because she might have many Sons But yet upon good consideration Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Court shall not intend that Mary had any other Sons besides the Plaintiff And Roll cited a Case where one said your Landlord Henley is a Thief and laid his Declaration only with an Innuendo of the Plaintiff then Landlord c. and adjudged good But in another Case where one said your Landlord without a Surname is a Thief in such an Innuendo it was after great debate the Court being at first divided in opinion adjudged naught But there if the Plaintiff had averred that he to whom the words were spoken had no other Landlord it had been good Vide French and Edward's Case su 3. More versus Clypsam IN a Replevin Replevin the Plaintiff declares That the Defendant cepit centum oves matrices vervices of the Plaintiffs The Defendant avows that his Father was seised in fee of the place where c. and died seised and that the Lands descended to the Defendant as Son and Heir by virtue whereof he entred and was seised in fee and took the Beasts damage feasant the Plaintiff makes a reply and concludes with a traverse absque hoc that the Defendant at the time of the taking was adhuc est seised in fee of the Land and issue thereupon was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Traverse was naught 1. Because the title of the Avowant is not answered for that the dying seised of the Father and the descent and the seisin of the Avowant is but a conclusion upon that 2. Because the Traverse is larger then the Avowry for adhuc est refers to the time of the pleading which is more then is alledged or then is material To the first it was answered that though it be not formal yet it is substantial enough for if the Son were not seised there could be no discent to him and therefore it is made good by the Verdict and the Court inclined to this opinion But the other exception was holden to be material Then an exception was taken to the Declaration because it is for 100 Ewes and Wethers and it doth not appear how many there are of Ewes and how many Wethers and the Sheriff is bound to make deliverance of the one sort and of the other for his delivery must be according to the Writ And though he may receive information from the parties so that it is a good return to say nullus venit ex parte querent ' ad ostendend'averia c. yet he is not bound to require it but ought to have sufficient certainty within the Record And for this cause after great debate Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff but it was agreed that oves without addition had been good enough and the Sheriff might have delivered the one sort and the other But if the Writ be for oves matrices the Sheriff cannot deliver Wethers so if it be for Black Horses the Sheriff cannot deliver White but is subject to an Action of Case Now there being some Ewes and some Wethers and the number not appearing the Sheriff is left at uncertainty and upon the same reason a Formedon of 100 Acres of Meadow and Pasture hath been adjudged naught as Roll said Com. Northumb. vers Green Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1198. IN Debt Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declares That one Cross made a Lease for years to the Defendant rendring Rent payable half yearly who granted the reversion to the Plaintiff and such a day which was the day wherein the Rent was due the Defendant attorned and for three years Rent and a half which included the Rent due the day of the attornment the Action was brought and upon nil debet and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Rent was payable to Cross before the attornment for that shall be taken if worst for the Plaintiff to be after Sun-set but it was disallowed for the Court shall not intend it and if they should the Verdict supplies the averment of the contrary And both the Iudges said that if a Writ abate one day and another Writ is purchased which bears teste the same day it shall be intended after the abatement of the first Caly versus Joslin Uxor ' Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1282. IN Debt Debt for Rent upon a Lease for years against the Husband and Wife Executrix which was laid in the debet and detinet Vpon plene administravit pleaded and a Demurrer thereupon the case was well debated by reason of contrary resolutions for Hargrave's Case was reversed in the Exchequer Co. 5.31 because the Action was in the debet and detinet but afterwards 7 Jac. between the Lord Rich and Frank. in C. B. upon great debate it was adjudged good in the debet and detinet And the like Iudgment was given 9 Jac. in C. B. in Sir Henry Carye's Case And after that Pasc 17 Jac. Rot. 346. B. R. between Paule and Moody it was adjudged good in the detinet only And the like 7 Car. in the Common Pleas and the same year in this Court between Smith and Nichols and the reasons of these contrary opinions was the inconveniency of the one side and the other for in as much as the Executors cannot waive the Term it were hard if the Rent should exceed the value of the Land and they having no assets that they should be charged in the debet of their own proper Goods and yet if the Action must be brought in the detinet only where fully administred were a good plea then may they retain the Land and with the profits thereof satisfie Debts upon specialty whereby the Lessor should be defeated of his Rent For the avoiding of which inconveniencies it was resolved that they may be charged in the debet and detinet for prima facie the Land shall be intended to be of greater value than the Rent and if it be otherwise Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis