here he hath returned that the Queen hath presented the same man which is Defendant and therefore he shall be amerced Windham to the same intent and cited the case of Long 5 Edw. 4. fol. 115. b. Rodes cited the case in Fitzherbert Quare non admisit fol. 47. k. and Bassets case in 9 Eliz. Dyer Alit en pr. quod reddat fol. 260. Anderson In a Praecipe quod reddat if the Sherif return upon the habere facias seisinam that another hath recovered by title Paramount against the Defendant and hath execution he shall be amerced Peryam How doth it appear to us that he which the Queen hath presented is the same Defendant Shuttleworth By the Return Peryam No Sir and therefore it is good to be advised And after Windham doubted for the same cause Et adjornatur 8. TRistram Ayscough Dower and Eulaleia his Wife brought a Writ of Dower of the endowment of her first Husband the Defendant pleaded in bar that an Annuitie was granted to her first Husband and her self in recompense of her Dower which she after his death accepted and the Plaintif replyed quod recusavit praedict annuitatem after the death of her husband Gawdy The Plea is nor good Anderson Your intent is Disagreement in pais for that she disagreed in the Country and not in a Court of Record that the disagreement shall not be good but I think not so for if she say in the Country that she will not have the sayd Annuity this is a good refusall and if she once disagree she can never agree afterwards quod tota Curia concessit but peradventure recusavit is no good pleading 9. FRancis Windham Quid juris clamat one of the Justices of the Common Pleas brought a Quid juris elamat against the Lady Gresham to have Attornment of certain lands comprised within the note of a Fine levied to him by one R. Read The Lady pleaded that certain persons were seised of those Lands and held them of King Hen. 8. by Knights service and enfeoffed W. Read and the Lady then his Wie to have and to hold to them and the heirs of the husband who devised the reversion after the death of the Lady to the sayd R. Read in tayl the remainder c. and that the said R. Read levyed the Fine c. whereupon Windham demurred in Law Gawdy The Plea is not good for divers causes the one is for the pretence of the Tenant for that the Lands were held by Knights service the Devise is voyd for the third part so that therein the Conisor hath nothing but she doth not shew who had the reversion of the third part which she ought to shew and thereupon he vouched 30 Ed. 3. fol. 7. 34 Ed. 3. quid juris clamat 14 E. 3. Fitzh Quid juris cl The Defendant said that he held not of the Conisor he ought to shew who had the inheritance and 30 Hen. 6. fol. 8. in Wast brought by Radford Another cause is for that in the end of her Plea she demandeth Judgement Eisdem si pro eisdem duabus partibus she ought to Attorn and she doth not speak of any two parts before and therefore it is not good and vouched 7 Ed. 6. in the Comentaries Parliament held praedict 28 Ap. 9 Edw. 4. bona praedict J. S. and doth not speak of any J. S. before Then for the matter in Law for that the Conisor was but Tenant in tayl this notwithstanding it seemeth she ought to Attorn and therupon he cited the case in 48 E. 3. fol. 23. in per quae servicia 24 E. 3. Tenant in tayl of a reversion of a Mannor levies a Fine the Tenant for life ought to Attorn And 3 Ed. 3. quid juris c. It is there ruled that Tenant for life shall Attorn upon a Fine levied by Tenant in tayl and therefore she c. And by the opinion of
Livery per baron and would have made Livery but the Wife would not agree to the Livery yet notwithstanding the contradiction of the Wife the Livery was Adjuged good 33 Hen. 6. Husband and Wife are Plantifs in an Assise Nonsuite del feme and the Husband would Prosecute but the Wife would be Nonsuite the act of the Husband shall be accepted and the act of the Wife rejected So if the Husband will make an Attourny and the Wife wil dissavow him Attourny yet he shall be their Attourny And as I think this Limitation by the Husband shall bind the Wife in perpetuity Case per fine indentare Difference Juris clamat For if the Husband make a Lease of the wifes Land for 100 years the Wife may avoid it after his death but if after they both Levy a Fine the Lease shall be good-for ever And 11 Hen. 4. He in Reversion and one which hath nothing Levy a Fine quid juris clamat shall be brought against them both And as I conceive it it shall be counted her folly Reentry per condition that will take such a Husband as will Limit such uses For if a Wife hath an Estate in Land upon condition for not payment of Rent that the Feoffor shall reenter if she take a Husband which doth not pay the Rent whereby the Feoffor or his Heires reenter the Estate of the Wife is utterly defeated And in 4 Ed. 2. A woman Tenant takes a Husband Cessavit who ceaseth by two yeares whereby the Lord bringeth a Cessavit and recovereth the Inheritance of the Wife she shall be bound And this appeareth in Fitzh in Cui invita 21. And it shall be so if the Wife hath but a Freehold Wast as it is in 3 Ed. 3. A woman Lessee takes a Husband who maketh Wast whereby the Land is recovered and 48 Ed. 3. fol 18. Husband and Wife sell the Land of the Wife this is onely the sale of the Husband but if after they Levy a Fine this shall bind the Wife And for express Authority it is the case in Dyer Joynture fol. 290. a pl. 2. And so it is a Common case if a man seised of Lands takes a Wife who hath a Jointure in his Land and he makes a Limitation of uses and after they both Levy a Fine this shall be the Limitation by the Husband because it shall be intended that the Wife consented if it doth not appear to the contrary Whereby the Declaration of the use here by the Husband shall be good to bind the Wife and therefore Judgement ought to be given for the Plantif Feâ—ner to the contrary for here the Inheritance is in the Wife and where the Husband limits further than he hath Authority there the Law shall make a Declaration of the uses for the Husband cannot Limit uses of that which he hath not 21 Ed. 3. A man takes a Wife seised of Lands in Fee Atteynder del feme and before that the Husband was intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie the Wife was attainted of Treason Homage the Land shall be forfeit and 44 Ed. 3. He shall not make Homage Conusans before he be intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie 12 R. 2. Conusans shall be made by the Bayley of the Husband in the name of the Husband and Wife Warranoy And in this case the Conisee is in in the per by the Wife and Warranty made to the Husband shall inure to the Wife and 18 Ed. 3. A man seised of a Mannor in right of his Wife Villain to which there is a Villain regardant the Villain Purchaseth Lands the Husband shall be seised of the Perquisite in right of his Wife And yet otherwise it is where a man is Lessee for years of a Mannor to which c. For he shall be seised of the Perquisite in his own Right Divorce 12. lib. Ass If he be Divorced his Estate is gone Lease Rent ch diversity And I agree to the case put by my Brother Shut Where the Husband makes a Lease for years and after he and his Wife levy a Fine there the Lease shall be good but if the Husband grant a Rent charge and after he and his Wife Levy a Fine I do not agree that this is good for in the first case the Conisee found one which had an Interest in the Land but not in the last Then Sir here the Husband hath no power to Limit the use for the Land of his Wife to indure for ever Feoffee al use 28 Hen. 8. The Feoffece to use at the Common Law Limits an use to a stranger this Devesteth the first use but if he limit is to cestui que use then it is an ancient use and not new And so it is if Tenant for life and he in Reversion levy a Fine this shaâ—l be to the use of him in Reversion 2 Loyntenants And so if two Joyntenants be in Fee and they limit severall uses this shall be good according to their limitations for the Moities of either of them and for no more And if Husband and Wife levy a Fine to the use of the Husbands Sonne Fits del baron yet this is to the use of the Wife but if he be the Wifes Sonne allso then this is a good consideration and the use shall be accordingly And these cases I put to this intent that when a man limits an use which is repugnant Vse repugnant or further than he hath Authority the Law shall make a Declaration of the same use for Bracton saith Nemo potest ad alterum plus juris tranferre quam ipse habet And I take the Law if Husband and Wife levy a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and render back to the Wife in Tail Fine levie de terres del feme Oâ—e râ—eder al feme en tail and the Husband dye and the Wife discontinue that this is not a Purchase of the Husband within the Statute of 11 Hen. 7. And so it was here adjuged in 18. of Eliz. in Alexanders case And I agree to that which hath been said that the Wife only cannot limit uses but because the Jury hath found for â—he Defendant if the limitation by the Husband be not good as I think it is not then Judgement shall be given for the Defendant Concessum Adjornatur 14 WIlliam Knight Eject firm as Eessee for yeas to Sir John Fortescne and Rich. Thikston Gentleman brought an Executione firme against W. Breâ—h of one Mesnage with the Appurtenances in Themilstreet in the Parish of St. James Clarkenwell the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury appeared at the Bar and Evidence given on both sides And at the length the Plantif Demurred in Law upon the Evidence given for the Defendant Demurrer al evidence and thereupon the Jury were discharged And now Gawdy the Queens Serjeant
he did not plead a sufficient Plea this shall be trued by the Record and how can that be when it is not entred of Record But the Court sayd further that it was hard that he should have the forfeiture and sayd that there was great negligence and oversight in the matter Peryam You may plead all this matter specially and how by his assent the Plea was waved and peradventure his assent if any thing will help you 12. PArtition was brought between Coparceners Estrepment and hanging the Writ the Tenant made Wast and Gawdy moved the Court for a Writ of Estrepment Peryam Where you are to disprove the interest of the Tenant Estrepment will lye but here you confess an equall interest in him how then can you have it Whereunto VVindham agreed and after it was shewen how they were Tenants in common whereby his motion was at an end 13. NOte that in the Starchamber this Perjury Term it was over-â—uled by the Lords that if in an Action at the Common Law a man wage his Law allthough that he make a false Oath yet he shall not therefore be impeached by Bill in the Starchamber and the reason was because it is as strong as a Tryall And the Lord Chancellor demanded of the Judges if he were discharged of the debt by waging of his Law and they answered yea But 〈…〉 said that it was the folly of the Plaintif because that he may 〈◊〉 his Action into an Action of the case upon an Assumpsit whâ—â— in 〈◊〉 Defendant cannot wage his Law 14. AT another day in the Starchamber between Hurlestom and Glaseour Conspiracy it was over-ruled by the Lords that if a Jury at the Common Law give their verdict Perjury allthough that they make a false Oath yet they shall not therefore be impeached by Bill in the Star-chamber But if any collaterall corruption be alleged in them as that they took Money or Bribes a Bill shall lye thereof well enough And allso in the same case it was ruled that where Glaseour had brought a Bill of Conspirary against Harlestone and others and divers of the Jury for that they had indicted him of Perjury that before the Indictment be traversed or otherwise avoyded by Error he cannot have a Bill of Conspiracy because this shall quash the tryal at the Common Law and shall prevent it And allso before a man be acquitted a Writ of Conspiracy doth not lye for him by the Law De Term. Trinitat Anno xxix Eliz. Reg. 1. THe Quare impedit brought by Specot and his Wife was moved again by Gawdy Quare imp and it seemed to him that because the Bishop did not shew in what thing he was a Schismatick the Plea was therefore uncertain and so insufficient and he cited 33 Edw. 3. 2. 9 Eliz. Dyer 254 b. Anderson If he had certainly shewed in what thing he was Schismaticus inveteratus ut ea occasione inidoneus sit inhabilis c. This had been a good Plea without doubt but as it is here sure it is no Plea for it is even as if he had sayd that he was criminosus whereunto all the other Judges agreed Anderson All that I doubt is whether this be helped by the Statute of Demurrers 27 Eliz. For otherwise the Plea is insufficient without doubt Gawdy The Statute helpeth onely matters of form and this is the substance of his Plea that he is a Schismatick Anderson Allthough it be the substance of his Plea yet it is but form to plead it certainly And if one demur generally to a double Plea Double plea. it is not good at this day and so here And so was the opinion of Peryam and the other Justices by their silence seemed to agree thereunto yet they gave day to the Serjeants to argue this matter And Peryam sayd that he would help the Plaintif in the best sort that the Law would suffer him for the Bishops are grown so presumptuous at this day that they will make question of all the patronages in the Realm and if it be against their pleasure none shall have his Presentation And allso now Anderson was agreed that the Action was well brought in the name of the Husband and Wife allthough he had once moved to the contrary Allso in this case it was moved Demurrer is a confession but of things sufficiently alleged that by the Demurrer it shall be confessed that the Plaintif Clerk was a Schismatick Whereunto Anderson said that if a thing be sufficiently alleged it is confessed by the Demurrer but otherwise not 2. A Replevin was brought by Brode against Hendy Replevin of his own wrong the Defendant made Conusance as Baylif to the Queen for Rent behind wherunto the Plaintif sayd De son tort demeasne sans tiel cause and the Court was moved whether this be a good Plea and by the opinion of three Judges it is no Plea in a Replevin Anderson absente but in Trespass it is good notwithstanding that it was objected at the Bar that there is a diversity in our books taken that when the Action is brought against the Baylif there it shall be a good Plea but not against the Master But the Court over-ruled it for in a Replevin he ought to make a title 3. THe Queen brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop and Themas Leigh Incumbent Discontinuance and they both pleaded severally speciall Pleaâ— and so it depended whereupon Fenner shewed the Court that the Queen did not prosecute the Suit but let it depend still and therefore he prayed that she might be called Nonsuit But all the Court The Queen cannot be Nonsuit and the Pregnotaries said that the Queen cannot be Nonsuit Fenner Shall we then which are Defendants always be delayd Peryam After a year passed you may have it discontinued but she shall not be Nonsuit And in the case of a common person the Plaintif may discontinue it within a year but the Defendant cannot discontinue it untill after a year 4. WAlmisley moved for Judgement in the case of Kimpton Common extinct by purchase Rodes We have given Judgement allready Walmisley No Sir I have not heard of it Peryam What is the case Rodes The case is this a man was seised of a 140 acres of land and had Common appurtenant to them in 46 acres of land and the 46 acres of land were in the occupation of severall men viz. two in the occupation of A. and the rest in the occupation of B. and he which had Common purchased the sayd two acres now if this entire Common be extinct or no so that they which were Tenants of the residue of the 46. acres shall take advantage thereby was the question And all the Justices sayd that they were agreed of this case long agoe For allthough that the acres be severall and in severall occupations yet the Common concerning that is intire and so by purchase of parcell it is extinct
every Wife may be defrauded of her land by joyning in a fine which were a great inconvenience and contrary to this ground in Law that the Husband cannot dispose of the Wifes lands without her consent And although that if the Wife had not shewed her agreement or disagreement then it should have been to the use limitted by the Husband yet here she hath shewed an express disassent and so by their variance both their declarations are void Quare impedit as in a Quare impedit by two if both make severall titles both shall be barred and so judgment shall be given against the Plaintif No Vse limited Peryam to the same intent First it is a plain case that if a Husband and Wife levie a fine and limit no use then the use is to them as the land was before Vse what it is for the use is the profit of the land and the Wife alone cannot limit the use for during the coverture she hath submitted her will to the will of her Husband Silence And if they both levie a fine and he onely by Indenture limits uses Limitation after fine if she do nothing then his limitation is good and the case of Vavisour adjudged here that a limitation after the fine is good And here the Husband hath limited the use to himself for life Who shall limit uses and afterwards they both agree in the limitation now if the residue in which they agree shall be good I will shew my opinion therein likewise because that also may come in question hereafter And I think that this shall not bind the inheritance for it is a ground in Law that limiters of uses shall be such as have power interest and auctority of the land and no further As if Tenant for life and he in reversion joyn in a fine Fine Tenant for life shall limit but for his life but here by the death of the Wife the ability of the Husband is gone for he had no issue by her and therefore his use shall bee gone allso for otherwise it should be a great inconvenience but if they had joyned in the limitation then the inheritance of the Wife had been bound Inheritance shall be bound by agreement and so it is if the Law can intend that she had agreed And to say that the Conisees shall take it from the Husband and Wife and therefore the Wife to be concluded is but small reason for she may confesse the Record well enough as appeareth by the case of Eare and Snow in the Com. and no man can limit uses further than he hath the land and here the limitation for the inheritance after the death of the wife cannot be good and for their variance both are void And so I think judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Rodes to the same intent for the Jury hath found that the Wife did not agree and this speciall finding shall avoid all other common intendments Intendment And the intendment of the party shall overthrow the intendment of the Law and he cited Eare and Snowes case where it was found that the wife had nothing And he cannot limit uses farther than he hath estate in the land and therefore judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Anderson then enter judgment accordingly 14. AN Action upon the statute of Hue and cry was brought against the hundred of Dunmow in Essex Robbery in the night and the Jury found a speciall verdict that the Plaintif was robbed about three a clock in morning before day light and thereupon prayed the advise of the Court And now all the Judges were agreed that for because the Robbery was done in the night and not in the day therefore the Hundred shall not be charged and they commanded to enter iudgment accordingly 15 BEtween Cogan and Cogan the case was Copulative that the Defendant had sold certain land sowen with oad to the Plaintif and that if any restraint shall be by proclamation or otherwise that it should not be lawfull to the Plaintif to sow and make oad then he should have certain mony back again and after proclamation came that no man should sow oad within four miles of any market Town or clothing Town or City or within eight miles of any Mansion House of the Queen and the Plaintif shewed the Land was within foure miles of a Market Town and because he did not averr that it was a Cloathing Town also the Defendant demurred in law And all the Judges held that he had shewed sufficient cause of his Demurrer for the meaning was to restrain by the proclamation aswell all manner of market Townes as those market Townes which were clothing Townes And after Puckering shewed that the restraint was onely from sowing oad and not from making and their Contract was that if any restraint should be from sowing and making in the copulative whereby he thought the Plaintif should be barred quod Curia concessit 16. BEtween Cock and Baldwin the case was Pas 29. Eliz. that a lease was made for 21 yeares to one Trâ—w penny and Elizabeth his wife Rot. 1410. if he and shee Copulative or any child or children between them lawfully begotten should live so long And after they were married the wife died without issue if the lease be thereby determined or no was the question because it is in the conjunctive he and she and now one of them is dead without issue and this case is not like Chapmans case in the Commentaries where one covenants to infeoff B. and his heires for there it is impossible to Emfeoff his heires as long as B. Lease to a for life shall live and therefore there it shall bee taken in the disjuctive and the same Serjeant said that if A. Lease for life of 2 lets land to two for life if one dye the other shall have all by survivour because they took it by way of interest Difference but if I let land to two to have and to hold for the lives of two other if one of them dye the lease is gone quod fuit concessum and here the lease shall be determined by the death of one because so was the intent Rodes the meaning seemeth to be conrrary for by the or which commeth afterward it appeareth that they should have their lives in it Peryam Anderson and Wyndham said that it appeareth by the disjunctive sentence which commeth afterward that the intent was that the lease shall not be determined by the death of one of them and the reason which moved the Lord Anderson to think so was because the state was made before the marriage and so it is as a joynture to the wife and therefore not determined by the death of the one And after they all gave judgment accordingly 17. WAlgrave brought trespass quare vi armis against Somersetbeing Tenant at will Trespass vi armis against Tenant at Will
