Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	die_v	issue_n	warranty_n	1,754	5	13.8235	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47716	The second part of Reports and cases of law argued and adjudged in the courts at Westminster in the time of the late Q. Elizabeth, from the XVIIIth to the XXXIIId year of her reign collected by that learned professor of the law, William Leonard ... ; with alphabetical tables of the names of the cases and of the matters contained in the book.; Reports and cases of law argued and adjudged in the courts at Westminster. Part 2	Leonard, William.	1687 (1687)	Wing L1105; ESTC R19612	303,434	242

had also bona catalla felonum fugitivorum and at the payment the Lord St. John claimed the money But all the Barons of the Exchequer were clear of Opinion That the Lord St. John could not have the money for the place of payment nihil operatur but the Obligation is the substance which came to the Lord of Northampton within the Isle of Ely. Popham the Queens Attorny claimed the money for the Queen for the Lord of Northampton cannot have it for by the general words of bona catalla felonum things in Action do not pass but by express words they well pass otherwise not And therefore day was given to the Lord of Northampton to shew his Letters Patents LXXXII Ards and Smith 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. Rot. 2737. In the Common Pleas. 3 Co. 8. EDward Ards brought a Replevin against Smith and Reading the Defendants made Conusance as Bailiffs to Robert Chamberlain and shewed That one A. was seised of the Manor of Keney in Fee whereof the place where is parcel and so seised gave the said Manor to Richard Chamberlain and Sibil Fowler and to the Heirs males of the said Richard Richard and Sibil intermarry and have issue Edward Richard dieth Sibil dyeth Edward hath issue Leonard and dieth Leonard hath issue Francis and dieth Francis hath issue Robert in whose Right the Conusance is made and dieth Robert entreth The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance sheweth That one B. was thereof seised and thereof enfeoffed one Cottesford then Master of Lincoln College and the Fellows thereof after which the said Leonard Son and Heir male of the said Edward 25 H. 8. did release to the said Master and Fellows with warranty the said Robert in whose Right the said Conusance is made being Heir male of the said Robert and demanded Iudgment if against that warranty c. The Defendants confess the Gift before to the said Richard and Sibil and that they had issue the said Edward but farther shewed That after the death of the said Richard Sibil and Edward her Son leased the said Manor for years to one Mascal who entred and was possessed Edward suffered a common Recovery unto the use of the Recoverors who entred and ousted the Lessee and enfeoffed the said B. who enfeoffed the said Master and Fellows the Lessee re-entred Sibil died Leonard Son and Heir apparent of Edward released to the said Master and Fellows with warranty Edward died Leonard died and thereupon a Demurrer was by the parties and the matter was If this Recovery being suffered by him in the Remainder in tail upon an Estate for life the Recoverors entring upon the Lessee for years of the Lessee for life and putting him out and afterwards the Lessee for years re-entring If now any Estate did remain in the College after the Re-entry which might work a Release Snag Serjeant argued That a sufficient Estate did remain in the College upon which a Release might enure i.e. an Estate to begin after the death of Sibil and the expiration of the term for years and although rei veritate Edward was not Tenant of the Freehold at the time of the Recovery yet such an exception doth not lie for the Issue and to that purpose he cited the Opinion of Fairfax 12 E. 4. 14. Shuttleworth Serjeant contrary This Recovery works nothing but by way of Estoppel and Conclusion and therefore the issue in tail may well disclose the matter and avoid such Recovery and the better Opinion in the Case cited before 12 E. 4. is That such a Recovery against such a person is utterly void which see there by ●ittleton Choke and Brian 14 E. 4. 2. and also 28 Ass 17. and Dyer 8 Eliz. 252 253. Land conveyed to the Husband for life the Remainder to the Wife in tail the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Husband and Wife The Husband and Wife suffer a common Recovery the Husband hath issue and dieth and afterwards the Wife dieth the issue shall avoid the Lease and Recovery See also the Case betwixt Hare and Snow Plow 20 Eliz. 514. where a common Recovery was had against Tenant in tail and his Wife whereas in truth the Wife had nothing in the Land whereof the Recovery was suffered It was holden that the issue in tail or any other person might shew the truth of the matter for he shall not be bound by any Estoppel which his Father hath admitted by joyning in Voucher with his Wife for he is not subject to the Estoppel and therefore it was holden That if the Wife in such case might sue Execution to have in value yet the Son in tail might oust him of it So 8 H. 4. 