Gilbert versus Stone Trin. 17 Car. Rot. 1703. IN Trespass Trespass for breaking of a House and Close the Defendant pleaded that 12 homines ignoti modo guerrino armati tantum minabantur ei quod de vitae suae amissione dubitabat and after requirebant compulsabant the Defendant to goe with them to the House quodque ob timorem minarum per mandatum compulsionem dictorum 12 hominum he did enter the said House and returned immediately through the said Close which is the same Trespass c. And upon Demurrer Hob. 134. c. without argument it was adjudged no plea for one cannot justifie a Trespass upon another for fear and the Defenant hath remedy against those that compelled him Also the manner of the pleading was naught because he did not shew that the way to the House was through the Close Mark versus Cubit Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 376. SLander
Indebitatus for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years After a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon non Assumpsit Iudgment was given against him because the Action will not lie for Rent but he must have an Action of Debt for it Lawrence versus King and others In an Ejectione firmae Ejectione firmae upon a Lease of a House in Newington Common Oxon. Vpon not guilty the Iury appearing at Bar one was challenged because he was Tenant of a Manor to which there was a Court Leet of which the Plaintiff was Steward And the Court inclined that it was no principal challenge but for want of sufficient proof it fell off and the Court would not examine him upon a voir dire after it Another was challenged by the Defendant and being upon his Trial soit treit said the Plaintiff but not allowed for that must be upon the Challenge and not upon the Trial and therefore he was tried and sworn And the Case upon the Evidence was that Tenant in Capite of certain Lands and the House in question conveyed all as it was found by Office to his youngest Son and died his eldest Son and Heir being within age who attained to his full age and died before livery sued And the younger Son entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff of the whole Land and whether this Lease was good for the whole was the question And the Plaintiff's Counsel offered to prove by another Office that other Lands were left to descend to the eldest Son which were more then a full third part of the whole Lands the Tenant had but it was not allowed for the Office wherein the House in question is found is a Record by it self and the King's Title must be taken as it is found in that and not as it stands by comparison with another Office 1 H. 7. 5. c. 2. It was a question whether a Lease made by the younger Son in this case before seisure for none could be proved were not good for the whole And it was holden to be void as to a third part and so it was though the third part were not set out by the Statute for the King's interest commenced by the Office before seisure and before setting out of the third part 3. Stamf. 35. c. l. 8. 175. c. 13 H. 4. 3. g. h. 14. a. 1 H. 7. 5. c. 21 H. 7. 7. b. It was agreed that the Land continued in the King's hands for a third part till an ouster le maine sued though the Heir were dead 4. It was agréed by all that where an ouster le maine is necessary a Lease for years made before is not good And Bacon said that where the Heir of the King's Tenant in Capite dies before livery sued that the Land is not Debtor for the Arrears which the King ought to have from the death of the Ancestour in such case till they are computed by an Officer in the Exchequer and made a Debt upon Record and then the Land is Debtor And after much dispute a Juror was drawn by consent of parties Dutton versus Eaton Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 929. Action sur le Case IN an Action of the Case for speaking divers slanderous words of the Plaintiff amongst which were these words Thou hast the French Pox upon not guilty the Iury found that he spake all the words in the Declaration exceptis his verbis thou hast the French Pox quoad the speaking of those words they find that he said thou hast had the French Pox si c. they find for the Plaintiff and assess entire damages And the opinion of the Court was clear that the variance was material Dyer 75. a. so that the Declaration was not maintained by the Verdict And both the Iudges inclined that the words found were not actionable for they do imply that the Plaintiff had that disease but was recovered Then an exception was taken to the Verdict because the Iury did not find that the Defendant did not speak the words in the Declaration And yet this defect was not supplied by the words exceptis his verbis And for this cause it was resolved that the Verdict was insufficient and a Venire facias de novo was awarded Vide Dyer 75. a. 171. e. Yearworth versus Pierce SLander Slander Thou art a Thief and hast stollen my Dung After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved that the words were not actionable because Dung is an indifferent word to signifie either Dung in a heap which is a Chattel or Dung spread or scattered upon the ground which is parcel of the Freehold and then no felony may be committed of it But upon good debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because the first words being plainly actionable the effect of them shall not be taken away by subsequent words ambiguous for when subsequent words should qualifie the words precedent they ought to carry in them a strong intendment that they were spoken in such a sense as was not actionable and then also Roll held they ought to be brought in by way of explanation by the word For as