half whereby the Land was sown accordingly and that the Bore of Okely came and destroyed the Corn. Sed utrum c. And the doubt rested upon two points 1. because the Verdict saith that it conteineth sixty Acres and so shall be intended not the same place and the Court varied in opinion thereof insomuch that the sixteen Acres are found to be within the close conteining sixty Acres but for the 2 which was that they all four joyned in quare clausum fregit and it appeareth that three have nothing there Verdict shall abate the Writ but that Hare is sole seised And for that the Court held opinion that the Verdict shall abate the Writ for the Defendant cannot break their close where three of them have nothing but Hare onely Rodes A Case hath been adjudged a where Cheâ—ey brought Partition against Bury Partition who pleaded that they did not hold in Common and the Jury found that he and his Wife held in Common and yet the Verdict abated the Writ Windham You will all grant that the other three have no interest in the Land quod Walmisley concessit how then can they have quare 〈◊〉 fregit Fenner Executors shall have quare clausum fregit Executors and yet they have no interest in the Land Rodes There they have an interest for the time Anderson Here is but a bargain and no interest and then the three have no colour to bring Trespass quare elaâ—sum fregit 10. THe Quare impedit brought by the Queen against the Bishop of Lincoln was demurred in Law Avoydance and now the Record was read and day given over to hear the Arguments but 〈◊〉 said that it is all one case with that which hath been adjudged here viz. that the Queen hath title of Lapse and doth not present but the Patron presents and after the Church becomes voyd by the death of the Incumbent that now the Queen shall not present but the Court answered Difference between Death and Privation that there the avoydance came by death but here it cometh by privation and whether this will make a diversity was the question 11. HArper brought Trespass against Spiller and Drew Estate upon not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found and the case in effect was this F. gave Lands to a woman to have and to hold to her to the heirs of F. of the body of the woman ingendred what estate the woman had was the question and now the Record was read and day given over to argue it 12. SHuttleworth moved the Court Amendment and shewed that one Brokes by had brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Lincoln and others and the Writ was suam spectat donationem and this word 〈◊〉 was omitted and he prayed the Court that it might be amended and he cited 11 Hen. 6. 2. where it was imaginavit and it should have been imaginat fuit and 13 Hen. 7. where the teste was omitted and the Court took time of advisement and at length by the opinion of all the Justice it was amendable and then a Clerk of the Chancery came into the Court of the Common-pleas and amended it 13. IN an Avowry for an Amercement in a Leet By-law a Prescription was made for making of By-lawes and Peryam sayd that every By-law ought to be made for the common benefit of the inhabitants and not for the private commodity of any particular man as J. S. onely or the Lord onely As if a By-law be made that none shall put in his beasts into the common-field before such a day this is good but if a By-law be made that they shall not carry hay upon the lands of the Lord or break the hedges of J. S. this is not good because it doth not respect the common benefit of all And Windhaâ—â— sayd that some Books are that they shall bind no more than such as agree to them 14. HAre brought Debt against Curson for a great sum Capias utlâ—gatum and Process continued untill Capias â—tlog And the Plaintif moved the Court that the Sherif might be commanded to execute the Writ because they doubted thereof and the Writ was delivered to the Sherif in Court and he sayd that he would doe his endeavour but Curson hath long kept his house so that he cannot come at him Peryam You may take the power of the Country with you and break his house and take him out for so it hath been adjudged here which the Court granted 15. PUckering shewed how an Action of Debt was brought against an Administrator Assetâ— who pleaded plens administraâ—it and thereupon the Jury found a speciall Verdict that certain Obligations made by the Testator to the value of a hundred pound were forfeit and the Administrator took in the said Bonds and gave his own Bond for the Debt and retained the money in his own hands besides which c. he had nothing c. and if that hundred pound shall be liable to this Action of the Plaintif they prayed the advice of the Court and by the opinion of Windham and Peryam it shall not be Assets because the property is changed in giving his own Bond for the same Payment with Proper râ—â—ds and it is as if he had payd the Debts with his own goods but if he had compounded for less Surplusage then the surplusage should have been Assets But Rodes was of a contrary opinion in the principall case forasmuch as he had payd no money but onely given his Bond for in and Anderson was absent at this day And after at another day the case was moved again by Shuttelworth and then he shewed that for part thereof the Administrator had given his Bond and for another part his promise Promise and he sayd that this is no payment but a composition and therefore no change of property Anderson For so much as he hath given his promise I think it not good because that by this promise this first debt being due by Bond is not discharged but for so much as he hath given his Bond for I hold it good enough because the first Debt is discharged thereby allthough that the Obligation be made to a stranger Estranger by the appointment of the Debtee and allso before the Debt due for by this the first Debt is gone And Windham and Peryam were of the same opinion that the Debt was discharged and that it should not be Assets in his hands but Rodes doubted thereof and it was adjorned 16. JOhn Cleyton brought an Ejectione firme against Lawsell and Lawsell Defendants Abatement and after a Verdict found for the Plaintif and before Judgement one of the Defendants died and the Writ was adjudged to stand good against the other 17. IN Debt by Saunderson Wager of Law the Defendant pleaded nil debet per legem and in truth the money was due to the Plaintif but the Plaintif was allso
beasts shall not discharge him for the payment of Tythes for other beasts and Tythes shall not be payd for beasts fed for the occupation of the house of the owner No tyths for things spent in the house but if a man feed to sell there shall Tyths be payd for those for with the first people live which manure the land of which the Tythes are payd for so is Fitzh Nat. brev 53. Q. to be intended 67. WIldgoose versus Wayland in Cancellar Notice of trust This question arose If A. be seised upon trust and confidence to the use of B. and his Heirs and A. selleth the land to one that hath notice of the trust to whose use shall the Vendee be seised Also it was moved if before the sale one come to the Vendee say to him take heed how ye buy such land for A. hath nothing in that but upon trust to the use of B. and another comes to the Vendee and saith to him It is not as he is informed for A. is seised of this land absolutely by which the Vendee buyeth the land if this first Caveat given to him ut supra be a sufficient notice of the trust or not And the Lord Keeper sayd it is not for flying-reports are many times fables and not truth and if it should be admitted for a sufficient notice then the Inheritance of every man might easily be slandered Notice of Forgery Cook It was holden in Bothes case in the Starchamber that if a man sayd to another take heed how you publish such a Writing for it is forged and notwithstanding the party doth publish it this is a sufficient notice to the publisher that the Deed was forged And upon that the Lord Popham at the same time put this case Notice of Felony If one say to me take heed how you entertain or receive A. B. for he hath committed such a Felony and I giving no credit to the report receive the party where in truth he had committed the Felony now I am accessary to this Felony To which the Lord Keeper answered that he would not draw blood upon such an opinion 68. IF a man make a Lease reserving Rent to the Lessor Reservation of Rent if he say no more the Rent shall goe but to the Lessor but if it be reserved generally and doe not say to whom it shall goe as well to the Heir of the Lessor as to the Lessor himself Per Gawdy 69. IT was sayd by Fell Hue and Cry an Attorney of the Kings-bench that it hath been adjudged in the same Court that an Action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry against Inhabitants of any Hundred will never lye by Bill but ought to be sued by Writ and the reason is for that the Action is brought against Inhabitants which are a multitude and for that may not be in custodia Marescalli as another private person may 70. A Judgement was had in an Action of Debt of 80 l. And the Plaintif had a Fieri facias Capias after a Fieri sacias executed for parcell and the Sherif levyed 20 l. of the goods of the Defendant and retorned that of Record but non constat by the Record whether the Plaintif had received the 20 l. or not and the Plaintif took forth a Cap. ad satisfaciend for the whole Execution being 80 l. and upon that the Defendant was Utlawed and now he brought a Writ of Error to reverse that Utlary which was reversed for that it did appear upon Record that execution was made by Fieri fac of 20 l. of the 80 l. and therefore the Cap. ad satisfaciend should have been but 60 l. 71. IF the Husband sell his land by Fine Claim of Dower with Proclamations and live five years and after dye his Wife being sole of full age of sound memory out of prison and within the four Seas and doe not make any demand or claim of her Dower within five years after the death of her Husband she shall be barred 72. A Feofment was made before the Statute of 27. to the use of a Man and Woman unmarried Moities in Tail and of the Heires of their two bodies begotten and after they intermarried and after marriage the Husband bargained and sold all the land in fee to one of his Feoffees and died without issue and after the Statute of 27 was made the Wife claymed the whole by Survivor as Tenant in tayl after possibility of issue extinct And by the opinion of all the Court without argument she can have but the Moity because the Husband and Wife had Moities as Joyntenants by reason of the Joyntenancy made before marriage And yet by the Court as to the issue in tail if any had beeen he shall have a Formdon of the whole 73. IF Land be holden of a Subject Tenure and Wardship extinct and the Tenant sells the land by Fine with Proclamations to I. S. in tail the Remainder to her Majesty in fee The Tenant in tail dyes his Issue within age The Opinion of the Court was that the Issue shall not be in ward to the Subject if the Queen do not assent to her Remainder for that the tenure and services are gone and extinct by the Fee simple to the Queen which may hold of none And so the issue in tail shall be in ward to none 74. IF a man have goods to the value of 100l and is indebted in 20l. and he deviseth and bequeatheth to his Wife by his Testament the moity of all his goods to be equally divided between her and his Executors Legacy of a moity of all his goods and make his Executors and dieth And the Executors pay the 20l. yet the Wife shall have the moity of the whole estate viz. 50l without any defalcation so that the Executors have Assets besides 75. IN a Prohibition and the Case was this Benefield against Feek Tithe of Saffron the Farmor of a Parsonage sued in he Spirituall Court for Tithes of Saffron against a Vicar The Vicar pleaded that time out of memory of man the Vicar and his predecessors have had the Tithe of all Saffron growing within the parish A Prohibition for the Plaâ—ntif in the Spirituall Court upon his own lihell The Plaintif pleaded that the land where the Saffron was growing this year by the space of 40 yeares next before had been sown with Corn whereof the Parson and his predecessors have had the Tithe And the Spirituall Court would not allow this Plea For which the partie prayed a Prohibition Tanfield The right of the Tithe commeth in question between the Parson and Vicar Howbeit that the Farmor be made partie to the suit and for that the right of Tithes being in question between two Spirituall men Suit between persons spirituall This Court hath no Jurisdiction And this very point was adjudged 30. Eliz. inter Hunt and Bush in this Court that in such
second point he said they were Joyntenants and not Tenants in common Consideration but if the wordes of the Will had been Part and part like that they shall have part and part alike there they are Tenants in common and not Joyntenants Tanfield è contra For if they were Joyntenants for life Reversion descendeth to a Joyntenant and the reversion descend to one of them that will never drown the estate for life for the benefit of the Survivor And if a man give land to two men for their lives the Remainder to the right heires of one of them yet they are Joyntenants and the Survivor shall hold place and albeit the words are equally between them yet this shall be intended equally during their estate and it hath been taken for a difference if I devise my land to two equally divided between them there they are immediately Tenants in common and not Joyntenants but if the words had been equally to be divided between them there they are Joyntenants untill division be made for that that it is referred to a future time Gawdy Justice I think they have but estates for life for consideration of blood is not so effectuall as consideration of money Blood Money Difference for if I bargain and sell my land for money without expressing any estate the Bargainee hath a Fee simple but if in consideration of naturall affection I covenant to stand seised to the use of my son and do not express any estate there my son is but Tenant for life and for the second point I think they are Tenants in common and not Joyntenants for the case is no other but as if he had said I give my land to my children by moities amongst them By moities and then there had been no question but that they had been Tenants in common Popham Clinch For the first point no estate but for life passeth if any estate pass for it is doubtfull if any estate pass or not for the Will is that after his debts paid Only Lands lyable he giveth all his lands goods and moveables c. And therefore Popham thought that such Lands which were liable to Debts should pass A Term. and no other For if the Devisor had had a Term then it seemeth no Land should pass But admit the Land do pass then if I devise Land to two equally divided between them they are Tenants in Common But if I devise Land to two equally to be divided between them by I. S. now untill Division they are Joyntenants So I think where the Devise is equally to be divided between them that they are Joyntenants quousque Division because of the reference future 142. IOhn Cole made a Lease for years to one Taunton Devise is a demise Hil. 36 â—liz rot 376. upon Condition that if the Lessee shall demise the Premises or any part of it other than for a year to any person or persons then the Lessor and his Heirs may re-enter the Lessee after devised it by his Will to his son Popham Gawdy Fenner It is a breach of the Condition and the case of 31 Hen. 8. 45. ruleth the Law in this case for a Devise is taken for a breach of the Condition v. 27 Hen. 8. 10. Quaere if he might not have suffered it to come to his son as Executor 123. A Man seised of a Wood granted to another a Hundred Cords of Wood to be taken by Assignment of the Grantor Grant before property vested and before Assignment the Grantee granted that over and whether this Grant be good or not being before Election was the question And the better opinion was that it is not grantable over for no property was Vested in him before the Assignment and if the Grantor die before Assignment the Grant is void and his Executors if he die shall not have it 124. BRewster brought Error against Bewty upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Replevin A Jurâ—rs name in the distringing mistaken and it was Assigned for Error for that that Kidman was retorned in the Venire fac and Bidman was retorned in the Distringas habeas corpora Tanfield said it was apparent Error and to prove that he cited Parkers case where in an appeal Palus was retorned in the Venire fac and Faulus was in the Habeas corpora and Paulus was sworn and therefore Error And between Cobb and Paston a Juror was named Hantstrong in the Venire fac and Hartstrong in the Distr and adjudged ill Cook said that it might not be amended And to prove that he cited 9 Edw. 4. 14. 27 Hen. 65. where it is said no Amendment after Judgement for thereby the Attaint of the party shall be tolled and in a case between Crosby and Wilbet George Thompson was retorned in the Venire fac and Gregory Thomson was in the Distr and could not be amended after Judgement Gawdy It is hard to amend the Distr for the Book of 27. Hen. 6. is that it shall not be amended for the Distr is the Awarding of the Court and for that he cited 14 Hen. 6. 39. where a Juror was retorned by the name of Hodd and in the Habeas Corpora was named Lord and when the default was espied they awarded a new Habeas Corpora But in the Book of 22. Hen. 6. 12. the Sherifs retorn was amended but not the Writ And 34 Hen. 6. 20. The Prior of St. Bartholomews case where in the Fenire fac there were 24 retorned and in the Habeas Corpora but 23. and so a Juror omited and holden that it could not be amended But after the opinion of the Justices of England was that it should be amended insomuch that it appears by examination the same party in the Venire was sworn and so no damages to any 125. PAnnell brought Trespass against Fenn Devise to execute And the case was such that a man was Possessed of a Term and made M. his Wife and G. Fenn his Executors and devised all his Term to them and that they shall have the Term untill all his Debts and Legacies were paid and all such charges in suit of Law as they should expend the Remainder to John Fenn in tail the question was whether the Executors take as Devisees or as Executors Gawdy said if they take as Devisees then if the one of them grant all the Term no more but the Moity passeth and then the Grantee and the other Executors shall be Tenants in Common But if they take as Executors then when one Granteth the Term all passeth as 29 Hen. 8. is Clinch Fenner said they shall take as Executors for it is the proper function of an Executor to entermedle with the Will Gawdy If I make two my Executors Proper benefit and devise the profits of my Land to them untill my Debts and Legacies be paid and untill they have levyed 100. l. after that to their own use I