122. a Praecipe is brought against Tenant in tail who prays in aid of a stranger as Tenant for life who enters into the aid and bars the Demandant and afterwards the Tenant in tail dieth his issue is at large to claim the Estate-tail although the mouth of his Father was estopped as to it So Tenant in tail brought a Quod ei deforceat and counted upon an especial tail whereas in truth it was a general tail and recovereth and dieth the said Recovery shall not conclude the issue See 33 H. 6. 18. And in our Case when the Recoverors enter by force of the recovery the same is a wrong to the Lessee for years and also to the Tenant for life for the one is ejected and the other disseised and therefore the Re-entry of the Lessee doth defeat all the Estate which was in the College under that Recovery and here the Entry of the Lessee for years shall avoid all the Estate which was conveyed to the College by the Recoverors See 44 E. 3. 30 31. Bassingborn's Assise Land is given to A for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to C. in Fee A. aliens in Fee the Ancestors collateral of him who hath the Fee doth release to the Alienee with warranty B. enters here the whole warranty is lost and all the first Estate is recontinued So in our Case by this Entry of the Lessee the whole Estate of the College under the Recovery is defeated so as nothing remains in the College upon which the Release can enure and then there is no warranty in the Case And as the Case is here Edward who suffered the Recovery dieth before the descent of the warranty by the death of Leonard by whom the Release with warranty was made by the death of which Edward the Interest which the College had in the said Manor by the said Recovery and the Estoppel of it was determined and utterly gone and then the warranty descending afterwards cannot attach upon the possession which was at the time of the warranty made which was by the conclusion which by the death of Edward is determined and removed by an Eign Title i. the Entail As if Tenant in tail doth discontinue the Discontinue is disseised Tenant in tail releaseth with warranty to the

Disseisor the Disseisee entereth in the life of Tenant in tail who afterwards dieth the warranty works nothing for the cause aforesaid And also he put this Case Tenant in tail of Land grants a Rent-charge in Fee and an Ancestor collateral releaseth to the Grantee with warranty and dieth the Tenant in tail dieth now the issue is bound but if Tenant in tail dieth before him who maketh the Release now the Rent is determined by the death of Tenant in tail and then the warranty cannot attach upon it At another day the Case was moved and conceived in these words scil Tenant for life the Remainder in tail Tenant for life leaseth for years a Recovery is had against him in the Remainder in tail living Tenant for life the Recoverors enter and oust the Lessee for years the Son and Heir of him in the Remainder in tail releaseth with warranty to him to whom the Recoverors have assured the Lands the Lessee enters he against whom the Recovery was had dieth the Releasor dieth c. It was holden that the Entry of the Lessee before that the warranty had attached upon the possession which passed had avoided the warranty And the Lord Anderson conceived That the Recovery should not prejudice the issue in tail but that the issue shall Fauxifie the same And if Tenant in tail be disseised and so disseised suffereth a common Recovery his issue shall not be barred quod fuit concessum per omnes And afterwards another matter was moved scil That the Release is pleaded to be made to Lincoln College by the name of Custodi sociis Scholaribus Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia where the true name of the College as is confessed by the Record in the Plea pleaded is Custos sive Rector Socii Scholares Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia c. It was adjourned See this Case reported 3 part Lincoln College Case LXXXIII Hall and the Bishop of Bath 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HAll brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Bath and others The Incumbent pleaded Quod ipse nihil habet nec habere clamat c. nisi de praesentatione Georgii Sidenham militis not named in the Writ and demanded Iudgment of the Writ upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was argued by Drew Serjeant for the Plaintiff That the Writ was well brought without naming the Patron for if a Quare Impedit be brought against the Patron and Incumbent and the Patron dieth 1 Leon. 45. pendant the Writ the Writ shall not abate 9 H. 6. 