to say thou art a Thief for thou hast c. but if the words are thou art a Thief and hast stoln c. there the latter words are cumulative But Bacon denied the difference and cited Clerk and Gilbert's Case Hob. 331. where that difference is denied and said that 8 Car. in the Common Pleas where the words were thou art a Thief and hast robb'd thy Kinsman of his Land The Court was divided in opinion but after upon Conference with all the Iustices at Serjeants Inn it was adjudged for the Plaintiff And Roll denied both those cases to be Law and said that this latter case was resolved upon consideration of that in Hobert which hath been often denied for Law in this Court. And he said that he had conferred with Sir Robert Barkley and Sir John Bramston and their opinions concur with him in this point And Roll held that if the Defendant had said thou hast stollen my Dung without any other words they would have been actionable for Dung in Common parlance is understood of Dung in a heap which was agreed to be a Chattel of which Felony may be committed and goeth to the Executors but if it lieth scattered upon the ground so that it cannot well be gathered without gathering part of the soil with it then it is parcel of the Freehold Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis Pierson versus Dawson SLander Slander The Plaintiff declares That the Defendant dixit Mariae Pierson Matri W. Pierson the Plaintiff your Son is a Thief innuendo the Plaintiff then the Son of the said Mary And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the words are not laid to be spoken of the Plaintiff but only in the innuendo which cannot sufficiently ascertain the Declaration Hob. 268. a. l. 4. 169. 17. f.
resolved that upon this Indictment they might all have been found guilty at the Common Law then when all are found guilty within the Statute the Verdict shall be taken as it may stand by Law And the substance of the Indictment being found the rest is but surplusage which hurteth not the Verdict And the Court held that the Indictment need not conclude contra formam Statuti because the Statute doth not alter the nature of the offence but only takes away the priviledge which the Common Law allowed in such case and therefore it is sufficient that the circumstances be expressed in the Indictment whereby it may appear that the offence is within the Statute and the Offendors had their Clergy and upon their reading were burnt in the hand in conspectu curiae Price versus Vaughan Trin. 14 Car. Rot. 1160. IN an Ejectione firmae Ejectione firmae upon a special Verdict upon not guilty pleaded the Case was briefly thus Walter Vaughan being seised in Fee of the Land in question devised it to Francis his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his Body the remainder to his second Son and the Heirs males of his Body with other remainders the remainder to the Heirs males of the Body of the Devisor provided if the eldest Son should die without Issue male but having Issue female then I do give full power and authority to the said Daughters to enter into the Lands and to take the profits thereof untill he that first shall have the Lands after the death of Francis shall pay to each of them 400 li. towards their Marriage and dies Francis dies without Issue male having a Daughter Elizabeth who entred into the Lands and died the 400 li. being unpaid her Administrator enters and Leases to the Plaintiff upon whom the younger Son of the Devisor enters and him ejects and if upon the whole matter the entry of the Administrator was lawfull they find for the Plaintiff And the question in Law was what Estate Elizabeth had and it was argued by Hale Maynard and Brown for the Plaintiff 1. That she had an interest 5 H. 7. 1. a. 27 H. 8. 16. 1. Dyer 210. d. Br. Devise 48. for an authority to take the profits implies as much as a devise of the profits which gives an interest 2. It is a Chattel like to the case where a feoffment is made rendring Rent with proviso that if it be arrear the Feoffor may enter and hold the Land till it be paid this gives a Chattel to the Feoffor And so it is if the arrears were to be satisfied out of the profits of the land And so it is in case of a devise to Executors till debts be paid And so Brown said it was resolved in a Case between Eire and Haggard Hil. 13 Jac. Rot. 868. C. B. where a Rent was granted out of the Lands and if the Rent were behind that the Grantor might enter into the Land and hold it till he were paid that this was but a Chattel 3. It was argued that this Chattel was transmissible to the Administrator because if the portion it self had been devised though it were toward Marriage it would have gone to the Administrator Now though the profits of the Land are but a gage till the portion be paid yet it follows the Portion as 20 H. 7. 