the Court the exception si pro eisdem duabus partibus made the Plea evill without question and therefore gave judgement for Windham that he should have Attornment but they said nothing to the other points 10. SHuttelworth came to the Bar Verdict and shewed how an Ejection firm was brought of an entry into certain Lands the Defendant pleaded not guilty and thereupon the Jury found that he entred into one moity and not into the other and this he alleged in Arrest of Judgement Anderson It seemeth that Judgement shall not be given for this is an Action personall and is not like to a Praecipe quod reddat Rodes It seemeth the contrary by 21 Edw. 4. fol. 16. b. fol. 22. see there the case intended Anderson The cases are not alike 11. IN the Exchequor Chamber before all the Justices c. the case was such John Capell gave the Mannor of How-Capell and Kings-Capell in the County of Hereford to Hugh Capell in tayl the remainder to Rich. Capell in tayl with divers remainders over the Donor dieth Hugh hath issue William and dieth Richard grants a rent charge of fifty pound to Antony his son William selleth the Land to Hunt by fine and recovery with Voucher and dieth without issue Antony distreineth for Arrearages and the Tenant of Hunt brings a Replevin and A. avows the taking whereupon the Plaintif demurs in Law Fenner It seemeth that the Avowant shall have Return and first I will not speak much to that which hath been agreed here before you that a Remainder may be charged well enough for by the Statute the Remainder is lawfully invested in Richard and I agree well that no Formdone in a Remainder was at the Common Law and so are our Bookes in 8 Ed. 2. and Fitzh in his Nat. brev saith that it is given by the equity of the Statute At the Common Law there was no Formdone in discender now it is given by the Statute of Westminster 2 cap. 1. For in novo casu erit novum remedium apponendum And I have taken it for Law that when a thing is once lawfully vested in a man Lawful vesture it shall never be devested without a lawfull Recovery and here the Recovery doth not touch the Rent and I think that allthough the Remainder was never executed in possession yet the Grantee of the Rent shall confess and avoyd it well enough The Fine is not pleaded here with proclamation and therefore it is but a bare discontinuance in proof whereof is the case in 4 of Ed. 3. Tenant in tayl makes a discontinuance Distress per grantee before entrie of the grantor yet he in Reversion may distrein for his service And if there be Tenant for life the Reversion to a stranger and he in Reversion grant a Rent charge Tenant for life is disseised and dye the Grantee of the Rent shall distrein allthough that he in Reversion will never enter And so if Tenant in tayl the Remainder to the right heirs of I. S. make a Feoffment in Fee upon the death of the Tenant in tayl without issue Droit heir de I. S. the right heir of I. S. shall enter well enough And he put Plesingtons case in 6 R. 2. Fitzh quod juris clamat 20. 8 R. 2. Fitzh Annuity 53. And the case in Littleton Dyer fol. 69. a. pl. 2. 22 Ed. 3. fol. 19. One grant a Rent charge to another upon condition that if he dye his heir within age Rent ch sur cond that the Rent shall cease during the minority yet his Wife shall recover her Dower when the heir cometh to full age Dower Perk. 327 Which cases prove that allthough the estate whereupon the grant is be in suspence when the grant ought to take effect yet the grant shall take effect well enough and if Tenant in tayl and he in remainder had joyned this had been good clearly And 8 Ed. 3. 43 Ed. 3. Tenant in tayl to hold without service the remainder to another to hold by service if Tenant in tayl in this case had suffered a Recovery and dyed without issue I think the Lord in this case shall distrein for the service then I suppose that the fine in the principall case shall not exclude the Grantee from his rent for there is a difference between jus in terra Jus in terra Prox. advoc and jus ad terram for I think that no fine shall defeat jus in terra and 26 H. 8. fol. 3. a. b. if I grant you proximam advocationem and after suffer the Advowson to be recovered the Grantee shall falsifie in a Quare impedit Then whether this recovery shall avoyd the rent or no and I think no for this case differs and now the recovery is had against Tenant in tayl for the remainder here is out of him by the fine and in the Coniâ—ee and the recovery doth not disprove the interest before for 8 Hen. 4. fol. 12. recovery against Tenant in tayl who dieth before execution sued And 44 Ed. 3. recovery of the rent is not a recovery of the homage Rent homage unless it be by title And here there is not any recompense to him in the remainder and therefore there will be a difference in this case and where there is a recompense Annuity for Tithes fol. 7. Hen. 6. if a person grant an Annnity for Tithes Nomine paenae it is good but if there be a nomine paenae it is not good and 7 lib. Ass an Annuity granted untill he be promoted to a benefice Promotion to a benefice it ought to be of as great value as the Annnity and 26 Edw. 3. the Church ought not to be ligitious and 22 Ed. 3. two men seised in Fee-simple exchange for their lives c. and 14 Hen. 4. the King may grant a thing which may charge his people without Rent for a release c. And 44 Ed. 3. rent granted for a release by Tenant in tayl is good and shall bind and charge his issue And so he seemeth that the Avowant shall have return Walmisley to the contrary For first it hath been held that the charge at the beginning is good and so I hold the Law bnt how Charge contingent or in what manner that is the question 38 Ed. 3. If Tenant for life be and he in reversion grant a rent charge it is good but it shall be quando acciderit 33 lib. Ass 5 Ed. 4. fol. 2 b. But this case is out of the Books remembred for there the remainder nunquam accidit and therefore shall never be charged for as I hold when he in remainder chargeth he chargeth his future possession and not his present interest Sci fa. de rem View for if a Sci. fa. should issue to execute this remainder he shall demand the Land and before the remainder falleth he hath but quasi jus Attornment al rent ch
Item that when concourse and equality of titles come together 4 Principles for the King that King shall be preferred 3. Item in entire things he shall have all 4. Item that his grant shall not extend to severall intents or purposes For the first if the King be deceived in the operation of the Law his grant shall be voyd as where he grants to a man and his heirs males Release several this shall be voyd 6 Hen. 7. release of all demands 11 H. 7. 10. release of all action and yet in those cases there is matter of interest and not prerogative and yet nothlng passeth if she be deceived For the concourse of title 4 Ed. 6. a man makes a feoffment in fee upon condition that the feoffee shall not commit treason after the feoffee commits treason the King shall have the land Treason 44 Ed. 3. per Thorp tenant of the King c. he shall have the rent again And for the case of the Lady Hales in the Comentaries where lands descend to a villain For entireties 44 Ed. 3. the King and others give lands to a Monastery the King shall be sole Founder The. King sole founder 19 Hen. 6. he shall have the intire obligation where the one obligee is outlawed Obligation and in 11 Hen. 7. 2 R. 3. two are indebted to the King Release to the oblige and he releaseth to one of them then his grant shall not inure to two purposes Baggâ—ts Ass And so if the King give lands to his villain this shall be no enfranchisment to him So for all those reasons I hold the condition may well enough be apportioned Villâ—in Then for the third matter when the commission issueth to enquire of all covenants and provisoes if the condition be within those words and for that point I think that the Plaintif shall recover for allthough it be not within the words yet the commission is generall after but yet I hold that is within the words 21 Hen. 7. fol. 37. per Fineux If I let land for term of years rendring c. I shall have debt or covenant at my election and Dokerayes case 27 Hen. 8. Proviso is a condition and so it was held here in the case of the Lord Cromwell and Andrews Then when the Jury found that 37 s 5 d. ob were behind if this office be good or no and in my conscience that which is good shall be taken for the Queen and the rest shall be voyd for offices between party and party may be voyd for uncertainty as the case is in Dyer 3 4 Eliz. Office in Beverley c. fol. 209. Or they may be avoyded for falsity Proviso is a condition 1 M. Culpepper fol. 100. b. Or for insufficiency as in my Lord of Leicesters case in the Comentaries Offices voyd but this is only for the Queen and therefore shall be taken favourably and therefore I will â—ompare it to a verdict where surplusage is found 3 Hen. 6. Plene administravit Superplusage in a â—erdict and the Jury found that they have more than Assets 47 Ed. 3. the Jury found that he which prayed to be received had nothing in the land where the issue was joyned whether the particular tenant had a fee. And 39 Hen. 6. 9. surplusage in an Inquisition 5 Hen. 5. fol. 2. Resceit Cobhams case where they found a Divorce in Kent c. Inquisition Allso Sir Offices may be good for that which is certain and voyd for that which is uncertain and good for the King and not for a subject Strenes case in 15 Edw. 4. 14 El. Office found after the death of the tenant by the curtefie 29 H. 8. Br. tit Office devant Escheetr 58. Dyer And if a commission be awarded and the lury say that dâ— quo tenetur ignorant then a melius inquirend shall goe forth but if they say per quae servicia ignorant then nothing shall be done but it shall be intended Knights service and so is the experience of the Exchequer And here they have found that more was behind ergo they have found that so much was behind Quia omne majus continet in se minus Then if this be within the Statute of 18 H. 6. c. 16. And it seemeth that it is not for that Statute as I think is but an exposition of 8 H. 6. and that speaketh of Leases by Treasurer and Chancellor and for that see the case of the Duke of Suffolk 3 4 Ph. Mar. Dyer fol. 145. And so I think for all these causes judgement shall be given for the Plaintif Peryam Justice to the contrary For the first matter I agree that they be several rents for the viz. here doth expound the matter and when the viz. may stand with the premises Videliceâ— then it is good and otherwise not and for that the case in 17 lib. Ass which hath been vouched Difference between an annuity and a rent charge and disseisin of one is not disseisin of the other rent And there is a plain difference between an annuity and a rent service because for an annuity it is the book in 29 Edw. 3. fol. 51. 29. lib. Ass 3 Parceners and rent reserved for equality of partition c. vouched by Rodes but if I grant you xl s out of my Mannor viz. x s out of parcel in the tenure of A. and x s out of another parcell Rent limited out of an intire mannor this is voyd for first there was a grant out of the entire Mannor 9 lib. Ass yet this is one lease but one reversion but one condition the condition is entire and that is wel proved by the express words of the condition totaliter reentrare and this proved by Winters case in 14 El. and Rawlins case adjudged Totaliter where the sum in gross was behind Dyer the case vouched by Rodes Cond is undevidable 33 Hen. 8. in a common persons case it cannot be divided neither by title nor by the act of the party If surrender be made of parcell Surrender of parcel the rent shall be apportioned but the condition is utterly gone Dyer But peradventure it will be objected that in 17 Eliz. the condition there was divided where he aliened parcell with the consent of the Lessor and the other parcell without consent and in that the Lessor entred for the condition broken Cond â—pportioned I grant this case and yet this doth not prove that a condition may be apportioned for the reason in that case is when he made such a condition the condition extended but to that which he aliened without license and to no more and so I hold the Law where a lease is made of twenty Acres with condition Eviction c. and parcell is evicted And warranty at the Common Law cannot be divided for if two Coparceners were who
me for the reason wherefore he shall be barred is because the recompence goeth according to the Estate which the Wife had and then it is reason that he shall be barred but in the same case if the Husband survive it is said in the same Book that the Issue shall be at large for that the recompence goeth to the Survivor but let it be as it may be the reason of the case is for the recompence And I think Com. 5. 14. that this case here will be proved by Snowes case in the Commentaries Recovery had against Husband and Wife where the Wife had nothing all the recompence shall be to the Husband 10 Edw. 3. Dower brought against husband and wife Dower and the husband vouch to warranty c. 38 Ed. 3. Praecipe against Tenant in tayl 8 Eliz. in Dyer fol. 252. where the husband was tenant for life the remainder to the wife in tayl the remainder in fee to a stranger and a recovery suffered and about 15 El. was a case in the Exchequer where lands were given to Norrice and his wife and to the heirs of the body of Norrice Remainder the remainder in fee to a stranger and a recovery suffered against Norrice he in remainder was attainted and Norrice and his wife were dead before and by the opinion of Sanders then chief Baron Recompences the moity shall be forfeit by the atteynder And recompences are but as exchanges Exchange executed and Bracton calleth them Excambia and I think if an exchange be executed in the one part and not in the other it is not good and so I think the recovery shall be no bar 8. IN a Writ of Dower brought Joynture Gawdy Serjeant shewed how that the husband of the demandant had given certain lands to her in lieu of her Joynture upon condition that she should make her election with in three moneths after his death and she made her election to have the Joynture and now she had brought her Writ of Dower against the heir by covin Covin and he hath confessed the Action to the intent that Thynne who had a lease for yeares of the first husband should lose his term and prayed ayd of the Court. Fleetwood for the demandant There is not any such Joynture as you speak of for that which was given to the wife was but a lease for yeares and that you know cannot bar her of her Dower Rodes Justice If the case be so then is there no cause to bar her of her Dower for a lease for years cannot be a Joynture Ease for years Quod Peryam concessit clearly and sayd that the Joynture ought to be a freehold at the least or otherwise it is no bar to the Dower whereby Gawdy moved another matter De Term. Mic. An. Reg. Eliz. xxviij xxix 1. AN Action upon the case was brought for calling the Plaintif false perjured Knave Jeofayle the Defendant justified because the Plaintif had sworn in the Exchequer that the Defendant had refused to pay the Subside where in truth he had notso done The Plaintif replyed de injuriâ— sua propria absque tali causa the Action was brought in London and there it was tryed for the Plaintif and great damage found and this matter was alleged in Arrest of Iudgement because the triall was in London whereas the Perjury was supposed to be made in the Exchequer Triall locall The Court said that the matter is tryable in both Counties and it was answered again London cannot joyn that London cannot joyn with any other County Anderson Then is your Issue vitious for when an Issue is tryable by two Counties if they cannot joyn then ought you to make such an Issue as may be tryed by one onely And by all the Court this ought to have been tryed in Middlesex for there the Perjury is supposed to be committed whereupon the Issue is taken Peryam to the Serjeant of the Plaintif See if you be not ayded by the Statute of Jeofayles Walmisley It hath been allwayes taken that if the triall be evill it is not ayded by the Statute of Jeofayles Peryam Then are ye without remedy for you shall have no judgement Et sic fuit opinio Curiae 2. GAwdy came to the Bar Joyntenancy and shewed how a man devised his lands to his two Sons Partition and their heirs and they had made partition by word without writing 18 Eliz. 350. Tota Curâ—a What question is there in it the partition is naught without doubt Rodes It hath been adjudged here that if the partition be of an estate of inheritance it is not good by paroll Joyntenant by devise Gawdy But I think that when a man deviseth his lands to his eldest Son and his youngest Son in my opinion they are Tenants in common because the eldest son shall take it by descent Peryam But I think not so for if a man make a gift in tayl to his eldest son Devise in tayl of an heir the remainder in fee c. Is not he in by the devise Gawdy This is another case Peryam In my case he shall take by the devise for the benefit of the issues and in your case he shall it take by the devise for the benefit of the survivor and therefore I think that they are Joyntenants Anderson There is but small doubt but that they shall be Joyntenants and there is authority for the case And this at length was the opinion of the whole Court 3. IN an Action of Debt for Rent Apportionment it was sayd by Anderson If a man make a lease of years reserving rent and the Lessee for years make a feoffment in fee of parcell of the land the rent shall be apportioned 4. FEnner came to the Bar Alien and sayd to Anderson that in his absence he had moved this case An Alien born purchaseth Lands and before office found the Queen by her Letters Patents maketh him a denison and confirms his estate the question is who shall have the lands Anderson The question is if the Queen shall have the lands of an Alien before office found Fenner True it is my Lord. Anderson I think they are not in the Queen before office and then the confirmation is good Rodes It seemeth that he shall take it onely to the use of the Queen Neis purchase lands and then the confirmation is voyd Fenner In 33 lib. Ass is this case If the Neise of the King purchase lands and takes a husband who hathâ— issue by her and she dye he shall be tenant by the curtesie Anderson and all the Court denied that case of the Neise Fenner I have heard lately in the Exchequer that an English man and an alien purchased lands joyntly Joynt purchase by an alien and the alien dyed it was adjudged that the other should have all by surviving Anderson and all the Court Surely this cannot be Law
which you allege is against you And the Wife of the Defendant being in Court was very importunate whereupon the Court moved an agreement and the Plaintif was content upon condition that the Defendant would enter into bond but the Defendant seemed unwilling by his silence Anderson Wee have made stay to the intent to do the Defendant good and he will not be content when more than reason is offered him wherefore let Judgement be entred for the Plaintif 7. IN a replevin by Gybson against Platlesse Revocation of a VVill. the Defendant made Conusance as Baylif to Anne Wingfield and the Issue was whether the Land descended to Anne Wingfield Norfolk Trin. as Daughter and Heir to I. W. and upon evidence this was the case 28 Eliz. rot 2â—30 The said I. W. was seised of the Lands in question and divers other Lands and by his last VVill devised all his Lands and Tenements to Anthony Wingfield of London Goldsmith in Fee and after and before his death he made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands which he had devised to the same A. W. and when he sealed the Feoffment he demanded will not this hurt my Will and it was answered again that it would not and he said if this will not hurt my Will I will seal it and then he sealed it and a Letter of Attorny to make livery and in some of the Lands the Attorney made livery but not of the Lands now in question and after the Testator died now if the Devisee shall have the Lands or no was the question for if this Feoffment be Revocation of the Will then the Devise is void And it was said by the Counsell of Anne VVingfield that it is a Revocation For if the Testator had said that this shall not be his Will then it had been a plain Revocation quod fuit concessum per Curiam and then the making of the Feoffment is as much to say as that the Will shall not stand but it was answered by the Court that it appeared that the mind of the Testator was that his Will should stand and when he made the Feoffment this was a Revocation in Law and if no Feoffment had been made there had been no Revocation in Law and there is no Revocation in deed for he said if this will not hurt my Will I will seal it and allthough that the Attorney made livery in part Feofâ—ent perfect in part so that the Feoffment was perfect in part yet for the Lands in question whereof no livery was made the Will shall stand Will. for a Will may be effectuall for Part and for Part it may be revoked and the Court told the Jury that this was their opinion and thereupon the Jury found accordingly that the Land did not descend to A. VV. quod nota And Fenner who was of Counsell with the Plaintif before the coming again of the Jury to the Bar said to the Counsell of the Defendant that the Law was clear against them Allso he said to divers Barresters afterward privately that in the case of Serjeant Jeofres it was adjudged that where one had made his Will and after one of his friends came unto him and demanded of the Testator if he had made his Wil and he answered no. And he demanded again will you make your Will and he answered no and yet this was adjudged no Revocation 8. ONe Lea of Essex Privelege was sued in an Action of Battery in the Common pleas Battery and upon non culp pleaded it appeared upon the evidence that the Defendant and others had thrown daggers at the Plaintif and grievously hurt and maimed him in outragious manner and Peryam said to the Jury that they ought to consider that the Plaintif was put in fear of his life and had one of his hands maimed and what damage he had susteyned by his Mayhem and that they ought to give damage as well for the fear and assault as for the Mayhem and when the Jury was gone from the Bar the Defendant caused the Plaintif to be arrested in the Kings Bench for a battery done to him by the Plaintif before and this was shewed to the Court and thereupon they sent for Lea and were grievosly offended with him for they said that when a man is sued here Privelege de Court. he ought safely to come and go by the privilege of this place without vexation elsewhere And Lea pleaded that he was ignorant of the Law but the Court answered that ignorantia juris non excusat and therefore they said that they would punish him and discharge the other Then the Plaintif said that he had put in bayl to the arrest and the Court answered if you had not done so we would have discharged you but now we cannot but they commanded Lea to release his arrest or otherwise he should smart for it Fine and Lea was well content to do so Anderson yet you shall pay a fine here allso for otherwise we shall be perjured wherefore because you are ignorant you shall be fined at vj. s and Lea payed the vj. s incontinently and went for to release his arrest Rodes You have escaped well therefore let this be a warning 9. BEtween Smyth and Lane the case was such Copyhold Mith. 27. 28. Eliz. Rot. 1858. Radford A. was a Copyholder in Fee according to the custom of a Mannor whereof the Queen was Lady And she by her Letters Patents let the Copy hold to B. for years and he granted his Term to the Copyholder if by this the Copyhold be determined or no was the doubt And it was agreed by the Court and all the Serjeants 28 H. 8. 30. b. that if the Lease had been made immediately from the Queen to the Copyholder then it had been a plain determination but some put a diversity because the Patentee was not Lord of the Mannor Peryam I think the Copyhold is not gone for when the Copyholder hath an interest in possession and the other in the Freehold and the Patentee grants his interest to the Copyholder what surrender can this be Anderson I will not have it a surrender but I will have his interest to be determined For when he is a Copyholder this is by Custom and when the Land is left this is by the Common Law and when this is granted to the Copyholder surely he shall not have both For he cannot have a Copyhold in the Land and have the Land also wherefore in my opinion the Copyhold is gone Peryam Peradventure by the grant to the Patentee the Rent shall pass if there be any but it shall be hard to make it a determination of the Copyhold for they are two distinct and two severall interests Anderson By the grant made to the Patentee the Rent shall not pass for he hath no Reversion adjornatur 10. A Quare impedit was brought by Specot and his wife against the Bishop of Exeter