30. It might be that the Plaintiff did not know nor could tell who presented the said Incumbent but he findeth the Incumbent a Disturber by his Incumbency and if of necessity such Patron ought to be named then if such a Vsurper should die before the Writ brought he which hath cause of Action should be remediless And by Anderson and Periam the Writ is good enough for the reason aforesaid And Anderson put this case If A. wrongfully by Vsurpation doth present and his Clark is received and afterwards A. having gained the Patronage grants it over to B. Against whom shall the Quare Impedit be brought Walmsley Against B. which Anderson doubted LXXXIV Hughe 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Formedon the Writ was That A. Dedit Aliciae filiae suae and to J.S. and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten and it was shewed in abatement of the Writ That the name of the Wife is put before the name of the Husband To which it was said by the Court that if such a Writ be brought against the Husband and Wife and the name of the Wife be put before the name of the Husband the Writ shall abate and if in the Case at Bar it had appeared That the Donees at the time of the Gift were Husband and Wife upon such a matter disclosed the Writ should abate but that doth not appear plainly to the Court. LXXXV Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE It was holden by the Court 1 Cro. 567. 3 Cro. 224. Post 189. That if a Writ of Dower be brought against an Infant who loseth by default at the Grand Cape that he may reverse the same by a Writ of Error but where an Infant appeareth by Guardian and afterwards loseth by default there he shall never avoid it for if any default be in the Guardian the Infant shall recover against him in a Writ of Deceit And afterwards the Iudgment in the first case was reversed LXXXVI Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer-Chamber NOTE In the Exchequer-Chamber before the Lord Chancellour The two chief Iustices and the chief Baron a Writ of Error was cast upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer and it was agreed Quod propter absentiam Dom. Thesaurarii Angliae They ought not nor could receive the said Writ and the Statute of 31 Eliz. doth not help the matter for that extends but to discontinuances which before the Statute many times hapned for the not coming of the Chancellour or Treasurer and not to give Conusance in a Writ of Error in the absence of the Treasurer c. LXXXVII Lacy and Fisher 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin by Lacy against Fisher The Defendant pleaded that the place where c. is called Spicold and holden of the Manor of Easthall by certain Rent and made Conusance as Bailiff of the Lord of the said Manor and issue being joined hereupon It was tried by the Iury of the Visne of Spicold and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the issue was mis-tried For the Visne ought to have been of Spicold and Easthall also Web and Richmond's Case And a Case was cited to have been adjudged accordingly betwixt Webb and Richmond M. 31 Eliz. in the same Court. LXXXVIII Corbet 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That an Action of Debt was brought by original Writ against an Administrator in another County than where the Administrator was dwelling and before notice of that suit he paid divers other debts of the Intestate due by specialties so as he had not Assets to pay the debt in demand having Assets at the day of the Teste of the original and now the Defendant appearing pleads the same special matter and concluded And so nothing remained in his hands And it was holden per Curiam to be a good Plea See 2 H. 4. 21 22. LXXXIX Sir William Pelham 's Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer 1 Co. 41. THE Case short put was this A. Tenant for life of a Messuage c. the remainder in tail to B. with divers remainders over A. by Deed indented and enrolled bargained and sold the Messuage c. so conveyed to Sir William Pelham in Fee who afterwards suffered a common Recovery thereof in which A. is vouched and so a common Recovery is had and executed and