1. a. as if a nomine poenae descend to the Heir with the Rent so if Lands are devised to Executors for payment of Debts it goes to their Executors and the Executors of Tenant by Elegit shall have an Assise for the remedy goes with the duty 2 Inst 396. e. And in this case if it should not be so the Portion might not be paid which were contrary to the meaning and letter of the Will for there is an express proviso that the Lands shall not remain over till the money be paid and Twisden and St. John Sollicitor argued to the contrary But St. John did admit it to be an Interest but that it was no Chattell 1. Because the devise is found to be in pursuance of Articles of agreement made for the like settlement to be made by the Testator in his life-time but if such a settlement had been made in his life it would have given a Freehold for life and not a Chattel 2. The devise was for advancement of Daughters and it is found by the Verdict that 1200 Acres of Land are devised in which if the Daughters should have an Estate for life it cannot but be intended to be as great or greater advancement than if 400 li. only had been devised to them and yet that the Testator lookt upon as a sufficient provision And therefore made the Estate determinable upon payment of that 3. It cannot be thought that the Testator intended to give the whole Land to the Daughters and to debar the Issue male of his younger Sons and yet as this Will is penned if it should not give a Freehold then if the first man dies before payment the Daughters shold have it for ever and Dyer 300 h. was cited And for this cause also it cannot be a Chattel for there cannot be a perpetuity of a Chattel upon no supposal and therefore there is no more reason to say it should be a Fee in them than a Chattel 2. If it be a Chattel it goes not to the Executors or Administrators 1. Because it is personally limited to the Daughters and not to their Executors and Administrators 2. It is limited to them for their advancement which doth not respect their Executors 3. If it should goe to the Executors then there would be a perpetuity of it As to the Cases objected by the Plaintiff's Counsel as 27 H. 8. 5. which was much insisted upon where cestuy que use Covenants that his Feoffees shall suffer one of his Executors and Assigns to take the profits of the Land till he or they be paid 100 li. by the Covenants c. if he dies before he hath received it his Executors shall hold it till they be paid It was answered that this was in case of a Vse which was then ruled meerly according to equity and by express words it was limited to the Executors and there it was for money paid by the Covenantee and so for a Duty which goes to the Executors And for the case of a Devise to Executors for payment of Debts there it is a Chattel in them which goes to their Executors because otherwise Debts should not be paid which is the special reason of that case for such an Estate made by Grant will be an Estate for life l. 8. 96. c. And in the case of retaining Land till a Rent be paid there the Land is taken but as a Distress till the Rent which is a duty issuing out of it be paid but in our case neither the person nor the Land is Debtor for no Legacy is devised to the Daughters the Devise is only that they shall hold the Lands untill
T. 22 Car. Rot. IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in consideration of a Marriage Promise inter alia not good ought to set forth the whole Promise c. Inter al' promisit de payer tant puis Verdict pro Querent ' Judgment fuit done vers luy because he ought to set forth the whole promise which is entire Hinacre versus Lemon M. 22 Car. Rot. SLander Words charged with procuring Felony good The Defendant said of the Plaintiff she caused Mr. Langly's Servant to steal and purloin 30 and received them and sold them which was the cause why his Master broke and upon a Verdict and Iudgment in the Common Bench in a Writ of Error the Iudgment was affirmed because she is charged with procuring of Felony and receiving stollen Goods Haines versus Finch Debt upon a promise for bringing up Children good without saying they were the Plaintiff's AN Executor brought an Action of Debt upon a promise made with the Testator for bringing up of Children and Teaching and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon nil debet pleaded it was moved that Debt would not lie in the Case because it was not layed that they were the Plaintiff's Children But the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff for Debt will lie upon a promise made by a stranger Debt upon a promise of money to marry a poor Virgin as in N. B. 122. k. If one promiseth money to another for marrying a poor Virgin Debt lieth but the parties agréed and so no Iudgment was given And Roll said that in Trevilian's Case Servant retain'd an Attorney for his Master and promises him his Fees Debt lies against the Servant where a Servant retained an Attorney for his Master and promised he should have his Fées an Action of Debt was brought thereupon by the Attorney against the Servant in C. B. and the Plaintiff recovered but upon Error in this Court a rule was given for the reversal of the Iudgment notwithstanding the like President shewn in Bradford's Case but he said that the Iudgment was not reversed upon the Roll and his opinion was that the Iudgment was good Edwards versus French T. 22 Car. Rot. 675. Slander whereby he lost his Marriage And no agreement of Marriage or mutual Love alledged and the words were spoken only in the innuendo yet good SLander The Plaintiff declares that whereas there was a Communication of Marriage betwéen the Plaintiff and one Mary Hicks who was worth 300 li. and that she deferred Marriage with the Plaintiff q. d. that verisimile fuit that they should be Married the Defendant in the hearing of divers persons said Mary Hicks is Mr. Edwards his Whore innuendo the Plaintiff whereupon Mary Hicks was refused to Marry the Plaintiff And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved that there was no agréement of Marriage nor mutual love alledged betwéen the Plaintiff and M. H. 2. That the words were not alledged to be spoken of the Plaintiff but only in the innuendo yet upon good debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Osborne versus Brooke Trin. 22 Car. Rot. 677. SLander Captain Osborne is forsworn Slander Is forsworn and his Oath appears upon Record Act ' gist and his Oath appears upon Record The Defendant as to the first words pleads not guilty