of the wife For if the Husband have an Advowson in right of his Wife and the Church become voyd and the Husband dye the Executors shall have the presentation and the Serjeant sayd that there be many Books in that point Anderson I know it well but I doubt of the Law in the case Allso I would have you to argue if this be within the Statute of Demurrers in 27 Eliz. For if this be not matter of substance then it shall goe hard with the Plaintif therefore let it be argued again another time 11. ONe Brook was Plaintif in a Replevin Copyhold the Case was such Tho. Speek was seised of a Mannor in which were Copyholds according to the Custom and the place in which the taking was supposed was a Copyhold and the sayd Tho. Speek being so seised took to wife one Anne B. and died seised after whose death the sayd A. in the time of King Edw. 6. demanded the third part of the Mannor for her Dower by the name of Cent. Messuagiorum Cent. Gardinorum tot acr terrae tot acr prati c. and was endowed accordingly of parcel of the Demesns and parcel of the services of the Copyholds and after she granted a Copyhold and if this be good was the question for if she had a Mannor the Grant was good and otherwise not And the opinion of all the Court clearly was against the Grant for when she demanded her Dower she was at liberty to demand the third part of the Mannor or the third part of Cent. Mes Cent. Gard. Cent. acr c. and when she demanded it per nomen Cent. Mes c. Mannor a corporation she could have no Mannor For a Mannor cannot be claimed except by his name of Corporation as Anderson termed it and not otherwise and then Cent. Mes and Cent. acr c. cannot be sayd a Mannor and then the Grant of a Copyhold by her which had no Mannor was utterly voyd and this was the opinion of the Court clearly Quod not a. 12. SHuttelworth shewed how one Knight was Plaintif in a Replevin Visne 〈◊〉 Ass pl. 42. and they were at issue upon a prescription for Common in Newton appendant to land in another place and the venue was of Newton onely and it was found for the Plaintif and he prayed his judgment for the tryall may be in the one place as well as in the other as in annuity where the seisin is alleged in one County Annuity and the Church in another it may be tryed in any of the Counties Anderson But we think otherwise for it ought to be of both places when the matter ariseth in both and if they had been in severall Counties Counties joyn the Counties ought to have joyned Shuttelworth So is 10 Ed. 4. fol. 10. But our case being after a verdict I think we ought to have judgement Anderson and Windham The verdictdoth not amend the matter if it be mis-tried as this case is Rodes agreed that it was a mis-triall Mis-trial and therefore evill and that mis-trialls are not helped by the Statute of Jeofayles Shuttelworth I agree to that if you say that the triall is not good Windham So we say New Venire facias Then Shuttelworth advised his Client to take a new Venire facias 13. WAkefield brought a Replevin against Costard The Lord. who avowed for damage fesaunt Comptons case and the Plaintif prescribed for Common that all the inhabitants of Dale except the Parson and infants and such a house Prescription for Common have used to have Common in the place The Avowant sayd that the house whereunto the Plaintif claimed Common was built within thirty yeares last past and if he may have Common to this new house by prescription or no was demurred in judgement in Michaelmas Term and then Shuttelworth argued for the Plaintif that he should have his Common by prescription but not of common right And Gawdy argued for the Avowant that the Plaintif shall not have Common because the prescription is against all reason that he should have Common time out of mind to that which is but of thirty years continuance And allso he excepteth the Parson and infants and such a house and by the same reason he may except all which is not good Then one of the Judges sayd that if this be good Antient inhabitants hereafter there shall be no Common for the ancient inhabitants Improvement Peryam By such a prescription he shall for ever barre the Lord from improving any Common Common entire which is no reason Anderson All Common is intire for if a man have Common to three Mesuages and he infeoffee one man of one Mesuage and another of the second and another of the third the Common is gone And by this reason allso the new house cannot have Common And now this Term Gawdy demanded of the Court if they were resolved in the poynt Anderson We are all agreed that the prescription is utterâ—y voyd for it is impossible to have Common time out of mind for a house which was built within thirty yeares and then he commanded to enter judgement if nothing were sayd to the contrary by the next day Shuttelworth We have sayd all that we can say my Lord. Anderson Then let judgment be entred against the Plaintif 14. SNagg shewed how the Earl of â—Kent had brought an action of debt against a Londoner for rent behind Grant and shewed how the Countesâ— of Derby was tenant in Dower of this land and took to husband the Earl of Kent and that Henry Earl of Derby had granted it to the Earl of Kent habendum after the death of the Countess for certain yeares and he shewed how the grant was made by the name of a reversion also Lease in reversion Grant in reversion difference and that the Tenant had attorned and alleged the death of the Countess And the Court said that the Attornment is not necessary for it is but a lease in reversion and then no rent passeth thereby Anderson If you had been privy to the case of Talboys in the Kings-bench you would not have moved this doubt Peryam It is allso the very case of Throckmorton in the Commentaries Snagge But here in my case he hath granted it by the name of the reversion allso and then the reversion will carry the rent Curia Then is your grant voyd for a man cannot grant his reversion habend after the death of another and therefore quacunque via data you shall have no rent And thereupon Snagge conticuit cum rubore 15. MOunsay was Plaintif in debt upon an obligation against Hylyard Jeofayle and the Defendant pleaded the Statute of Usury because it was made for the sale of certain Copperas and he took more than was limited by the Statute and that it was made by shift and chevisance and other matter he alleged to prove it within the Statute the
party from his advantage given him by the Statute But all the other Justices held opinion against him for they sayd that a man ought to appear in proper person upon a Latitat which Anderson denyed and sayd that the Latitats are not but of threescore yeares continuance which the other day Peryam had affirmed and he seemed to mislike with the Latitats And the Serjeant moved for their resolution in the case Anderson All my Brethren are of opinion against me wherefore take your judgement accordingly And so judgement was entred for the Plaintif 21. GAwon brought Debt upon an Obligation against White Traverse with condition that if the Defendant suffer the Plaintif his Tenants and Farmers to enjoy such a Common that then c. And the Defendant pleaded conditions performed and the Plaintif assigned for breach that he did not suffer A. B. his Tenant to enjoy c. Absque hoc that he performed the condition And it was sayd by the Court that this Traverse was not good no more than if one be bound to perform the covenants in an Indenture and the Defendant pleads that he hath performed all generally if the Plaintif assign his breach he shall not say further Absque that the Defendant hath performed the covenants for so much he had sayd before But Walmisley would have put a difference between the cases because in the one there were divers covenants to be performed but not so here Anderson If a man plead a Plea which is sufficient of it self and take a traverse allso you will grant that this Plea is not good quod fuit concessum and this Plea had been sufficient of it self onely quod fuit concessum ergo the traverse was not good without question Et sic opinio totius Curiae 22. GOverstone brought a Replevin against B. Rent charge who avowed the taking for a Rent charge granted to him by the Duke of Suffolk And this was the case The Duke was seised of three parts of a Mannor and granted a Rent charge to the Avowant And one Pole was seised of the fourth part and Hatcher purchased the Dukes three parts and the part of Pole allso and demised a fourth part to the Plaintif but the Serjeants could not agree whether it was Poles fourth part or otherwise the fourth part generally and as it seemed to the Court if it were the fourth part of Pole then the Avowry is not maintainable but otherwise if it were the fourth part generally And after in Michaelmas Term the case was rehearsed again and it was that he demised eandem quartam partem to hold at will And all the Justices agreed that it shall be discharged because it was never charged allthough once he might have distreined in all the Mannor Vnion of possession for that then there was no fourth part for all was alike in the hands of the purchaser but now when the fourth part is in the hands of a stranger it is no reason that it shall be charged Walmisley But the Tenant at will hath nothing but the profits by the way of taking Tenant at wil. and not any land but if Hatcher had made a Feoffment then I agree that it shall be discharged â—eryam And as well shall Tenant at will take the profits in his own right as long as the will doth continue wherefore judgement was given for the Plaintif 23. LEssee for years Wast the reversion in fee to Constance Foster and the Lessee granted over all his term and interest to A. B. Pasch 18 El. reserving and excepting all trees growing in and upon the premisses Rot. 420. the Lessee makes wast and destruction in the trees and C. F. brought Wast against the assignee and if this action will lye or no was the question wherein it was disputed whether this exception and reservation made by the Lessee be good or no for if the reservation be voyd then the action will lye well against the Assignee and thereupon these cases were put to shew both what interest the Lessor and Lessee have in the Trees viz. 33 Hen. 8. 2 Hen. 7. 42 Ed. 3. 21 Hen. 6. 46. 27 Hen. 6. Wast in Slatham 2 Eliz. fol. Danseyes case 7 Hen. 6. 12 Ed. 4. but to prove the reservation voyd Fenner took this ground That thing which a man cannot grant he cannot reserve and the Lessee cannot grant the Trees ergo he cannot reserve them And afterwards judgment was given for the Plaintif for default of pleading on the part of the Defendant but for the matter in Law two Judges were against the other two so that they could not agree De Term. Mic. An. Reg. Eliz. xxix xxx 1. AN action of Debt was brought by Bret against Andrews upon an Obligation indorced with condition to stand to the arbitrement of A. B. Request who did arbitrate that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintif xxâ—l and appointed no certain day of payment and the Defendant in pleading confessed the arbitrement but he sayd further that the Plaintif did never require him to pay it and thereupon the Plaintif demurred in Law and upon reading of the Record the Court held clearly that it was no plea because the Defendant at his peril ought to make payment within convenient time and the Plaintif needeth not to make any request And Anderson commanded to enter judgment accordingly 2. FEnner moved this case Possibility of Interest a man deviseth lands to his Wife for term of her life and if she live untill his sonne come to the age of 24 yeares that then he shall have the lands and if she dye before he come to that age that then I. S. shall have it untill his sonne come to that age and dyed then I. S. dyed before the wife and after she dyed before the sonne came to 24 years if the Executors of I. S. shall have the land untill the sonne come to that age or no was the question And the opinion of all the Court was that they shall not have it because their Testator had never any interest vested in him Fenner But here was a possiblity of an interest Curia But that is not sufficient Rodes cited the case of Bret and Rigden in the Commentaries Grant Anderson If I grant you that if you pay me xxl. at Easter then you shall have an Annuity of xl s to you and your heirs if you dye before Easter now your Heir shall never have it and so in this case 3. THatcher recovered in an Assise of Novel disseisin against Elmer for Lands in Hackney in Middlesex Redisseisin and after Elmer re-disseised him and Thatcher re-entred and Elmer disseised him again And Fleetwood moved the Court if Thatcher may have re-disseisin because that after action accrued to him he had re-entred Anderson What is the Judgement in this Action Judgement Surely it is not that he shall recover any land but double damages and that the
possession of the land 11. BRet Plaintif against Shepheard Apparaâ—ce the Condition of the Obligation was to appear at his Suit in the Kings-bench and upon Condition performed pleaded Triall by the Record the issue was found for the Plaintif And now he spake in arrest of judgement for that the triall ought to have been by the Record and not by the Country And so was the opinion of the Court But Radford Pregnotary said that the triall was good enough for it may be that he appeared there and yet there is no Record made thereof to whom it was answered that then it is no appearance if it be not recorded and Radford replied suppose that there is not any such suit there how then can it be recorded but the rule of the Court was ut supra for then the Obligation seemeth to be single 13. THe case of Calgate against Blyth was now again argued by Fletewood for the Plaintif And first he said that the limitation by the Wife is not good for which he took this ground that alwaies when a man shall gain a fee simple by matter of conclusion of Record that he shall be seised to his own use And here the Husband had a fee by conclusion by the fine and therefore his limitation good only Carill And there upon he put a case reported by Carill who was a grave man Fine levied and very learned in the law That if Husband and Wife levy a fine to B. who rendereth to them again for life the reversion shall remain in the Conisor to his own use Also he put another case put by Baldwin in the time of H. 8. Grant of all Estate that a man seised in right of his Wife grants totum statum suum to another the grantee shall have it no longer than during the life of the Husband if his Wife overlive him but if she have issue by him then he shall have it during the life of the Husband absolutely Fine And if two tenants in common inâ—eoff B. Feâ—ffâ—â—ent in see to their use they are then tenants in common of this use Diffâ—â—â—nâ—â— per Tenants â—n common but if they levy a fine to B. to their use then they are Joyntenants And in Queen Maries time a parson of a Church by licence of his patron and ordinary levied fi Parson levies a Fâ—e a fine of a portion of his Rectory and it was adjudged that it shall be to his own use in his naturall capacity Bishops the same law is if a Bishop levy a fine and he cited 1â— H. 4. 1. the first case and so he prayed judgment for the plaintif Anderson chief justice rehearsed the case and first he said that the Wife without her Husband cannot limit the use without doubt And here the case is no more but whether the husband may limit the use without the privity of his Wife and I think it a strong case that he cannot Notice of a use If Husband and Wife have an use and they grant it over to one who hath notice of the Use this shall be to the use of the Wife again What a use is and he defined an Use to be an intent and trust to convey lands and cited 6. H. 7. and that when the interest of the inheritance is in the Wife Fine if Husband and Wife levy a fine this shall be to to the use of the Wife for the use ariseth out of them which give the land and not by the Conises or Feoffees for they neither grant nor give the use Feoffment by he Husband alone and then it shal be to the use of the Wife again But if the Husband alone make a Feoffment this shall be to his own use and the Wife after his death shall be driven to her action And if the wife had been privy or assenting to the limitation Assent without naming although she had not been named yet it should be a good limitation but the Jury have found that she was not privy And a case was here adjudged Indenture after a fine levied that where a fine was levied and the limitation made after by Indenture that this shall be to the use of the Indenture if there be no other against it but in this case it is found expresly by the Jury that shee never agreed which doth impugn that which otherwise should be intended then now the case is no otherwise but that a fine is levyed and no use is limited but if the fine had been levied Silence is an agreemâ—ni the Husband only limited the use and nothing els had been done against it then it should have been to the use limited by the Husband because it should have been intended that the Wife had consented thereunto and so I think judgment shal be given against the Plaintif Windham I am of the same opinion and it seemeth that their difference and disagreement in the limitation is the cause that both the limitations are void First let us see who hath auctority to limit the use surely the principall owner of the land hath the principall auctority to limit the use and here the Wife is the principall owner What a use is and therefore hath chief power to dispose of the use And Sr. the use is the chief profit and commodity of the land and cannot be severed from the land no more than the shadow from the body and this was the reason of the Statute of 27. H. 8. which draweth the possession to the use and not the use to the possession for the use is the principall for by the common law by bargain sale enrolled the land shall pass without livery Bargain and sale for this was a contract for the use and then the law shall make the land to pass The Law erects the use and whithersoever the use is now carried the land and possession shall follow but when the Law carrieth the use it is to the owner and proprietary of the Land The mothers heir For if a man seised of Lands on the part of his Mother levy a fine thereof the use shall pass according as the land shall because the law carrieth the use And here the Wife cannot limit the use without her Husband and therefore that is void but yet it is good to this intent to shew her disagreement Silence Consent And if the Husband limit the use and she doth not disagree the law intendeth that she consenteth thereunto because she hath joined in the fine Sale in London by Husband and Wife And therefore in London sale of the lands of the Wife by deed enrolled by the Husband only is good if she assent or if she do not disagree And although that she shall not be examined concerning the use yet the Law will not have her defrauded of her land by joyning in the fine without her consent to the use for by that meanes