not in the King without Office in the life of the party attainted upon the words of the Act shall forfeit See Stamford Prerogat 54 55. acc He said That this interest which came unto the King by this Attainder is but a Chattel and then it is remitted by the Pardon and so he conceived if it be a Freehold For the words of the general Pardon are large and liberal Pardon and release all manner of Treasons c. and all other things Causes c. and here Forfeitures are pardoned and this word things is a transcendent c. and although it be a general word yet by the direction of the Act of general Pardon it ought to be beneficially expounded and extended as if all things had been specially set down Also the words are Pardon them and their Heirs therefore the Pardon extends to Inheritance for otherwise there is no use of that And he conceived That by the first branch of this Act that the same extends to Inheritances and to acquit the Lands of all incumbrances for every Offence not excepted for there is the word Heirs and the third branch concerns onely Chattels and that is by the word Grant where the first is by words of acquittal See 33 H. 8. br Charter of Pardon 71. Tenant of the King dieth seised the Heir intrudes Office is found by Pardon of Parliament all Intrusions are pardoned in that case the Offence is pardoned but not the issues and profits of the Lands but by a Pardon before all is pardoned But here in our case the Office is not void for the Statute makes all Precepts Commissions c. void being awarded upon such forfeiture See also in the second branch Vexed or inquieted in Body Goods or Lands and see also among the Exceptions That persons standing indicted of wilfull Murther and Forfeiture of Goods Lands Tenements grown by any offence by such person By which he said that if such Exception had not been the Land of such person if he had been attainted upon such Indictment should be forfeited as to the Traverse he said That because the Office is true our Plea is in the nature of Monstrans de Droit although it concludes with a Traverse We vary from the Office in number of the persons and in the day of Feoffment and every circumstance in case of the King is to be traversed and our Plea in substance confesseth and avoideth the Offence Although that here the King be intituled by double matter of Record scil the Attainder and the Office yet one of the said Records scil the Attainder is discharged by another Record scil the Pardon and then but one Record remains scil the Office and therefore our Traverse well lieth And he said that by the common Law there was a Traverse as where it was found by Office that the Lessee of the King had committed Waste or had cessed for two years and that in such case the Lessee and Tenant in an Action brought against them may traverse the Offence therefore there was a Traverse at the common Law where the King was entitled by single matter of Record So upon Office finding Alienation without Licence there was a Traverse by the common Law See Traverse in such case in the Case of William de Herlington 43 Ass 28. See Br. Traverse of Office 54. Petition is by the common Law and Traverse by the Statute Frowick in his Reading See Stamf. Prerogat 60. That Traverse in case of Goods was at the common Law but for Lands by Office by 34 E. 3. 14. for before the remedy was by Petition See Co. 4. part the Sadler's Case 55 56. Traverse was at the common Law concerning Freehold and Inheritance but that was in special Cases scil when by the Office the Land is not in the King's hands nor the King by that is in possession but onely by the Office is entitled to an Action and cannot make a Seisure without Suit for there in a Scire facias brought by the King in the nature of such Action to which he is entitled the party may appear to the Scire facias and traverse the Office by the common Law. It was adjourned CLXX Scott and Scott 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 73. 3 Len. 225. 4 Len. 70. IN a Replevin betwixt Scott and Scott the Case was George Scott 2 H. 8. being Tenant in tail of certain lands suffered a common Recovery to the use of his last Will and 15 H. 8. made his Will by which he did declare That the Recoverors should make a good and favourable Lease to Hugh Scott his younger brother and 25 H. 8. they make a Lease of the same land to the said Hugh for 199 years according to the Will of the said George Scott rendring Rent 11 l. 6 s. 8 d. payable at the Feast of the Annunciation and S. Michael by equall portions and that to the Recoverors their Heirs and Assigns and there was a Covenant that after the death of the Recoverors the said Rent should be paid to Cestuy que use his Heirs and Assigns any thing in the said Indenture notwithstanding Proviso That if the Lesse make his Heir male his Assignee of that term that then he shall pay the said Rent to the Recoverors their Heirs and Assigns and the Lessee shall not pay the Rent to the Heirs of Cestuy que use upon which a Distress is taken and thereupon a Replevin brought Drew argued for the Plaintiff When a Condition is created the Law saith That it shall be taken and construed favourably in the behalf of him who is to perform it As if one be bounden to appropriate such a Church to such a house before such a day at his own costs and the Obligor grants a Pension out of the said Parsonage and afterwards appropriates the said Church it was holden that the Condition was well performed 3 H. 7. 