and as to the latter justifies that he was forsworn in finding of an indictment of Forcible Entry and upon de injuria sua propria as to the justification both issues were found for the Plaintiff And upon motion of Latch in arrest of judgment First if the Words themselves were actionable Secondly if the Iustification made them good and actionable and upon great debate judgment was given for the Plaintiff in both points First the Court did take the words being spoken together to be the same as if he had said he is forsworn upon Record Justification explains the Parties meaning to be of perjury which is as much as to call him perjured Secondly his justification hath explained his meaning in them to be of perjury And Tuke and Condie's Case was cited for this where the Defendant in an Action brought for saying You are forsworn justified that he was forsworn in an indictment of Battery and the issue upon the justification being found for the Plaintiff he had judgment in Common Bank which was afterwards affirmed in this Court and now allowed for good Law by both the Iudges yet two Objections were made by Latch against this judgment First that the Declaration of it self being insufficent in substance could not be made good by the Defendant's bar Secondly that the ground of the Action is the disgrace that the Plaintiff incurs before the Auditors now they must understand the words according to the common acceptation as they were spoken and not in the sense wherein the Defendant justifies the speaking of them and he cited a Case 21 Jac. betwéen Wheeler and Abbot where in Slander for saying Thou hast stollen my Piece innuend ' a Gun the Defendant justified that the Plaintiff did steal his Gun and though the Iustification which shewed the Defendant's meaning to be of a Gun was found against him and Piece was a word of an incertain signification which could not be explained by the Innuendo Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for the Reasons aforesaid Pasc 23 Car. Banco Regis Water's Case Ten in common makes a Wall against the house to prevent the others getting in no disscisin IN an Assise of a House in Westminster upon null ' tort c. pleaded and a tryal at the Bar the Evidence was that there were two Tenants in common of the House and one of them nailed up the Doors and made up a Wall against the House to prevent the others getting into the House and this was resolved no Disseisin and so the Iury were discharged But the point in Law would have béen that a Tradesman purchased Lands in fée to himself and his Wife and after became Bankrupt c. whether the Commissioners had power to sell so as to bar the Wife Taylor versus Usherwood Hill 18 Car. Rot. 87. Demise IN an eject ' firmae upon a special Verdict the Case was That one devised Land to one Elizabeth for her life and after her death to the eldest Heir male of her body and to the Heirs males of such Heir male so that he be of twenty four years of age at the time of the death of Elizabeth and if he be not of twenty four years of age at that time then that the Husband of Elizabeth shall hold them till he comes to that age and the profits to be disposed among the younger Children Elizabeth dieth her Heir male within the age of twenty four years and after he attained to that age and entred and demised to the Defendant And Hales argued for the Defendant That if the demise had rested in
spoken in a sense not actionable for it is very unreasonable that one should slander another in general words and then mitigate them by other words of a doubtfull interpretation sic pendet c. Sir John Chichester's Case Indictment SIR J. C. was indicted of Manslaughter and tried at the Bar and evidence was that he and his Man were playing at Foils and the Chafe of Sir John's Scabbard fell off unknown to him upon a thrust so that the Rapier went into his man's Belly and killed him And the Court directed the Iury that forasmuch as such acts are not warranted by Law the parties that use them ought at their own peril to prevent the mischief that may ensue for consent will not change the Case and therefore though there were no intention of doing mischief yet the thrust being voluntary was an assault in Law and death ensuing the offence was Manslaughter yet the Iury found it Chance-medly but the Court would not accept the Verdict but charged them if they varied from the Indictment to find it specially And Bacon said he had known a Iury bound over to the Star-chamber upon the like Cause whereupon they found him guilty and day was given him to procure his Pardon c. Pasch 23 Car. Banco Regis Andrews Harborn Mich. 22 Car. Rot. 483. Scire facias SCire facias was brought in Middlesex upon a Recognizance taken before Iustice Reeve at his Chamber at Serjeants Inn in London and Iudgment given in C. B. and upon a Writ of Error brought in this Court it was moved that it ought to have béen brought in London where the Recognizance was taken for though the Scire facias must be grounded upon a Record and the Recognizance be no Record till it be entred yet after it is entred it becomes a Record by relation from the time of the Recognizance And Hall and Winkfield's Case Hob. 195. was cited and the case was much debated and Roll Bacon absent said that the most ancient and proper course was to bring the Scire facias where the Recognizance was taken but he shewed in his hand a Certificate of all the Prothonotaries of the C. B. that of latter times they have allowed it the one way or the other and so the Iudgment was affirmed And Pasch 20 Jac. Rot. 210. B. R. betwéen Polting and Fairebank the like Iudgment was given upon a Recognizance taken before one of the