and did not say praedict Edward Seymour And all the Justices agreed that this was amendable And so the first judgement was affirmed 18. ANother Writ of Error was there brought upon a judgement which Rawlyns had to recover lands in the Kings bench Rent suspenpended and the Case was such A man makes a lease of ten acres for ten yeares rendring rent upon a Condition the Lessee grants 5. acres thereof to a stranger for five years and after grants the residue of the years in the five acres to the Lessor And after the Lessee broke the Condition whereby the Lessor re-entred and if he may do so or if the Condition was suspended or no was the question because he accepted a future interest in parcell Future interest Tenant wayves for it was adjudged in the Kings bench that the Condition was not suspended and now this was assigned for error And all the Justices except Anderson and Peryam held that it is not suspended before he had entred by force of his lease Anderson If I make a lease as here upon Condition and waive the possession this may be suspended before his entrie Cook This is another case Peryam But the reason thereof commeth well to this case And afterwards because the said two Justices dis-assented from the rest it was adjourned over 19. ANother Writ of Error was there brought upon a judgment given in the Kings bench Trover And Cook the famous Utter-Barrester of the Inner-tem moved this question to the Justices If a man lose his goods which come to the hands of another he converteth them to his own use and after the owner dye Day and place of conversion whether his Executors shall have an action of the Case for this Trover and whether he ought to shew the place and the day of the Conversion or no And the Counsellours at the bar said that he ought to shew both for so it was adjudged where an Alderman of London brought an action upon the Case against oue Staynsham upon Trover of an Obligation and it was found that he had broken the seales c. and because he did not shew the time and place of the Conversion he could never get Judgement And now the Justices were of the same opinion but yet Anderson seemed to doubt Peryam Executors at the Common Law shall not have Trespass for a Trespass done in the life of their Testator and the doubt is if they shall have an Action upon the Case Manwood if a man hath another in Execution for debt and the Gaoler suffer him to escape and after the Recoverer dyes shall his Executors have an action against the Gaoler Cook No. Peryam So it seemeth But Anderson Manwood and VVindam clearly to the contrary and that they shall have debt upon this Escape Cook But not an Action upon the Case at the Common Law and here by his own shewing he might have Trespass vi armis and therefore not this action De Term. Trinitat An. Reg. Eliz. xxx 1. RAlph Heidon brought a Writ of Right against Smethwick and his Wife Droit of two parts of forty Acres of Land in Surret and they pleaded that one Ibgrave was seised and devised it to his Wife now one of the Tenants for term of her life the remainder to Benjamin Ibgrave in fee Praying ayd in an Assise which was his heir and dyed and they prayed in ayd of B. I. who came and joyned to them and thereupon they came and pleaded to the grand Assise and the first day of this term the Assise appeared and sixteen were sworn whereof four were Knights and the residue were Squires and Gentlemen and the title was all one as before in T. 28 Eliz. for this same Ibgrave was Tenant in that other Action for the third part And the opinion of all the Court clearly that it is not ayded by the Statute for there is not any certainty in the Grant Name certain but if he had given it a certain name as green Acre then allthough he had mistaken the Parish yet it had been good enough Peryam The Assise may goe their way and they did so and after they being agreed came again to the Bar and the Demandant was called and did not appear whereby the Tenant prayed the Court to record the Nonsuit and it was done Curia All is one as if he had appeared Non-suits for this Non-suit is peremptory for ever the issue being joyned upon the meer droit aliter if the issue had been joyned upon any collaterall poynt 2. IN Trespass by Blunt and Lister against Delabere they were at Issue ' and now the Inquest appeared ready to pass Challenge VValmisley This Inquest you ought not to take for it is favourably made by the Sherif which is within the distress of one of the Plaintifs and shewed how the Sherif held certain lands of a Mannor now in question whereof Lister hath possession and allso hath certain lands for term of years of him and the Plaintifs moved that he ought to take one cause onely 1 Cause Curia He may allege both for the challenge is that he is within the distress and the allegations are but evidence to prove it and then the Plaintif sayd not within his distress whereupon the Court appointed Tryers and the Defendant sayd that all the Jury are favourable Tryors refused and prayed Tryers de circumstantibus Gawdy That cannot be but onely in an Assise and cited 9 Edw. 4. Curia We cannot appoint other Tryers in this case but only of the Jurors wherefore let the fourth and seventh be Tryers but you may refuse them and take others if you will and thereupon the Defendant refused the fourth whereby the third was appointed and they found the Array favourably made and therefore it was quashed 3. A Recovery was had by Arthur Mills against Sir Owen Hopton of divers lands twelve years passed Amendment and by the negligence of the Attorney Warranty of Attorney no Warrant of Attorney was entred for him and now suit was made to the Justices that it might be entered and they all consented thereunto and so it was entered incontinently but first the party made a corporall Oath that he had retained an Attorney and that this was the negligence of his Attorney 4. IN the Exchequer chamber Cook shewed that a Writ of Error was brought between Bedell and Moor Arbitrement and sayd that there was an Error in the Record Error not assigned which was not assigned and prayed that it might be examined allthough that it was not assigned because that it appeared in the Record which was agreed to by the Court. And then he shewed the case that two had submitted themselves for all quarrels ultimo die Novembris An. 24. to stand to the Arbitrement of two others and they Arbitrated that the Plaintif in this Writ of Error should release to the now Defendant all Actions which he might
Muskets and Callivers delivered into the Tower for which money Walton took a Debenter from the Queen in the name of a stranger and afterwards dyed and made Leveson Executor who procured the stranger to release and surrender the former Debenter to the Queen and took a new Debenter for the same hundred pound to himself this was adjudged no Assets nor devastavâ—t in the hands of the Executor Leveson upon a speciall Verdict but otherwise it should have been if the first Debenter had been taken in VValtons own name for then it had been a devastavit by the Executor 9. BAcon Plaintif against Selling in an Ejectione firme Assets de judgement the originall bare teste 13 Aprilis An. 39. and the Plaintif declared upon a Lease made to him 22 Apr. An. 39. Trin. 39 Eliz. rot 1345. so that it appeared to the Court that the Plaintif brought his Action before he had an interest in the Land and by all the Court a Rule was given for stay of Judgement after a Verdict but afterwards the Plaintif came and shewed that after Improlance he filed a new originall 10. HEnry Earl of Lincoln brought a Scandalum magnatum against one Michelborn for these words Scandalum magnatum viz. The Earl of Lincolns men by his commandement did take the Goodt of one Hoskins by a forged Warrant c. And the Earl recovered great damages by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement that the words were not sufficient to maintain the Action because it was not averred that the Earl knew the Warrant to be forged and of the same mind was the Court at this time 11. WIlloughby brought an Action of Debt against Milward Debt and declared that the Defendant bought Timber of him for ten pound solvend modo forma sequenti viz. five pound ad festum Pasch proxime sequentem and saith nothing when the other five pound should be payed and the Plaintif recovered the whole ten pound by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement for the cause aforesaid but yet by all the Court it was good enough for the Law intendeth the other part of the money to be due presently if no certain day of payment bee alleged 12. KItchin brought an Action of Debt against Dixson Debt Executor of Craven Mich. 36 37 El. rot 1028. or 1021. the Defendant pleaded ne unques Executor and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. That Craven in his life time made a Deed of Gift of all his Goods to Dixson and they found likewise that this Deed was to defraud Creditors against the form of the Statute and that the Defendant by colour of this Deed did take the Goods after the death of Craven and if this Deed vvas good then they found for the Defendant if not then they found the Defendant was Executor of his own wrong and so for the Plaintif and by all the Court Judgement was given for the Plaintif 13. IT was sayd by Drew arguendo That if the Grantee of a Rent charge release parcell of the Rent to the Grantor or his heires Rent charge the residue may be apportioned and the Land shall remain chargeable still for that residue but if he release in one Acre parcell of the Land charged then all the Rent is gone 14. IT was said by Glanvile in the argument of the case between Cromwell and Andrews Provisâ— that a Proviso in a conveiance to be performed on the part of the Lessee implies a re-entry allthough there be no speciall words of re-entry but otherwise it is when it ariseth on the part of the Lessor and Vouched bendlowes case where there was a Covenant going between the Habendum and Proviso But where the Proviso standeth substantively as where I grant a Rent charge Proviso that he shall not charge my person Condition this is no Condition but a Qualification Allso where a Feoffment is made upon Condition to grant me a Rent Charge payable at Easter and Christmas if the grant be not made before the first Feast which shall next happen the Condition is broken and he put a difference where the Condition must be performed by none but himself and where it may as well be performed by his Executors as himself And Drew said then that if there be a Feoffment upon Condition to Re-enfeoff the Feoffer there ought the Feoffor to make a request otherwise if it be to enfeoff another 15. SMith against Bonsall Common in effect the case was such In an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded his Freehold Hil. 39. Eliz. rot 1753. and the Plaintif replyed that A. was seised of a Yard-land to which he had Common of Pasture for all maner of Beasts Levant and Couchant upon the same yard-Yard-land and of the Moity thereof did enfeoff the Plaintif the question was whether this Common may be apportioned or else it be extinct alltogether In the argument whereof Drew said that Common sans number cannot be granted over because if it should be granted to a rich man he may surcharge the Common then and leave none for the rest of the Commoners so of estovers uncertain for so the Grantee may burn all the Wood quod Walmisley concessit and he vouched 17 Eliz. in Dyer that a Commoner may purchase parcell of the Land out of which his Common is issuing Purchase after that it be improved by the Lord and not extinguish his Common thereby And he said that if parcell of the Common be inclosed Inclosure a Commoner ought to make but one gap to put in Cattell but Anderson said that he may make as many gapes as he will And it was said by Anderson and Beamont Appendant may be apportioned that Common appendant cannot be for all manner of Cattell but onely for such â—attell as compass the Land and that such Common may be apportioned into twenty parts Append. quid as any Common certain may be Walmisley Owen If my Land to which I claim Common belonging can yield me stover to find a hundred Cattell in Winter then shall I have Common in Summer for a hundred Cattell in the Land out of which I claim Common and so for more or fewer proporitionably which they did expound to be the meaning of pertinen Moity of a Mannor levan and cuban Walmisley If I grant away the moity of my Mannor we shall both keep Courts so if I be disseised of a Moity or that the Moity be in Execution by elegit and we shall both have Common and in apportionment of Common respect ought allwaies to be had to the quality of the Land unto wâ—ich it is alloted Copiholder And a Copyholder may prescribe for Common in the Lords Land within the same Mannor by usitatum fuit but if he claim any other Common he must lay the prescription in the Lord. De Term. Hill An Reg. Eliz. xliii 1. WAlter Ascough prisoner
de D. and a Lease had been made by name de Minister domus de D. omitting this word Dei every one will agree that this is voyd but if a further addition be made to the Corporation the Lease is true Addition superfluous shall not hurt allbeit that it be varying as if the Lease had been Minister Dei omnipotentis the addition of this word omnipotent shall not hurt sic de similibus And allbeit that it be not agreeing in words yet if it agree in common understanding Common understanding it is good but if in common understanding the grant may not be taken according to the Foundation if it be not wrested to an unexpected understanding there it is not good and if the Foundation had been in English words Minister of God of the poor house of Donington and the Lease by name of Minister of the poor house of God of Donington every one will agree that this is palpable variance and the Lease not good And I doubt of the case of Everwick for there the Prior beatâ—â— Mariae brought an action by name of Prior beatâ—â— Mariae extramures civitatis Ebor and if this case were now to be adjudged that would be variance as the case of Bristoll Prior beatae Maria de Bristoll made a Lease by name of Prior beatae Maria juxta Bristoll and this Lease was adjudged voyd but if the case had been de Everwick juxta mures civitatis Ebor. this had been no materiall variance for it had been but an explanation which will never hurt and for that the Court was so divided in opinion that is to say two against two and the case concerned a poor house They moved the parties to comprimise 8. RUswell brought disceipt against Vaughan Disceipt and declared that the Defendant sciens that he had no title to the Advowson of D. took upon him to be owner of that and sold the profits of the sayd Advowson to the Plaintif pro quadam pecunia summa And it was pleaded in arrest of Judgement for that the Plaintif did not aver ubi revera the Defendant had no title non allocatur 9. THe case was that the Queen made a Lease for years Burrough versus Taylor rendring rent at the receipt of her Exchequer or to the hands of her Baylif upon condition that if the rent be not payd that the estate shall cease Payment of rent the reversion being granted away by the Queen after the Queen granted over the reversion and whether the rent shall be now tendered upon the land or at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the person of the Assignee of the reversion was the question and it was adjudged that the Grantee of the reversion ought to demand the rent upon the Land or otherwise he shall not re-enter for the condition broken that for two causes the one for that that when the reversion was in the Queen Election the Lessee had election to pay it at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the hands of the Queens Baylif and when the Queen had granted over the reversion the election of the Lessee is tolled by which now the rent shall ensue the nature of other rents reserved by common persons The common receipt of the Exchequer and those are payable upon the lands another reason is every rent reserved by the Queen is of common right payable at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the Baylifs of the Queen without words appointing at what place it shall be payd for these are the usuall receipts of the Queen and so the words which appoint that to be payd at the receipt of the Excheq â—r to the hands of the Baylif of the Queen are idle words for that the Law appointeth so much of common right ex praerogativa Regis but when the reversion is transferred into the hands of a common person No prerogative can be granted over there this Prerogative ceaseth for it cannot be granted to a common person and by consequence the rent shall be payd upon the Land 10. THomas VVelcome Error Executor of Anthony VV. Executor of John VVelcome brought a Writ of Debt against S. S. in the Common-place and Judgement was given and entred quod praedictus Johannes VVelcome recuperet where it should have been quod praedictus Thomas VVelcome recuperet No amendment in point of judgement and for that Error was brought and Serjeant Heale moved that the Record might be mended for that it was the mis-entring of the Clerk but adjudged to the contrary for the Judgement is the act of the Court and not of the Clerk 11. EDmund Nevell brought an Action of Trespass against J. Sayle Abuttals and declared Quare clausum fregit in quodam loco vocato Claveringfield abuttan super quoddam molend in tenura J. S. Opinio Curiae If the Plaintif do not prove his Buttals he is gone And for that he could not prove that the Mill was in the tenure of J. S. the Jury being at bar was discharged and howbeit that there be a way between the Close and the Mill yet the Buttall is good 12. RIchard Somerstailes brought an Action upon the case for slanderous words Slanderous words that is to say R. S. is a very bad fellow for he made J. S. drunken in the night and consened him of an hundred Marks and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintif and Judgment was stayed for the words are not sufficient to maintain an Action 13. IF the Heir of the Morgagee is in Ward Mortgage and the Morgager payeth the mony his entry is not lawfull upon the King but shall be put to monstrans de droit per Popham chief Justice 14. HAmond brought Debt upon an Obligation against Hatch Award of paâ—t onely and the Condition was That if the Obligor do well and truly perform and keep the Award of J. S. Arbitrator indifferently chosen between the Plaintif and the Defendant for and concerning the matters contained in 9 severall Articles bearing date the day of these presents So that the same be given up under the hand and seal of c. And the Arbitrator made an award of 7 of the sayd Articles omitting the other two and whether the Obligor ought to perform this Award was the question Man I think he ought to perform the Award for that he is bound by Obligation to perform it and to prove that he cited 5 Edw. 4. 19 Hen. 6. 17 Edw. 4. Gawdy The words of the Condition are so that the same Award be given up in writing before such a day and that shall have reference to all the Articles for the Submission was conditionall as 14 Elizab. And after Judgement was given quod quer nihil capiat per billam 15. How against Broom and others A Man leased a House and a Close rendring rent and the Lessor entered into the house and pulled that down and after
pleaded that before the said Feast of St. Mich. the said G. did not tender to him any acquittance Gawdie The Obligation is void for in so much as the Obligee hath not tendred to him any acquittance therefore he hath tolled from him the election whereof he shall not take advantage Fenner è contra for the election is not in the Partie for the making â—o the acquittance resteth in the will of the Obligee and so the Obligor hath no election Popham was of the same opinion 56. IF a Sheriff doe execute his Writ the same day that the Writ is retornable Execution of a writ done the day of the retorn it is a good execution per Yelverton and he cited these cases A Judgement given in a quare impedit 18. Eliz. and the Writ of dammages was executed the same day that it was retornable and this matter pleaded in arrest of judgement and notwithstanding the partie had judgment and if a capias ad satisfaciendum goe forth and the Sheriff take the Partie the same day that the Writ is retornable and send him into the Court who will say that this is not a good execution 57. WOodcock brought an Action of Debt against Heru Assets Executor of I. S. The Defendant pleaded that the Testator in his life time made a Statute Staple to one I. K. in the sum of 1000 l. and above that he hath nothing And if this Plea be good or not is the question Fenner The Plea is good without question Gawdie I have heard divers learned men doubt of that for if the Testator were bound in a Statute to perform Covenants which are not yet broken and it may be they will never be broken and then he shall never be chargeable by this Statute and yet he shall never be compelled to pay any debts which will be a great inconvenience And again I think there will be a greater mischief of the other part for put the case if the Executors doe pay this debt and the Statute is broken after he shall be chargeable by a devastavit of his own proper goods the which will be a greater inconvenience 58. BRough against Dennyson brought an Action for words Slander viz. Thou hast stoln by the high-way side Popham The words are not actionable for it may be taken that he stole upon a man suddenly as the common proverb is that he stole upon me innuendo that he came to me unawares And when a man creepeth up a hedge the common phrase is he stole up the hedge Fenner When the words may have a good construction you shall never construe them to an evill sense And it may be intended he stole a stick under a hedge and these words are not so slanderous that they are actionable 59. A Copy-holder was not upon his Land to pay his rent Forfeiture of a copy-hrld when the Lord was there to demand it And whether this were a forfeiture or not was the question Fenner It is no forfeiture if there were not an express denyall for the non-payment here is but negligence the which is not so hainous an injurie as a willfull denyal for it may be that the Copy-holder being upon the Land hath no money in his purse and therefore it shall be a very hard construction to make it a forfeiture But if he make many such defaults it may be it shall be deemed a forfeiture Popham If this shall not be a forfeiture there will grow great danger to the Lord and the Copy-holders estate was of small account in ancient time and now the strength that they have obtained is but conditionally to wit pay their rent and doing their sevices and if they fail of any of these the Condition is broken and it seemeth cleer if the rent be payable at our Lady day Demand after the day and the Lord doth not come then but after the day to demand the rent there is no forfeiture 60. THe Case was that there was Lessee for life Sir Henry Knevit against Poole interest of Corn. the Remainder for life and the first Lessee for life made a lease for years and this Lessee was put out of possession by a stranger and the stranger sowed the Land and the first Lessee for life dyed and he in remainder for life entred into the Land and leased it to Sir Henry Knevit and who should have the corn was the question Tanfeild argued that Sir H. K. being Lessee of the Tenant for life in remainder shall have the corn for the reason for which a man which hath an uncertain estate shall have the corn is for that he hath manured the land and for that it is reason that he that laboureth should reap the fruit but he said that the stranger that sowed the land shall not have the corn Lease of ground sowed because his estate begun by wrong for if a man make a lease for life of ground sowed and before severance the Lessee dyed now his Executor shall not have the corn Assignment after sowing concess per Popham cont per Gawdy for that they came not of the manurance of their Testator so it is if the Lessee for life sowe the land and assign over his interest and dye now the Assigne shall not have the corn cansa qua supra and for this reason in our case neither the Executors of the first Tenant for life nor the Lessee of the first Tenant for life shall have the corn here for that it comes not by their manurance and the stranger which sowed them he shall not have them Vncertainty necessarie unnecessary difference for albeit he manured the land and howbeit his estate was defeasable upon an uncertainty yet he was a wrong doer and the incertainty of his estate came by his own wrong for which the law will never give any favour to him and for that when he in remainder for life entreth it seemeth that he shall have the corn for he hath right to the possession and the corn are growing upon the soile and by consequence are belonging to the owner of the soile but it hath been said that here there was no trespasse done to him in remainder and for that he shall never have the corn Sir as to that I say if an Abator after the death of the Ancestor enter and sowe the land Abator soweth and after the right heire enter in this case the heire shall have the corn and yet no trespasse was made to him and it hath been adjudged in this Court where a man devised land sowed to one for life and after his decease the remainder to another for life and the first Tenant entred and dyed before severance and he in remainder entred that there he in remainder shall have the corn and by consequence the same Law shall be in our case Godfrey è contra and he argued that the Lessee for yeers Devise of land sowne of the first Lessee for life