4. A Lease for years upon condition to scowre the Ditches if the Lessee scowreth them once it is well enough And as to this word Proviso It is to see If here it be a word conditional In some Cases this word Pro makes a Condition as 45 E. 3. 8. Grant of a Ward pro bono servitio if the Grantee departeth out of his service the Grant is void So if an Annuity be granted unto a Physician pro consilio impendendo the same is a Condition 41 E. 3. 6. For the Grantor hath not means to compell the Grantee to give his Council but in some Cases this word Pro doth not make a Condition As if before the Statute of West 3. Land was given pro homagio suo there if the Homage be not done the Feoffor could not re-enter but he ought to distrain And I conceive that in our Case Proviso doth not make a Condition 7 H. 6. 44. A Feoffment in Fee with Warranty Proviso that the Feoffee shall not vouch So a Grant of a Rent-charge Proviso that the Grant shall not

he said Misnosmer shall be tried where the Writ is brought c. So Ne unque administer as Executor c. Manwood Here the Lease is said to be made at Durham in a place certain if now there be not any other local thing said which might draw the trial elsewhere it shall be tried at Durham where the Lease is made An Infant makes a lease for years rendring Rent and afterwards re-enters and avoids his Lease by reason of his nonage and Title is made against him by the Lease upon which he pretended nonage it shall be tried where the Lease was made and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXIX Ross and Morrice 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench EDward Ross was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Edward Morrice 1 Cro. 108 109. and George Manly Defendants who made Conusance as Bailiffs to Jerom Weston The Plaintiff declares of the taking of two Geldings 20 Decemb. 29 Eliz. at Nayland in the County of Suffolk in a certain place called Nayland-Court-Meadow And the Conusance is that the place where was a Freehold of the said Jer. Weston c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance shewed That long time before Sir Christopher Danby was seised of 30 acres of Meadow in Nayland whereof the place where c. and Leased the same by Indenture to Thomas Calton 19 Maii 31 H. 8. Habendum from the Feast of the Annunciation 1553. for the term of 45 years Who 1 E. 6. assigned his Interest to Edw. Ross the Plaintiff's Father who 1 Maii the said 1553. entred and 11 Eliz. granted his Interest to Bamford and Mascal who entred and were possessed Sir Christopher Danby died seised of the Reversion 13 Eliz. and the same descended to Thomas Danby his son and heir 14 Eliz. Mascal died Bamford 15 Eliz. granted to the Plaintiff Habendum from the 17 of March 1583. for three years which expired 26 Eliz. Bamford entred and afterwards Thomas Danby granted the Reversion to Edw. Rockwood in Fee to which the said Bamford Attorned and the Plaintiff by force of the said Lease put in his Cattel c. The Plaintiff Replicando said That long time before that Danby had any thing Jeofry Lord Scroop had issue of his body Henry Lord Scroop and died And that one John Guntwarby was seised of the said Manor of Nayland whereof c. in Fee by his Charter 25 E. 3. gave to the said Henry Lord Scroop the same Et haeredibus corpore suo exeuntibus who had issue Stephen who entred and died seised having issue John who entred and died seised having issue Thomas who entred and 3 H. 7. suffered a Common Recovery to the use of himself and his heirs The Recoverers enfeoffed Thomas seised also of many other Lands and had issue Ralph Jeofry Alice Elizabeth and Margery and afterwards died seised Ralph Lord Scroop entred and thereof did enfeoff divers persons unto the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and the heirs males of the said Ralph and afterwards the said Ralph being possessed of the said Charter of entail made ut supra by Guntwardy 7 H. 8. Devised that the Feoffees should be seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and if they died without issue of the body of the said Ralph the said Jeofry then living that then the Feoffees should be seised to the use of the said Jeofry being his Vncle for his life and after his decease ad usum Rectorum haeredum in perpetuum secundum antiquam Evidentiam inde ante factam with an averment that the said Ralph at the time of the said Devise and of his death was possessed of the Charter of Entail made by the said Guntwardy and that the said Charter was the most ancient Evidence of the said concerning the said Manor Ralph died without issue possessed of the said Charter by which the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to his use for life and after to the use of the said Jeofry for life and after his decease of the right heirs of the body