Iudges of this Court in London and a Scire facias brought in Middlesex but it was said that the usual Entry in this Court is to express before what Iudge it was taken but no place where and then it might be brought in Middlesex without question Hilton and Plater Hil. 21 Car. Rot. 30. SLander Slander The Plaintiff declares That whereas he was Attorney c. the Defendant said to him You are a Knave you were Attorney for my Mother and set my Mother against my Husband and made him spend an 100 li. and such Knaves as you have made my Husband spend all his Estate And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved the last Term in arrest of Iudgment because no communication is laid of his Profession whereby the word Knave may be applied to that and the other words do not import any scandal of him in his Profession for he might lawfully set the Defendants Mother against her Husband as if there were cause of Action against him whereupon Iudgment was stayed And now this Term it was moved again And Bacon was of opinion against the Plaintiff for the reasons aforesaid But Roll contra because the subsequent words declare that the word Knave was intended of him in his Profession and therefore néed no colloquium of his Profession And afterwards the same Term ex assensu Baron ' mutata opinione Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 23 Car. Banco Regis Paine versus Sheltroppe Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 740. IN an Action of Debt Debt upon a Bond with Condition That if the Defendant and his Wife should appear such a day at the Palace Court c. The Defendant upon Oyer of the Condition pleads that he himself did appear at the day prout apparet per record ' and that he was not married at the time of the Obligation nor ever after And it was adjudged to be no good plea because he is estopped to deny that he had a Wife Otherwise when the Condition is general as to enfeoffe one of all his Lands in Dale there he may say he had no Lands there Vide Dyer 50. f. 196. d. 18 E. 4. 4. f. 21 E. 4. 54. g. l. 2. 33. h. Dominus Rex versus Holland AN Office was found and returned in the Chancery That a Copyhold in Islington was 14 Car. granted to one John Holland and his Heirs at the will of the Lord c. in trust for one Margaret Taylor who was an Alien and her Heirs and that the profits were disposed according to the trust and that after M. T. died and this was by virtue of a Commission to enquire what Lands c. M. T. had and the Commissioners seised the Land whereupon Holland came and shewed his Title and traversed the seisin in trust for M. T. And Issue being joyned it was found for the King and note the Venire facias was awarded in the Chancery retornable in this Court and the Record sent hither for they try no Issue there And exception was taken to the Writ because it was quorum quilibet habet 4. libratas terrae and according to Stat. 27 El. cap. 6. which extends only to this Court C. B. Exchequer and Iustices of Assise to which it was answered That forasmuch as it is returnable in this Court it is well enough within the Statute but that Answer was not allowed but because this Clause was added by the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 7. which was in the affirmative that the Writ should continue quorum quilibet habet 2. libratas terrae And the Statute 27 El. adds that it shall be 4. libratas in such Courts but no negative words in either Statute therefore it is but abundans cautela and makes not the Writ vicious And Roll said that it was so adjudged Mich. 21 Jac. betwéen Philpot and Feilder The Questions in Law were 1. If the King should have the trust 2. If by virtue of that he might seise the Land 3. If the Case differ'd because Copyhold And it was argued the last Term by Mountague for Holland and Hale for the King and this Term by Maynard for Holland and Twisden for the King 1. That Vses at the Common Law were things partly in action so that they were not given to the King by general words of Hereditaments in Statutes as is agréed in the Marquess of Winchester's Case And they consisted in privity and therefore could not be transferred by act in Law as by escheat for Attainder c. And the preamble of the
invaded the Realm with an hostile Army of men and with the same force did enter upon the Defendant's possession and him expelled and held out of possession from the 19 of July 18 Car. till the Feast of the Annunciation 21 Car. whereby he could not take the profits whereupon the Plaintiff demurred and the plea was resolved insufficient 1. Because the Defendant hath not answered to one quarters Rent 2. He hath not averred that the Army were all Aliens which shall not be intended and then he hath his remedy against them and Bacon cited 33 H. 6. 1. e. where the Gaoler in bar of an escape pleaded that Alien enemies broke the Prison c. and exception taken to it for that he ought to shew of what Countrey they were viz. Scots c. 3. It was resolved That the matter of the plea was insufficient for though the whole Army had been Alien enemies yet he ought to pay his Rent And this difference was taken that where the Law creates a duty or charge and the party is disabled to perform it without any default in him and hath no remedy over there the Law will excuse him As in the case of Waste if a House be destroyed by Tempest or by Enemies the Lessee is excused Dyer 33. a. Inst 53. d. 283. a. 12 H. 4. 6. so of an Escape Co. 4. 84. b. 33 H. 6. 1. So in 9 E. 3. 