shall have the corn for if Lessee for life leaseth for years and this Lessee for yeers sowe the land and the Lessee for life dye now the Lessee for yeers shall have the corn by reason of his right to the land at the time of his sowing and never lawfully devested by any Act done by himself and he denyed the cases put by Mr. Tanfield and so concluded Gawdie The lessee for yeers of the Tenant for life shall have the corn and he denyed some of the cases put by Mr. Tanfield for in the case where Tenant for life sowes the land and after assigns over his esttae now if Tenant for life dye the Assigne shall have the corn as well as the Executors of the Tenant for life if he had not assigned over his estate But I agree the case of the devise for life of land sowed with the remainder for life for there he in remainder shall have them and the laches of the not entry of the Lessee for yeers shall not prejudice him Lessee for years ousted for it appeareth by 19. H. 6. if Lessee for yeers of Tenant for life be ousted and after the Tenant for life dye yet the Lessee for yeers shall have trespasse with a continuando for all the mean profits The which proves that they belong to him so is it in 38. H. 6. Lessee at wil ousted If Lessee at will be ousted and after the Lessor dye now the Lessee shall have a trespasse with a continuando without regress for when he may not enter Regress the law supplyeth it and the mean profits do belong to him And by consequence in this case the corn belongeth to the Lessee for yeers Ground let for life after sowing of the Tenant for life Popham Sir Henry Knevit shall not have the Corn for if a man lease for life ground which is sown and the Lessee dye now the Lessor shall have the Corn and not the Executors of the Lessee for life And he agreed with Mr. Tanfeild in the case of the Assignee of Tenant for life of ground sowed and the Tenant for life dye that he in Reversion shall have the Corn Disseisor sow the land of tenant for life And if a Disseisor sow the land of Tenant for life and the Tenant for life dye now the Executors of the Tenant for life shall have the Corn and not the Disseisor nor he in Reversion and by consequence the Lessee for years of the first Lessee for life in this case Fenner was of the same opinion and after it was adjudged that Knevit should have the land and that Poole should have the Corn because of his possession 61. RAme sued a Prohibition against Patteson Prohibition for Dotards and the question was if Trees which are above the age of twenty years become rotten and are cut down for fuell shall pay Tyths or not and the opinion of the Court was that they shall not for Tythes are payable for an increase and not for a decrease and being once privileged in regard of hie nature this privilege shall not be lost in regard of his decrepitage 62. PArtridge brought an Action of Debt against Naylor upon the Statute of 1 2 P. M. 12. Empounding For taking of a Distress in one County and driving it into another and the case was that three men distreined a flock of Sheep and them impounded in severall places and if every of them shall forfeit a hundred shillings severally or but all together a hundred shillings Common place The Court was divided for the words of the Statute is that every person so offending shall forfeit to the party grieved for every such offence a hundred shillings and treble damages but Walmisley thought that every one should forfeit a hundred shillings and he put a difference between person and party for many persons may make but one party 63. BY Popham chief Justice of England by the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. cap. 10. Fine for Error in inferior Courts Erroneous Judgement in London was a forfeiture of their Liberties but after that by the Statute of 1 Hen 4. cap. 15. this was mitigated and was made finable as in Chester if they give an erroneous Judgement they shall forfeit an hundred pound for these inferior Courts which have peculiar Jurisdictions ought to do justly for if these Courts shall not be restrained with penalties Justice will be neglected and before the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. those of London might not reform Errors in London 64. NOta per Doctor Amias in the Lord Souch his case Caveat if a Church become voyd and a stranger enters a Caveat with the Register of the Bishop that none be instituted to that Church untill he be made privy thereunto and the Bishop before that he have notice of the Caveat institutes an Incumbent the Institution is meerly voyd in the Spiritual Law for the Register ought to notifie the Caveat to the Bishop and his negligence in that shall not prejudice him that entered the Caveat and if the Bishop have notice of the Caveat and gives day to him that puts that in and before that day he institutes an Ineumbent this is meerly voyd for the entering of the Caveat is as a Supersedeas in our Law 65. THornton brought an Action upon an Assumpsit against Kemp Day of payment and declared that the Testator was indebted to him in ten pound and in consideration that the Plaintif would give day to the Defendant being Executor to pay that until Michaelmas he assumed to pay that in facto dicit that he hath given day and yet the Defendant hath not that payd The Defendant pleaded in bar that post praedictam assumptionem factam and before Michaelmas the Plaintif did arrest him for the same Debt and demands Judgement and upon that the Plaintif demurred Gawdy When he hath given to him day of payment usque ad Michaelmas allbeit he arrest him before that time yet if he do not receive the money before Michaelmas the consideration is performed Fenner I deny that for to what purpose is the giving of day of payment untill Michaelmas if in the mean time he may sue him Popham I agree with my brother Gawdy for insomuch that he onely forbears the payment untill Michaelmas and doth not promise to forbear to sue him the payment is forborn if the money be not received 66. SHerington â—ued a Prohibition against Fleetwood Parson de Orrell Prohibition in Com. Linc. for that that the sayd Parson libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tyths of Agistments and the now Plaintif being Defendant in the Spirituall Court pleaded that he had allwayes payd twelve pence by the year for every Milch Cow going in such a Pasture and for this payment he had been discharged of payment of Tythes for all Agistments in that land Payment for one thing shall not discharge another Popham This payment of money for Milch
case the partie shall have a consultation Popham The one of the parties is a man temporall and so was it not in your case Sic nota that by the Spirituall law the Vicar shall have Tithes of Saffron of land newly sown with Saffron albeithat before the Parson had the Tith of that land being sowen with Corn. 76. NOta that by the course of the Kings-bench a man may have Oyer of the deed after imparlance Oyer of a deed but not in the Common place Q. 77. BEckford brought an ejectione firme against Parnecote Devise before purchasâ— and the Case upon the speciall Verdict was found to be this That one Parsons was seised of certain land in A. and had issue four Daughters viz. Barbera Johan E. and Mary and made his Will in writing And by the same Will he devised all his land in Aldeworth to Barbera and Johan two of his daughters and made them two his Executors and after he purchased other land in Aldworth and a stranger was desirous to purchase this land of him newly purchased And he said that that land should goe with the residue of his land to his Executors as his other land should go After the said Testator made a Codicill and caused it to be annexed to his Will But the Codicill was of other things and mentioned nothing of this land and whether this new purchased land shall pass by the Will without new publication of the Will for this land was the question Moor I think that the land newly purchased shall pass and to prove that he said that the reason in Bretts case 340. Com. for which land newly purchased shall not pass is by reason that there is no manner of new publication but in our case there is new publication and in Trivillians case 4 M. 143. where cestui quae use made a Will And then the Statute of 27 H. 8. of uses came now this Will was comptrouled The Statute of Wills but by a new publication it may be made good and he cited 44. E. 3. 12. and 44 Ass 36. Atkinson è contra For this Will ought to be warranted by the Statute otherwise it is not good and the Statute doth not enable him which hath no land at the time of the devise to devise land and the words of the Statute manifest this which are Where any person or persons having any land holden c. So by the express words Want of apt words if he have no lands at the time of the Devise he may not Devise as appears plainly in Brets case allso it appears that words out of a Will will never make that to pass which was intended before and with that agreeth the Lord Cheney his case and the case of Downhall and Catesby lately adjudged and in this case allbeit the Testator allowed this Will after to be his Will Things not expressed in the Wil must be expressed in the publication yet this shall never make this land newly purchased to pass without express publication of this land Clinch Justice sayd it seemed to him that the land newly purchased shall pass for after that he had made his last purchase the Testator heard the Will read and by that he devised all his lands in Aldworth and then knew that the land newly purchased lay in Aldworth and upon reading of the Will he allowed it and so I think that the new purchased land shall pass as well as the other and that this allowance upon the reading is a new publication Gawdy Justice è contra For if I make my Will and by that devise all my land in Dale and after I purchase other land there and one afterwards shews me the Will and demands of me if it shall be my Will and I answer it shall I say that this land newly purchased shall not pass Hearing and allowance is a publication and in this case howbeit that the reading of the Testament or annexing of the Codicill be a new publication yet it doth not manifest the intent to be that more shall pass by that than he intended at the first and allso the new reading of the Will and the annexing of the Codicill may not properly be termed a new publication as this case is Where there it no controlment there needeth no new publication for here was not any Controlment and for that the Will needs not any new publication by which it seemeth that without any express publication for this land newly purchased this land shall not pass for the things which are found to be done are but allowances and no new publications 78. HArecourt brought a Writ of Error upon a Judgment given in the Common-place Amendment and assigned for Error for that the Judgement was that the now Defendant should recover xx l. assessed to him per Jnr. nec non x l. bassessed to him hic per Jur. where it ought to be per Cur. Yelverton prayed that it might be amended for that the Record in the Common-place was right and the Misprision which made this Error was in the Clerk which certified the Record and the opinion of the Conrt was that if it were so it should be amended and therefore they sayd they would have the Record it self brought out of the Common-place thither to be viewed whether it were so or not The Record it self shall not be sent out of the Court. Worley Clerk The Justices of the Common-place will not suffer the Record to be brought hither Popham That is no new President that the Record shall be brought hither for I have seen it done before this time But after in truth the Justices of the Common-place would not send their Record into the Kings-bench and therefore Cook the Queens Attorney prayed that it might be amended Popham It may not be amended for that I have spoken with the Justices of the Common place and they say that the Record was at the first as it was certified viz. Iur. pro. Cur. and after the Record was certified it was amended by a Clerk without any Warrant Cook Allbeit that it was so yet under Correction it is amendable for it is the misprission but of a Clerk and that of a Letter onely viz. of I. for this letter C. for the word is written Jur. short where it ought to have been Cur No amendment in â—â—int of Judgement and so amendable by the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. Curta è contra for it is parcell of the Judgement and you never saw the Judgement of the Court amended for which it cannot be amended here 79. EAst Executor of I. S. brought an Action upon the case of finding and Converting of certain goods Trover against Newman And upon not guilty pleaded the Jury found this speciall Verdict viz. That the Testator was possessed of divers goods and them lost and the Defendant found them And knowing them to be the goods of the Testator upon demand denied to deliver them And
if this deniall was a Conversion they prayed the discretion of the Court. Fenner I think that the deniall is a Conversion Denial is a Conversion for when I lose my goods and they come to your hands by finding and you deny to deliver them to me I shall have an Action of Trespass against you as 33. Hen. 6. is Keeping is an Administration And the very keeping of goods by an Executor shall be counted as an Administration and by the same reason the deniall here shall be counted a Conversion Gawdy I am of the same opinion for by 2 of Hen. 7. If I deliver to you Cloth to keep and you keep it negligently I shall have detinue or an Action upon the case at my pleasure and by 20 Hen. 7. if a Baker contract for Corn and the party do not deliver it at the day the party may have Debt or an Action of the case Tanfield There was a case in this Court 30 Eliz. for the finding and Conversion of a horse But here was no request made by the Plaintif to deliver the horse For which Judgement was given against the Plaintif Curia This is not like our case for the request and deniall makes all the wrong in this case Adjornatur 80. WIseman brought a Writ of Error against Baldwin Limitation upon a Judgement given in Trespass in the Common place upon a speciall Verdict which was that Baldwin was seised of 24 Acres of Land and made his Will and by the same devised his said Land to Henry his youngest Sonne when he should accomplish the age of 24 years upon Condition that he should pay 20. l. to the Daughter of the Devisor And if he shall happen to dye before his age of 24 years then he willed that Richard his eldest Sonne shall have the same Land upon Condition that he should pay to the said Daughter 20. l. And he willed further by the said Will that if both his Sonnes failed of payment of the said 20. l. to his Daughter that the said Land should remain to his Daughter And after this Devisor died and Henry his younger Son entred after the age of 24 years and did not pay the said 20. l. to the Daughter and Richard the eldest Son did enter upon him and whether his entry were lawfull or not was the question Cook Attorney said it was a meer Limitation and no Condition and by consequence the entry of the eldest Sonne is not lawfull and to prove that he cited a Case which he said was in Justice Dallisont reports 9 Eliz. where a man devised Land to his youngest Son upon Condition of payment of a certain sum of money to his Daughter as our case is The Remainder over to another of his youngest Sonns and the first Devisee entred and did not pay the money and he in Remainder took advantage of that and so in our case by the Devise Richard is to have nothing if Henry the youngest Son did not die before 24 yeares and the intent of the Devisor appears that his Daughter shall have the Land for non payment of the money And therefore if the Heir enter for the Condition broken he destroies the whole intent of the Devisor And therefore the entry of the eldest Son is not lawfull Godfery I think it is a meer Condition for so are the words And then when the word subsequent limit a Remainder to the Daughter for default of payment that is not good and he denyed the case cited out of Justice Dallison for he said he was dead long before An. 9 Eliz. Gawdy I take the case of 29 Hen. 8. 33. to be a Limitation and no Condition for there a man devised to the Prior and Covent of St. Bartholomewes Ita quod reddant decano capitulo sancti Pauli 16. l. per An. And if they failed of paiment that their estate should cease and that the Land should Remain to the said Dean and Chapter and their Successors And it seemeth there that the Dean and Chapter for non payment shall not enter But I think the contrary and I think in this case it is a Limitation and no Condition A remainder and a recovery may be created by one deed Fenner If I make a Lease for life upon Condition with Remainder over may my Heir enter for the Condition broken Godfry Yes Sir Fenner Nay truly for then he shall defeat the Remainder which is well limited by me before the which I may not do and this is the reason if I make a Lease for life upon Condition and after grant the Reversion over that before the estate the Condition was gone for that if I re-enter I shall defeat my own grant Gawdy Per 29. Ass If a man devise to one upon Condition that if he shall be a Chaplin to remain over to a Corporation and the Tenant was made Chaplin by which the Heir entred and an Assise was adjudged maintainable against him for his entry was not lawfull Clinch The intent of the Devisor appears that for default of payment the Daughter shall have the Land and therefore the Sonne shall not enter And Wilcocks case in this Court was that a man seised of a Copyhold in the nature of Burrough English surrendred that to the use of his Will and by his Will devised the Land to his eldest Sonne upon Condition that he should pay to the youngest Sonne x. l. And after for non payment the youngest Sonne entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull Gawdy Wee three are agreed that it is a Limitation and no Condition by which the first Judgement was reversed 81. PYne of Lincolns Inne brought an Assumpsit against Widow Hide as Executrix of her Husband Assumpsit of the testator and declared that the Testator in Consideration that the Plaintif had leased to him certain Copyhold-land he assumed to pay to him 100. l. And the Defendant demurred in Law for that the Action is not maintainable against any Executor upon an Assumption of the Testator Popham For the Contrariety of opinion in this Case between the Judges of the Common-place and us we will make it an Exchequer-Chamber case and so try the Law 82. ONe Jackson prayed a Prohibition Prohibition for a Parsons lease and shewed for his Cause thâ— the Parson sued him in the spirituall Court for tithes And ho wt the Statute of 13 El. cap. 20. c. That if any Parson make a Lease for years of his Parsonage and absent himself by the space of 80 daies that the Lease shall be void And the Parson shall forfeit the profits of his benefice for a year and the Statute of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. c. That all bonds and Covenants for suffering or permiting any Parson to enjoy any Benefice or to take any Benefice or to take the profits and fruits thereof shall be adjudged of such force and Validity as Leases made by the same persons of benefices and not otherwise and after the