16. a Supersedeas was awarded to the Iustices that they should not proceed in a Cessavit upon a Cesser during the War but when the party by his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself he is bound to make it good if he may notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity because he might have provided against it by his Contract And therefore if the Lessee covenant to repair a House though it be burnt by Lightning or thrown down by Enemies yet he ought to repair it Dyer 33. a. 40 E. 3. 6. h. Nota. Now the Rent is a duty created by the parties upon the reservation and had there been a Covenant to pay it there had been no question but the Lessee must have made it good notwithstanding the interruption by enemies for the Law would not protect him beyond his own agreement no more then in the case of reparations This Reservation then being a Covenant in Law and whereupon an Action of Covenant hath been maintained as Roll said it is all one as if there had been an actual Covenant Another reason was added that as the Lessee is to have the advantage of casual profits so he must run the hazard of casual losses and not lay the whole burthen of them upon his Lessor and Dyer 56. 6. was cited for this purpose Vide Co. 4. 82. g. that though the Land be rounded or gained by the Sea or made barren by Wild-fire yet the Lessor shall have his whole Rent And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Wheeler versus Walroone P. vel T. 18 Car. Rot. 600. By devise of all the rest of his Goods Chattels Leases Estates Morgages c. to his Wife passed but an Estate for life Crooke 3. part 447 449. 450. the reason In an Ejectione firmae Vpon a special Verdict the case was that one being seised of the Manor of D. and other Lands in Somersetshire by his Will in writing devised the Manor to A. for six years and part of the other Lands to B. in fee and then comes in this clause And the rest of all my Lands in Somersetshire or elsewhere I give to my Brother and the Heirs of his Body And the question was whether the reversion of the Manor passed or no for it was said that the word Rest did extend only to such Lands as were not devised before but it was adjudged for the Defendant that the reversion of the Manor passed by the devise Baker versus Edmonds Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 222. Action sur le Case In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declares That the Defendant was indebted to one Gode in the summ of 43 l. 1 s. for c. And being so indebted promised to pay him which Gode was indebted to the Plaintiff and became Bankrupt whereupon a Commission upon the Statute was sued forth and the Commissioners did assign debita praed ' Gode in quadam schedula continent ' praed ' summam 43 li. 1 s. to the Plaintiff c. the Defendant pleads that he made no such promise to Gode And by special Verdict it was found that the Defendant was indebted to Gode but in 41 li. 1 s. which he promised to pay and that the Commissioners assigned debita praed ' Gode mentionat ' in quadam schedula continent ' praed ' summam 43 li. 1 s. to the Plaintiff And if this be same promise that the Plaintiff hath declared upon they find for the Plaintiff And two Objections were made 1. That it is not the same promise because the Plaintiff hath declared of a promise to pay 43 li. 1 s. and the Iury find the promise to be but of 41 li. 1 s. That upon the whole Record it appears that the Plaintiff hath not made a good Title to his Action for he hath alledged the Assignment to be of a debt of 43 l. 1 s. whereas the debt was but 41 li. 1 s. And this being an entire thing will not pass by the Assignment of a greater sum But it was answered and resolved 1. That it is the same promise for if Gode himself had brought the Action he should have recovered upon this Verdict and the Assignment by the Commissioners vests the Debt in the Plaint And he hath the same remedy to recover as the Bankrupt himself had Dyer 219. g. 21 E. 4. 22. a. And the difference was taken between an Action upon the Contract it self c. for there if the party mistakes the sum agreed on he fails in his Action but if he brings his Action upon the promise in Law Br. Issue joyn 80. which arises from the Debt there though he mistakes in the sum he shall recover and so hath it been adjudged 2. The Assignment is not in question for the Issue and Verdict are concluded to the promise and so that which they find touching the Assignment is not material however the Assignment is not laid to be of such a sum as by that name for then it would have been a question whether good and the Court inclined that it would not have been good Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis But the Assignment is laid to be of the Debts of Gode mentioned in a schedule containing that sum and so it was found by the Iury therefore the Court shall intend it to be in such a manner as that the Debt of 41 li. 1 s. might well pass thereby And after much debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Munday versus Baily Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 83. or 82. IN an Assumpsit Assumpsit upon an
And if it were his Deed modo forma prout c. was referred to the Court. And Maynard argued for the Plaintiff 1. Inst 185. b. Dyer 133. h. That the Plaintiffs might declare as upon a Bond made to the Testator only because the Duty accrued to him only by survivorship And cited 35 H. 6. 38. h. where a Lease was made to two persons rendring Rent and one dying Debt was brought against the survivor as upon a Lease made to him only so where two Iointenants were joyned in a Lease and one released to the other in an Action of Waste he counted of a Lease made by himself only and adjudged good 46 E. 3. 17. c. 33 H. 6. H. 6. E. 3. 12. 4. h. so it is where a right only survives as Mich. 18 E. 2. in a Case not printed 2. Infants Iointenants joyned in a Feoffment and one died the survivor brought a dum fuit infra aetatem and declared that the Tenant had not the land nisi ex dono of the Demandant dum fuit infra aetatem And the Tenant pleaded in abatement that it was conveyed to him by them both the Demandant replied that the other was dead and adjudged for the Demandant Note the same Law holds where a charge survives as if two joyn in a Bond the Obligee may have Debt against the one only And it was no plea for him to say it was made by him and another unless he say he is in full life as appears 28 H. 6. 3. c. fu 11. a. But where nothing survives there the Case ought to be alledged as the truth was as if two Iointenants make a Feoffment and the one dies the Feoffor cannot plead this as a Feoffment made by the survivor only Otherwise where a Feoffment is made to two and one dies 14 E. 4. 1. h. 3. The matter of variance goes but in abatement and therefore cannot be pleaded in Bar also non est factum is no plea in the Case And Whelpdale's Case l. 5. 119. was cited and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff without further argument Nota if the Defendant in this Case had demanded Oyer of the Deed and caused it to be entred in haec verba he might have demurred to the Declaration as should seem by 36 H. 6. 16. d. g. 32. a. l. 5. 76. e. And the Court ex officio ought to have abated the Bill So Note the difference And see Blackwell and Ashton's Case su 11. a. Royston versus Cordrye Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1677. IN an Action of Debt Debt brought against an Executor upon a Lease for years made to the Testator for Rent due after his death in the detinet after a Verdict for the Plaintiff quod detinet it was moved by Hales in arrest of Iudgment that the Action ought to have been in the debet and detinet for the reasons in Hargrave's Case l. 5. 31. for nothing shall be Assets but the surplus of the value of the Land exceeding the Rent And therefore the profits of the Land proportionable to the Rent are taken to his own use and therefore he is to be charged as for his proper Debt and it cannot be presumed that the Land should be of no value but contrarily that they should be of greater value than the Rent And therefore in an Avowry upon an Abbot for Rent he cannot disclaim generally unless he shew that the Land is of less value then the Rent 43 Ass pl. 23. 16 H. 7. 2. so that if the Land here had been worth nothing or of less value than the Rent the Plaintiff ought to have shewen it in his Declaration for this cannot be made up by the Verdict for besides that the intendment is too remote to be supplied for which see King and Somerland's Case su 9. a. the Verdict is true though it be otherwise for he that is said debere detinere may well be said detinere 2. The Executor is now charged as Ter-tenant and not upon the privity of Contract with the Testator and therefore the Action will not lie against him after Assignment and for the same reason it ought to be brought where the Lands lies so that he ought to be charged in the debet and detinet in respect of the Land and the profits and not in the detinet as upon the Contract But yet upon debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Executor demands his interest whereby the Charge accrues from the Testator so that he may answer the Rent out of the Testator's Estate and the sole inconvenience is to the Plaintiff himself who waives his advantage to demand satisfaction out of the Estate of the Defendant and contents himself with what the Testator's Estate will afford and therefore it was never doubted but that the Action might be brought in the detinet only but it hath been much doubted whether it might be in the debet and detinet Vide Caly and Joslin's Case su 15. Also Roll said that in many places the Land becomes of no value by reason of the troubles and then he ought to be charged in the detinet onely And the Verdict doth supply this Intendment Hil. 23 Car. Banco Regis Page and Harwood PAge and Harwood and one were indicted at the Assises at Nottingham upon the Statute 1 Jac. 8. for stabbing one And the Indictment Indictment was that stabb'd him and Page and Harwood were present abetting c. and contra formam Statuti and all there were found guilty contra forman Statuti and was hanged in the Countrey but Roll doubted whether these two were within the Statute and therefore adjourned them hither And Walker produced a President 16 Car. where one Welsh and five others were indicted at the Sessions in the Old Baily upon this Statute for the death of one Swinnerton and because all five were present and it could not appear upon the Evidence which of them made the thrust Bramston Chief Iustice Barkley and Jones directed the Iury to find them guilty of Manslaughter only at the Common Law for though in Iudgment of Law every one that is present c. is principal so that the Indictment may recite that any of them did make the thrust and the Iury should have found them equally guilty at the Common Law yet in construction of this Statute which is so penal it shall be extended only to such as really and actually made the thrust and not to those which by construction of Law only may be said to make it for the end of the Statute was to restrain the rage and cruelty of such persons as would suddenly stab another And accordingly it was resolved in this case that the offendors should have their Clergy Then another question was made upon the Indictment which is contra formam Statuti and accordingly they were all found guilty by the Iury whereas it appears that these are not guilty within the Statute But it was answered and