dyed and if the estate of Tho. was determined by the death of Nich. was the question Johnson There are two points in the case the first if by this word Assignee an Occupant shall have the land and I think he shall not And the second point is when a lease is made to one and his Assignees for his own life and the lives of two others if now his own life confound the other two lives for that that it is greater to the Lessee than the other two lives and he said the Lessee hath no estate but for his own life and when he dyed the state is determined and to prove that he cited the opinion of Knightley in 28 Hen. 8. 10. Where he saith if a lease be made to one pur auter vie without impeachment of Wast the remainder to him for his own life that now he is punishable of Wast for that that when the remainder is limited unto him for his own life Wast against the surviving Joyntenant this drowneth the estate pur auter vie which was in him before And by 3 Edw. 3. If a lease be made to two for their lives without impeachment of Wast and one of them purchase the Fee simple and dye now his heir shall have Wast against the Survivor And I have heard that this was the case of the Lord Aburgaveney for a house in Warwick lane Cook è contra And the case is no more but that a lease is made to one and his Assignes for his own life Remainder for years to the tenant for life and for the lives of two others and I think that all may stand together for a man may have an estate for his own life the remainder for yeares and both may stand together in him simul semel for that that albeit that the Lessee may not have that during his own life yet he may dispose of that and by that means shall have the benefit and so in this case and allso an estate pur auter vie shall be in esse in the Lessee for the benefit of the Occupant and the inconveniencies shall be exceeding many in this case if the estate doth not endure for all their lifes for the Statute of 32 H. 8. inableth Tenant in tayl to make leases for 3 lives or 21 years and usually Tenants in tayl make such leases as these be and for that the generality of the case ought greatly to be regarded and there was a case adjudged in the Common place between Chambers and Gostock Chambers against Gostock where a lease was made to two for their lives and the life of a stranger and one of the Lessees dyed and the Survivor granted the land for his life and the life of the stranger Burdels case and it was no forfeiture and allso it was Burdels case in the Common-place 32 Eliz. where a lease was to him for his own life and the lives of two others and a good lease for all their lives Occupant And for the point of the Occupant there is no question but that the state of him that first enters is better than the state of him that enters under the state of the Lessor Gawdy The cases put by Mr. Johnson are not like to the case in question The greater estate preceding the less both may stand and I will agree them for here the greater estate precedeth the lesser I hold that a lease made to one for his life the remainder to him for anothers life is good for he may it grant over and so I think in this case that so long as any of the lives remain living that the estate remains Fenner I am of the same opinion for I think that the state pur auter vies is in the party to dispose at his pleasure so Judgment was given for the Defendant 87. HArding brought an Action of Trover of goods against Shâ—rman Visne and declared of a Trover at D. in the County of Hunt The Defendant pleaded that he bought the goods of one I. S. at Roiston in the County of Hertford in open Market and demanded Judgement The Plaintif replied that the Defendant bought the same goods of the said I. S. at D. aforesaid in the County of Huntington by fraud and Covin And after bought them again at Roiston as the Defendant supposeth the Defendant rejoines that he bought the same goods bona fide at Roiston Absque hoc that he bought them by fraud apud D. in Com. Hunt Glanvile pleaded in arrest of Judgement that the Visne ought to be of both Counties Gawdy seemeth to agree but for that that Clinch and Fenner held strongly that the Visne was well awarded in one of the Counties therefore Gawdy gave Judgement for the Plaintif for by this speciall Traverse the buying at Roiston shall not come in question 88. PAyton being High-Sherif Keep harmless brought Debt upon an Obligation against his under-Sherif and the Condition was to perform all Covenants in a pair of Indentures conteined and one Covenant was that the under-sherif shall keep all the Prisoners committed to him untill they be delivered by the Law and allso to save Mr. Payton harmless of all escapes made by the said Prisoners And the Defendant pleaded performance of all Covenants Godfry The Plea is not good for one part is in the Affirmative and the other in the Negative By which the Defendant ought to plead that the Plaintif non fuit damnifieatus and so was the opinion of the Court by which day was given to the Deâ—endant to amend his plea. 89. A Man brought an Action of Trespass for entring into an house and breaking of his close in Dale Variance between the declaration and the new assignment or the title of the Plaintif The Defendant said that the said house and close in which the Trespass is supposed to be done conteins twenty Acres and is at the time of the Trespass supposed was his Freehold And the Plaintif replyed quod locus clausa in quo supponitur transgressio est anum messuagium and makes him a Title to it To which the Defendant pleaded non Cul. And it was found for the Plaintif and for that that the Plaintif by his Replication made to him Title but to a messuage and doth not maintain his Declaration which was for the messuage and the close therefore it was awarded quod querens nihil capiat per Billam sed quare if this do not amount to a discontinuance of the close onely and so helped by the Verdict 90. THomas Allen brought a Writ of Debt against William Abraham upon an Obligation bearing date in October Counterbond for an Obligation allready forfeited The Condition was that whereas the sayd Thomas Allen at the request of the above bounden William Abraham standeth bound together with the sayd William unto one J. S. in an Obligation for the true payment of 11. l. the 15. day of May the which May was before the
lawfull to sell such an Office 114. IN an Action of Debt upon an Escape Escape Popham Clinch and Gawdy sayd P. 36. Eliz. if a Prisoner in Execution escape and the Jaylor make fresh suit and before the re-taking the party bring his Action against the Jaylor now the Jaylor may not re-take the Prisoner as to be in execution for the Plaintif again but onely for his own indempnity but if the party doe not bring his Action then the Jaylor may re-take his Prisoner and he shall be in Execution again for the Plaintif Wast For by Popham this Case is like to Wast the which if it be repaired before the Action brought the party shall not have an Action 115. A. B. was Utlawed after Judgement Elegit after Vâ—lary and an Elegit was awarded against the Defendant Mr. Godfrey prayed a Supersedeas quia erronice emanavit for the party may not have any other manner of Execution but a Capias for a Fieri fac he may not have for the Queen is intituled to all his goods and an Elegit he may not have for by the Utlawry the Queen is intituled to all the profits of his Lands Feoffment by an outlaw Gawdy It appeares by 21 Hen. 7. 7. a. That the party Outlawed may make a Feoffment and so out the King of the Profits and so it seemeth in this Case But it is good to be advised 116. SR Henry Jones Knight Error in fine and remedy and I. his Wife the Wife being then within age levied a Fine of the lands of the Wife and a precipe quod reddat was brought against the Conusee which vouched the Husband and the Wife and they appeared in person and vouched over the common Vouchee which appeared and after made default whereby a Recovery was had and now the said Wife and her second Husband brought a Writ of Error to reverse the Fine and another Writ of Error to reverse the Recovery by reason of the nonage of the woman and the court was of opinion to reverse the Fine but they would advise upon the Recovery for that the said Henry Jones Knight and his Wife appeared in person and vouched over and so the Recovery was had against them by their appearance and not by default and so it seemeth no Error Generall warranty destroieth titles and conditions and to prove that Gawdy cited 1 and 2 Mar. Dyer 104 and 6 H. 8. 61. Saver default 50. Also as this case is it seemeth that by generall entry into warranty the Error upon the Fine is gone as where a man hath cause to have a Writ of right or title to enter for a Condition broken or any other title to land and in a praecipe quod reddat of the same land is vouched and entreth generally into warranty by that the condition or other title is gone but upon examination it was found that the Recovery was before the Fine for the Recovery was Quindena Trin. and the Fine was tres Trin. And so the Recovery doth not give away the Error in the Fine 117. IN Evidence between Tutball and Smote the case was such Condition extinguished P. 36 Eliz. that a Termor for years granted his Term to I. S. upon condition that if the Grantee did not yearly pay x l. to Q. R. that the grant should be void after the Grantor died and made the Grantee his Executor and whether the Condition be extinguished or not was the question Popham and Gawdy said the Condition is extinguished for it is impossible for the Executor to enter upon himself Clinch Fenner è contra The debtor marrieth the Executor for he hath the Term jure proprio and the Condition as Executor and so he hath them as in severall capacities Cook It hath been adjudged where a man is indebted and marryeth with the Excutor and the Executor dyes yet this is no devastavit for the Husband hath been charged 118. RIchard Thorn Administrator of an Administrator and Jane his Wife as Administratrix of one I. Gime brought Debt of xx l. against I. S. And alleged that the Testator was Administrator of one Mary Gime which Mary Gime lent the money to the now Defendant Trin. 36. Eliz. and Judgement was given in the Common place against I. S. And upon the Writ of Error Error was assigned for that that the now Plaintif as Administrator of an Administrator brought this Action where the Administration of the first Testatators goods ought newly to have been committed by the Ordinary to the next of Kin and he to whom the Administration of the goods of the first Administrator is committed hath nothing to doe with them And so the Iudgement was Reversed 119. HUmble brought Debt against Glover for arrearages of rent Privity determined of both parts and the case was this that a man made a lease for term of years and after granted the Reversion to the Plaintif and after the Lessee for yeares assigned over his whole estate and interest and after this assignment rent was behind and the Grantee of the Reversion brought Debt against the first Lessee for rent due after his estate assigned over and whether Debt will lye against the Lessee after the assignment was the question and the opinion of all the Judges was that no Debt lyeth for the Grantee of the Reversion against the first Lessee after the assignment of his term for when the privily of the estate is determined of both parts no Debt lyeth and so the Plaintif was barred 120. IN Evidence between Maidston and Hall Maintenance Popham said that it was agreed in the Star Chamber if two are at issue in any Action It is not lawfull for any stranger to labour the Jury to appear for for such an Act one Gifford was fined in the Star-Chamber Giffords case Gawdy Truly the Law is so for labouring of Juries is maintenance 121. DIckâ—ns brought an action of trespass against Marsh Estaâ—e by Devise and a speciciall Verdict was found that R. D. being seised of certain lands in Fee had issue three children to wit John Toby and Mary and by his Will devised that after his debts paid he giveth all his goods lands and moveables unto his three children equally between them Altam There are two matters to be considered in the case the first is what estate the children have by this devise whether Fee simple or but for life the second is whether Joyntenants or Tenants in commn and as to the first point I think they have but an estate for life for it appeares 22 H. 6. 16. If I devise land to one without expressing what estate he shall have Dyer 23 Eliz. 371. he is but Tenant for life but if it be expressed in the devise No estate expressed that the Devisee shall pay 20. s to John S. there as the book is 24 H. 8. R. 125. the Devisee shall have Fee simple For the
the Statute 134. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Distinct grants that the Lord Keep 〈◊〉 that is was of Counsell in a case inter Harlakenden and A. where it was adjudged that if a man make a Lesse for years of Land excepting the Wood and after the Leasor grants the Trees to the Lessee and the Lessee assigned over the Land to another not making any mention of the Trees now the Trees shall not pass to the Assignee as annexed to the Land for the trees and Land are not conjoined for the Lessee had severall interests in them by severall Grants 135. THomas against King Ejectment and the Title of the Land was between Sir Hugh Portman and Morgan And the Ejectment was supposed to be of 100. Acres of Land in Dale Sale and the Jury found the Defendant guilty of 10 Acres but did not shew in what Town they lay whereupon Haris Serjeant moved in arrest of Judgement for that it doth not appear where the Sherif may put the Plaintif in Possession Et non allocatur for the party at his perill ought to shew unto the Plaintiff the right land for which Judgement was given for the Plaintif 136. O Land against Bardwick and the case was this that a woman being possessed of Coppihold land for her Widowes estate sowed the land Forfeiture of a particular tenant and after took the Plaintif to Husband and the Defendant being Lord of the Mannor entred and took the Corn and the Husband brought an action of Trespass Clinch I think the Woman shall not have the corn Lease by Tenant for life but if the Wife had Leased the Land and the Lessee had sown it and after the Wife had maried and the Lord had entred yet the Lessee shall have the Corn. But in the case at bar the Woman her self is the cause of the Determination of her estate for she committeth the Act and therefore shall not have the Corn no more Forfeiture than if Lessee for life sow the Land and after commit forfeiture and the Lessor enter in this case the Lessor shall have the Corn. Fenner At the first the State of the Woman was certain viz. for her life but yet determinable by Limitation if she mary And if a man which hath an Estate determinable by Limitation sow the ground and before severance the Limitation endeth the state yet the party shall have the Corn which he hath sown And in the case at the bar there is no Forfeiture committed which gives course of Entry nor no dishinheritance or wrong made to the Lord as in the case where Tenant for life after his sowing commits forfeiture and if a man enter for breach of a Condition Entry for condition broken he shall have the Corn and not he that sowed the same for that his entry over-reacheth the state of the other but in this case the entry of the Lord doth not overâ—ach the Title of the Woman for he shall take that from the time that the Limitation endeth the Estate and not by any relation before For the Act of the Woman is Lawfull and therefore no reason he shall lose the Corn Popham Chief Justice It is cleare Forfeiture if Tenant for life sow and after commit a Forfeiture And the Lessor enter he shall have the Corne 〈◊〉 the like is it if the Lessee after the sowing surrender his Term the Lessor Surrender or he to whom the Surrender was made shall have the corn but if Tenant for life make a lease for yeares Lease by Tenant for life and after commit a Forfeiture and the Lessor enter now the Lessee shall have the Corn and in the case at bar if the woman had Leased for yeares and the Lessee had sowed the land and after she had taken Husband now the Lessee and not the Lord shall have the corn for the act of the Woman shall not prejudice a third person but when she her self is the party Knowledge and hath knowledge at the time of the sowing what acts will determineâ—er estate then is it reason if she by her own act will determine her estate that she shall lose the Corn For if Lessee for life sow the land Lessee praies in aid and after pray in aid of a Stranger now if the Lessor enter he shall have the Corn And so if Tenant at Will sow the Land Tenant at will determines his own Will and after determine his own Will the Lessor shall have the Corn but otherwise it is if the state be determined by the act of law or of a third person so that no folly was in him that sowed Fenner If the Husband and Wife were Lessees during the coverture Determination by the act of the Law of a third persoâ— and after the Husband sowes the land and then the Husband and Wife are divorced yet the Husband shall have the Corn for that the Husband at the time of the sowing had no knowledge of the Act which determined his interest Divorce So in this case the Woman at the time of the sowing did not know of the future Act which determined her interest and therefore no rason she should lose the Corn for the Corn is a Chattell in her Grant for if she had either granted them or been outlawed after the sowing and then had taken a Husband Now the Queen in the case of the outlary or the Grantee in the other case and not the Lessor Outlary shall have the Corn. Popham I will agree the case of the divorce to be good Law For that is not meerly the Act of the party but allso of the Court but in the case at bar the taking of the Husband is the Voluntary Act of the Woman per que And after Judgement was given against the Husband which was the Plaintif 137. A Scough brought a Writ of Error against Hollingworth upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Writ of Debt brought upon a Statute Merchant Statute Merchant And the case was that Ascough came before the Maior of Lincoln and put his seal to the same Statute and the Kings seal was also put thereunto but one part did not remain with the Maior according to the Statute of Acton Burnell And it was adiudged a good Obligation against the Partie albeit it is no Statute Godfrey I think the Judgement ought to be affirmed and he cited 20. E. 3. accompt 79. And it is clear that a thing may be void to one intent and good to another by 10. Eliz. but Popham and Fenner were of opinion that it was hard to make it an Obligation for in every contract the intent of the parties is to be respected Intent in every contract And here the intent of the parties war to make it a Statute for the Kings seal is put to it and a Statute needs no deliverie butan Obligation ought to be delivered otherwise it is not good
pag. 40. pl. 18. pag. 41. pl. 18. pag. 158. pl. 86. By what acts an Obligation shall be forfeited by what not pag. 49 50. pl. 10 11. What shall be forfeited to the King by Utlawry what not pag. 55. pl. 8. pag. 103 104. pl. 9. pag. 105. pl. 9. pag. 189. pl. 136. VVhere one shall forfeit his goods where not pag. 135. pl. 35. By what acts a copyhold is forfeited by what not pag. 143. pl. 59. pag. 188. pl. 136. By what acts a liberty may be forfeited by what not pag. 146. pl. 63. Fresh suite Where fresh suit is required and where not pag. 60 61. pl. 18. Fraud vide covin What shall be said fraud what not pag. 116. pl. 12. pag. 118. pl. 2. pag. 176. c. pl. 111. G GRrants of the King and common persons Where an incertain grant may take effect afterwards pag. 7. pl 11. VVhaet grant by the King is good what not pag. 7. pl. 11. VVhat grant by Tenant in tail shall bind the issue pag. 7. pl. 11. VVhat things are grantable over what not pag. 31. pl. 1. pag. 74 75. pl. 2. pag. 81. pl. 18. pag. 112. pl. 19. pag. 117. pl. 15. pag. 184. pl. 123. pag. 186. pl. 134. VVhat grant of a reversion is good what not pag. 26. pl. 7. VVhat construction grants shall have pag. 121. pl. 7. H HEretick Who is an heritick who not pag. 36. pl. 10. Heir What things the Heir shall have what not pag. 98. pl. 17. pag. 129. pl. 24. Heriot What Remedy the Lord hath for his Herriot pag. 189. pl. 138. Homage Where one shall not do Homage pag. 14. pl. 13. Hue and cry Where Hue and cry is requisite where not pag. 56. pl. 10. pag. 60 61. pl. 18. Hundred Where an Action lies against an Hundred where not pag. 55 pl. 9. pag. 56. pl. 10. pa. 58. pl. 16. pag. 60 61. pl. 18. pa. 70. pl. 74. pag. 86. pl. 11. pag. 148. pl. 69. Husband and Wife What Acts of the Husband shall bind the Wife and what not pag. 13 14. pl. 13 14. In what Actions the Husband and Wife may joyn in and what not pag. 52. pl. 1. pag. 159. 160. pl. 91. VVhat Acts the wife may do without her Husband what not pag. 110. pl. 15. pag. 160. pl. 91. VVhat Acts the husband is compellable to do for the Wife pag. 127. pl. 19. I IEofail VVhat things are helped by the Statute of Jeofailes what not pag. 38. pl. 10. pag. 47 48. pl. 7. pag. 49. pl. 9. 16. pag. 90. pl. 1. pa. 109. pl. 157. pag. 126. pl. 16. pag. 159. pl. 89. pag. 181. pl. 32. How the Statute of Jeofailes shall be interpreted pag. 48. pl. 5. Imprisonment By what warrant one shall be said to be committed by what not pag. 133. pl. 31. Inquest What Inquest is good what not pag. 172 173. pl. 105. Infant What Acts of an Infant shall bind him and what not pag. 168. pl. 99. pag. 169. pl. 9. Incumbent Who shall be an Incumbent in a Church who not pag. 162. c. pl. 97. Interpretation How a Proviso shall be interpreted pag. 116 117. pl. 16. Indictment What is a good Indictment and what not pag. 132. pl. 29. pag. 162. pl. 95. Institution What is a good Institution to a church what not pag. 146. pl. 64. Interest VVhat shall make an interest in Land what not pag. 59. pl. 17. Who have an interest in Land and who not pag. 78. pl. 9. Intendment How Intendments shall be taken to inure pag. 70. pl. 13. Jointenants Who shall be Jointenants who Tenants in common pag. 28. pl. 2. pag. 29. pl. 2. pag. 141. pl. 53. Jointure Where a woman may refuse her Jointure where not pag. 84 85. pl 6 Issue and Issues What shall be a good issue what not pag. 39. pl. 16. Where an issue ought to be tried where not pag. 61. pl. 19. How issues ought to be levied pag. 140. pl. 50. Jury Who is a sufficient Juror and who not pag. 136 137. pl. 39. Judgement How a Judgement ought to be entred pag. 41. pl. 18. pag. 42. pl. 2. pag. 64. p. 3. Where Judgement shall be for the Plaintif where for the Defendant pag. 73. pl. 19. What Judgement is good what not pag. 119. pl. 4. pag. 162. pl. 95. How a Iudgement ought to be avoided pag. 128. pl. 20. Iurisdiction Where the temporall court hath Iurisdiction where not pag. 149 150. pl. 75. L LApse Who shall present by Lapse who not pag. 78. pl. 107. pag. 83 84. pl. 4. pa. 86. pl. 9. Lease Where a Lease shall be determined and where not pag. 71. pl. 16. pag. 179. pl. 112. What Leases are good what not pa. 120. pl. 7. pa. 138. pl. 44. pa. 154 155. pl. 82. pag. 157. 158. pl. 86. pag. 162. c. pl. 97. pa. 171. pl. 102. pag. 173. p. 106. pag. 186. pl. 130. Levy What is a good Levy what not pag. 140. pl. 50. Liberate Where a Liberate shall issue forth where not pa. 119. pl. 5. Licence What is a good Licence to do a thing what not pag. 163. pl. 97. 166. pl. 97. Livery and seisin How a Livery and seisin must be defeated pag. 178. pl. 111. What Livery and seisin is good what not pag. 1. pl. 4. pag. 13. pl. 13. Limitation Where one shall take Lands by way of Limitation where not pag. 134 135. pl. 33. pag. 152 153 154. pl. 80. What words make a Limitation what not pag. 179. pl. 112. M Maintenance What shall be said Maintenance what not pag. 101 102. pl. 6. pag. 113. pl. 1. pag. 118. pl. 120. Where an Action for maintenance must be brought where not pa. 113. pl. 1. Melius inquirendum For what cause a melius inquirendum issueth forth pag. 2. pl. 14. Mean profits Where one shall answer the mean profits and where not pag. 118 119. pl. 2. Member What is a member of a thing what not pag. 105 106. pl. 10. Misnameing What Misninameing shall hurt what not pa. 120 1211 122 123. pl. 7. Monstrans de droit Where one is put to his Monstrans de droit where not pag. 125. pl. 13. Murder What shall be accounted murder what not pag. 107. pl. 110. N Notice Where Notice ought to be given of a thing to be done and where not pag. 34. pl. 10. pa. 139 140. pl. 49. pa. 141. pl. 52. pag. 146. pl. 64. pag. 147. pl. 67. What shall be a good Notice what not pag. 147. pl. 67. Nonsuit Who may be Nonsuit who not pag. 53. pl. 3 Nonresidency What is Nonresidency what not pag. 169 170. pl. 100. O Obligation VVhat Obligation is good and what is not pag. 61. pl. 20. pag. 54. pl. 6. pag. 66. pl. 9. pag. 186 187. pl. 132. pag. 189. pl. 137. Occupancie Where there shall be an occupancy where not pag. 157. 158. pl. 86. Office How Offices shall be taken to inure in the case of the King and how in the case of a Common person
Priority which is not corporall neither ought it to be put in view in Assise and 21 Hen. 6. a. Tenant of the Land shall Attorn upon the grant of a rent charge and 33 Ed. 3. Priority shall hold place when the remainder falleth and not when it is granted 17 Ed. 2. and Dyer Tr. 23 Eliz. pl. 1. Then Sir when the foundation out of which the rent is issuing is gone the rent is allso gone and therefore let us see what authority Tenant in tayl hath in the remainder At the Common Law there was no Formdone in descender or remainder and the Statute of W. 2. cap. 1. provides but for two persons viz. he in reversion and the issues but Formdone in remainder is taken by the equity 50 Ed. 3. If Tenant for life be the remainder in tayl to another the remainder in fee to the Tenant for life and he makes wast Wast Bargain de remain Tenant in remainder shall punish him and Fitzh nat br fol. 193. a. Cui in vita by a wife which was Tenant in tayl upon the alienation of her husband And I think that if he in remainder bargain his remainder that it is voyd and he cannot grant to another that he shall dig in the soyl for by 2 Hen. 7. he in reversion cannot doe so 12 Ed. 4. Recovery suffered shall bind the issue 7 Ed. 3. no attaint lieth for him in remainder of a verdict given against Tenant for life Nul attaint pur tenant in rem then in this case he in remainder cannot enter and the Grantee shall not be in a better estate than his Grantor and then if he shall never enter frustra est illa potentia qua nunquam reducitur in actum The reason for the grant is good for when Tenant in tayl dyeth without issue he in remainder shall be in by the first gift in proof whereof is 33 Hen. 6. he in remainder shall be in ward Ward and in 11 Hen. 4. in Formdone in descender Formdone he shall say that the possession was given to his father Prebendary And a Prebendary cannot charge before induction Ioyntenants But if two Jointenants be and the one charge all and the other disclaimeth the charge is good from the beginning And the Recoverer here is not under the charge for allthough he hath that estate which he in remainder should have if Tenant in tayl had not aliened yet is he a meer stranger and in by another title 10 Ed. 3. If two Jointenants be Charge per Ioyntenant and the one charge this is good conditionally that he which chargeth shall survive And if Tenant pur auter vie charge and die occupans shall hold it discharged So in this case for he is not in of this possession Moreover there is a mischief if this charge be good for then the Land may be charged by two severall persons at once which shall not be suffered but yet if cestui que use charge and the Feoffees charge both are good for the one is by the Common Law Charge per cest que use Feoffees 28 Ed. 3. 10. b. and the other by the Statute Law So if Lessee for years charge and he in reversion charge and after Lessee for years surrender but this is in severall respects and I put this case for Law Ch. per lessee per enreversion that if he in the remainder bind himself in a Statute Merchant Stat. Merch. per test en rem ne charge le poss this shall not charge the possession And if in this case he will grant the rent over none ought to Attorn and therefore voyd and Littleton saith that he in remainder shall not falsifie No attornment Falsifying and 26 Hen. 8. the Grantee of lessee for years shall not falsifie for the nature of falsifying is properly to find a fault wherefore it should not be good and what fault can he find in this case surely none Successor lie per confession 4 Hen. 7. 1. a. 20 Hen. 6. Abbot confesseth an Action the Successor is bound And further it is within the Statute of 27 El. for fraudulent deeds and we need not to plead the covin for the Statute is generall Fraudulent faits and vouched Wimbish case in the Comentaries and so the Replevin is maintainable And after at the motion of the Justices the Defendant agreed that the Plaintif should amend his Plea and allege the Covin Et adjornatur untill Michaelmas Term following because there were so many Demurrers hanging to be argued in Trinity Term next But afterwards judgement was given against the Rent charge 12. KIng Hen. 8. gave certain lands to Sir Edward Bainton Trespass Knight and to the heirs males of his body engendred who had issue Andrew and Edward and dyed Andrew afterwards convenanted with the Lord Admirall Thomas Seymer that he would convey an Estate of those Lands to himself for life the remainder to the Lord Seymer in Fee and in like manner the Lord Seymer convenanted to convey an Estate of other Lands to himself for life the remainder to Andrew Bainton in Fee Afterwards Andrew Bainton levyed a Fine and executed the estate according to the covenant on his part Afterwards the Lord Seymer before performance of the covenant on his part was attainted of High Treason and all his Lands forfeited to King Edward the sixth who dyed without issue and the Lands descended to Queen Mary to whom Andrew Bainton sued by Petition and shewed how she had those Lands to the disinherison of him and his heirs and Queen Mary by her Letters Patents ex certa scientia ex merâ— motu c. granted to Bainton all those Lands and Tenements which he had covenanted to convey to the Lord Seymer and all reversions thereof in as ample manner as she had them Et ulterius ex uberiori gratia sua she granted all reversions claims and demands qua ad manus suas devenerunt ratione c. aut in manibus suis existunt aut existere deberent Afterwards Andrew Bainton levyed a Fine of those Lands to one Segar in Fee and dyed without issue then Edward Bainton entred and Segar brought his Action of Trepass Puckering It seemeth that the entry of Edward Bainton is congeable and so the Action not maintainable First let us see what passeth by this Grant of Queen Mary to Andrew Bainton and then whether a Fine levyed by Tenant in tayl the reversion being in the Queen be a bar to the tayl by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. The first Fine as it is pleaded is not pleaded with proclamations and therefore but a discontinuance and remains but as at the Common Law At the Common Law before the Statute of Dâ—nis conditionalibus a Fine levyed was a bar to all men for all Inheritances were Fee simples then by that Statute it was ordained Quod neque per factum neque feofamentum of the Tenant
Rodes Surely I have noted my book that Judgement is given and so I supposed that it had been 5. SHuttelworth moved that whether a Lease is made to a man oâ— his own Land by Deed indented Estopple this is an Estopple whereto the Court agreed But VVindham and Peryam sayd if the Lease be made for life by Indenture Livâ—ry that yet this shall be no Estopple because the Lease takes effect by the Livery and not by the Deed but Rodes did not fully assent to that Anderson was absent in the Staâ—â— chamber 6. DEbt was brought by Lassels upon an Obligation Hill 1â— Eliz. tot 1 511. with condition that if the Defendant did personally appear in the Kings-bench such day Stat. 23 Hen. 6 that then c. the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. said that he was taken by the Plaintif being Sherif then by force of a Latitat and that the Bond was not made according to the Statute For being made for his deliverance this word personally was inserted in the condition more than is in the Statute And it seemed by three Justices Anderson absente that if it were in such an Action where a man may appear by Attourney that then it shall be voyd but now the question is whether the party ought to appear in proper person by force of a Latitat or no And some said yea and some said no. And the Plaintif shewed a Judgement given in the Kings bench for Sackford against Cutt. where Cutt. was taken by a Latitat and made such an Obligation as this is for his deliverance Sackford being Ballivus sanct Etheldredâ—e in Suff. and adjudged for the Plaintif that the Obligation was good And this was in the Kings-bench Mic. 27 28 Eliz. Rot. 575. but Peryam doubted of that judgement for peradventure he might appear by Attourney Ideo quare for that was the reason of the judgement given in the Kings-bench as it was sayd because he could not appear but in proper person 7. AN Action of Trover was brought for Goods Jeofayle and the Defendant pleaded a bargain and sale in open Market thereupon they were at issue and found for the Plaintif and now the Defendant spake in arrest of judgement because the Plaintif had shewed no place of conversion No place of conversion yet notwithstanding by the opinion of the Court the Plaintif shall have his judgement by the Statute Peryam If in Debt upon an Obligation he doe not shew the place 36 El. rot 266. yet if the Defendant plead a collaterall bar as a release or such like judgement shall be given for the Plaintif notwithstanding by the Statute if it be found for him by Verdict 8. THe case of Beverley was moved again at this day Utlary how the Queen had brought a Scire facias against him to shew wherefore she should not have the Presentation Walmisley It seemeth that she shall not have the Presentation for allthough we have recovered our Presentation Disseiser outlawed yet before execution we have but a right As if a man be disseised and after outlawed he shall not forfeit the profits of the land And allso she hath brought a Scire facias and this will not lie except for him which is party or privy Peryam After that you have recovered it is a chattle and then forfeited by the Utlary Anderson The judgment that he shall recover doth not remove the Incumbent and as long as he remains Incumbent the Plaintif hath nothing but a right Then Peryam sayd to Walmisley argue to that point whether he hath but a right or no but for the other point that she shall not have a Scire facias for want of privity that is no reason Recoverer in debt outlawed for in many cases she shall have a Scire facias upon a Record between strangers Anderson If I recover in debt and after am Outlawed Recovery in quare impedit shall the Queen have this debt Windham If I recover in a Quare impedit and dye who shall have the presentation my Executor or my Heir Sed nemo respondit Curia It is a new and a rare case and therefore it is good to be advised VValmisley Whatshall we in the mean time plead in bar to the Scire facias Curia Demur in Law if you hold the matter insufficient VValmisley Sowe will 9. ONe Combford was robbed within the Hundred of Offlay in Stafford-shire Hue Cry and he and his servant pursued the Felons into another County and there one of the Felons was taken and the Hundreds did nothing And now Puckering moved that he might have an Action against the Hundred Plaintif a Hundreder allthough that he himself was resiant within the same Hundred Hue and Cry by strangers but the opinion of the Court was against him for they sayd that if a stranger make Hue and Cry so that the Felons be taken the Hundreds are discharged Another question he moved because that but one of the Felons was taken Quaâ—re But quâ—re what was sayd to that for I heard not 10. FRancis Ashpool brought an Action against the Hundred of Evenger in Hampshire Hue Cry for that he was robbed there And the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that he was robbed after the setting of the Sun per diurnam lucem and that afterwards the same night he came to Andever which is in another Hundred and there gave notice of the robbery and the morning following the men of Andever came into the Hundred of Evenger and there made Hue and cry about ten a clock in the morning and that there were many Towns nearer to the place where he was robbed than Andever was and allso within the same Hundred of Evenger and that the Melafacters escaped and they prayed the advise of the Court. Now this matter rested on two points Robbery after Sunset the first was if he which is robbed after the Sun-set shall have the benefit of the Statute and the other was if he had made Hue and cry accordingly Hue and cry or whether any Hue and cry be needfull And Walmisley argued that he which is robbed after the Sun-set shall be helped by the Statute for they are bound to keep watches in their Towns to take night-walkers And to the second he said that the Statute doth not speak of any Hue and cry but only recens insecutio and that ought to be done by the Hundreders Shuttleworth to the contrary No distcess and that it ought to be in the day and cited Stamf. fol. 35. and after the Sun-set it cannot be said to be day For the Lord cannot then distreyn for his Rent per 11 Hen. 7. 4. nor demand Rent for he is not bound to be there after the Sun-set and he vouched Fitz. titulo core 302. but at this time the Judges seemed to hold for the Plaintif Anderson The Countries are bound by the Statute to
Defendant shall be taken and shall make a Fine wherefore forasmuch as he shall recover no land the entry into the land cannot purge the offence and wrong which is made punishable by the Statute and so was the opinion of the whole Court And the Court then held opinion likewise that if a man be disseised and after re-enters and is disseised again Assise that he ought to have an Assise of the last entry and not of the first 27 Ass pl. 42. 4. ONe Powell was sued in the Common-Pleas Privilege and as he was coming to Westminster he was arrested in London and thereupon had a common Writ of Privilege surmising that he was coming to retain Counsell and Walmisley prayed that he might be examined whether he did so or no but the Court would not Walmisley It is no reason that if he be going about other matters he should have the privilege of this place Curia A hundred Writs have been allowed without any examination Walmisley In 10 Hen. 6. 4 Hen. 7. such an examination was made Anderson But that was not de rigore Juris and all the Court refused utterly to examine him But Walmisley sayd privily that it was against the Law 5. DOrothy Millington brought Debt against J. Burges for 9 l. and declared that he bought certain Oad Wager of Law and the truth of the case was this Oad was sold to him upon condition that if she did not prove it to be good and sufficient then he should pay nothing for it and all this was disclosed by the Defendant upon his Wager of Law Detinue Windham If the case be so then you may wage your Law and it was sayd that she must have detinue for the Oad 6. IN an Avowry made by the Lady Rogers Title in avowry it was sayd by the Court Anderson absente that it is sufficient for the Avowant to plead his Freehold but if the Plaintif will traverse the same he ought to make himself a title Nelson Pronotary so are all our Presidents Peryam It is not sufficient to make it of his own seisin but he must make it Paramount his own seisin 7. WAlmisley moved for Judgement in the case of Richard Hanington for the Plaintif For he sayd that it was not clearly discharged because of the possibility of the charge ensuing allthough the charge were not then presently executed in proof whereof he sayd that it is not all gone by the acceptance of the Feoffment and then it is a bargain for a Lease for years is a bargain for there he hath quid pro quo Allso it is a Title as in Nichols case in the Commentaries And then allthough he had nothing which he could release because it was casuall whether it shall happen or no yet now when it happens it is a charge ab initio and thereupon he cited 9 H. 6. where one which had nothing but a possibility may maintain And so where a man makes a Feoffment and covenants that it shall be discharged as here and afterwards his Wife recovers her Dower the Covenant is broken and yet it was but a possibility And 8 Eliz. where a man covenants that it shall be discharged and he had granted a Rent charge to begin twenty years after this was not discharged Fenner argued to the contrary for the reasons moved by him before Peryam Here allthough it be no charge at the time of the Feoffment yet it is not discharged for if it were discharged then it shall never be charged afterwards And so was the opinion of all the Court Anderson absente and after at the end of the Term when Anderson was present they were all agreed that it was an incumbrance and not discharged of the incumbrance and therefore they gave Judgement for the Plaintif 8. IN Avowry by Johns of Surrey Esquire Tenure it was sayd by Anderson for Law that if a man before the Statute of quia emptores terrarum makes a gift and reserveth to himself upon every alienation the value of the Land by a year this shall be adjudged according to the value of the Land at the time of the tenure and not that whereunto it is enhauâ—ced at this day for a tenure ought to be certain when it is made 9. â—Aven brought Debt upon an Obligation against Stockdale who pleaded non est factum Statute 23 H. 6 and the Jury in Norfolk found this specially Verdict that the Defendant was sued by the Plaintif and made a Bond to the Plaintif endorced with Condition that if the sayd S. did personally appear in the Queens Majesties Court called the Kings bench and then and there make answer to such matter as the Plaintif should object against him the sayd Plaintif giving him warning that then c. And the Plaintif was neither Sherif nor Sherifs Officer for the pretence of the Defendant was to avoyd it by the Statute of 23 Hen. 6. And now the Plaintif prayed Judgement Anderson The case is no more than this A man is bound to another to appear at his suit in the Kings-bench and doth not so if this Obligation shall be avoyded and I see no colour to avoyd it for it is not within the Statute and all the Judges agreed clearly that it is not within the Statute and therefore they gave Judgement for the Plaintif 10. BLosse brought Trespass vi armis against Halmon for taking of his Goods Possession the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict that the Plaintif at the time of the Trespass supposed was of the Mystery of the Grocers and that the Defendant was his servant and put in trust to sell res mercandisas detempore in tempus in shopa sua existen and he took those goods and carried them away c. and they prayed the advise of the Court The doubt was because the action was vi armis whereas the Defendant had the custody or if this shall be called a custody Shuttleworth for the Plaintif and he cited the case in Littleton fol. 15. if I deliver my sheep to compost your land Sheep and you kill them I shall have trespass whereto the Justices agreed and held clearly that he shall have this action well enough Auctority Peryam he hath but an auctority only and not any custody or possession v. 2. E. 4. 22. 2 E4 8. 22 E. 4. 5. 13 E. 4. 9. Tenant at will ought not to cut down trees nor abate 3. H. 7. 12. 21 H. 7. 14. the case of Butler 11. TRespass by Foster against Pretty and his wife Title who justified that I was seised and made a lease to them for yeares c. the Plaintif replied de son tort demeasne Absque hoc that he leased c. Peryam Will you take a Traverse and not make your self a title Curia without question you ought to make your self a title otherwise it is if the Defendant claym a Common or such like and no