of Henry Lord Scroop lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and the said Charter and of the residue of the Manors to the use of the said Jeofry and his heirs Eleanor died after whose decease the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of the said Jeofry right heir of the said Henry Lord Scroop of his body begotten and of the other lands to the use of the said Jeofry in Fee Jeofry died without issue by which the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery Cosins and heirs of the body of the said Henry Scroop c. And of the heirs of the bodies of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and Charter as to the said Manor of Nayland and of the other Manors to their use in Fee And afterwards the said Alice took to husband James Strangways who had issue Thomas Elizabeth took to husband Fitz Randolph who had issue Elizabeth Dorothy Agnes Alice Margery took to husband Danby who had issue Sir Christopher Danby named in the Bar and afterwards all the said husbands and their wives died by force of which the said Feoffees were seised of one part of the said Manor of Nayland in three parts to be divided to the use of the said Thomas Strangways and of another part to the use of the four daughters of the said Elizabeth and her husband Fitz Randolph and of another such part to the use of the said Christopher Danby and of their heirs in Tail and of the other lands to the use of them in Fee in degree of Coparcinary Elizabeth the eldest daughter of Fitz Randolph took to husband Shirley Dorothy her sister took to husband Eshe Agnes took to husband Maynel and Alice took to husband Dranfield Thomas Strangways had issue James and died And afterwards partition was made by which to James Strangways were allotted lands in Kent and agreed that the Feoffees should be seised of the said lands to the use of the said James and his heirs and to no other use To Sherley and Elizabeth his wife lands in Essex were allotted and agreed upon the partition that the Feoffees should be seised to the use of them c. in Fee c. And to Danby the said Manor of Nayland in tail by reason of the Devise and Charter aforesaid as to the said Manor of Nayland and of other lands in Fee. And afterwards 23 E. 8. notice was given to the Feoffees of the said partition and averred that the partition was equal c. and that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said partition untill 27 H. 8. and confessed the Lease made by Danby to Calton and all the assignments set forth in the Bar to the Avowry and farther shewed That Thomas Danby

entred upon Ross the Plaintiff and enfeoffed Rockwood who enfeoffed Weston Coke for the Plaintiff The Case is no more but where a man hath issue a son and a daughter by several women and Deviseth his Lands to his son and the heirs of the body of the Father lawfully begotten in which case if the Son dieth without issue the Tail is extinct and the Daughter shall never have the Land for she doth not take by way of Reversion or Remainder and she doth not take in possession because the possession was in Jeofry who was the Heir of Henry c. And these Cases were vouched 1 Roberge's Case 2 E. 3. 1. to Tail John Mandevile took to Wife Roberge and Mandevile gave land to Roberge haeredibus ipsius Johannis quos ipse de corpore praedict Robergiae procreaverit there the Book is That the Formedon was Quae M. dedit Robergiae haeredibus dict Johannis quos ipsae de corpore dictae Robergiae procreaverit Et quae post mortem praefat Robergiae R. filii haeredis dict Johannis Mandevile haeredis ipsius Johannis de corpore dicto Robergiae per dict Johannem procreat c. and the same Writ awarded good which Coke denyed to be Law. And he cited the Case of Dyer 4 and 5 P. and Ma. 156. A. gives Lands to one for life the Remainder thereof rectis haeredibus masculis de corpore dict A. legitime procreat remanere inde rectis haeredibus dict A. who hath issue two Sons and dieth A. dieth the eldest Son hath issue a Daughter and dieth without issue male And he conceived first That in this case the limitation of the Remainder in Tail to the right Heirs of the body of the Donor is void for the Donor cannot make his own right Heir a Purchasor without departing with the Fee-simple of his person But admitting the limitation is good he said we are to consider If this entail to the Son once vested and commenced in the possession of the Son when he dieth without issue male The Estate be spent or that the same shall go to the younger Son And he said that it was the opinion of Dyer in that case That the younger Son was inheritable to the said Estate-tail as in the Case of Littleton 82. where the condition is That the Feoffee shall give the Lands to the Son and Heir of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Father and Mother lawfully begotten and the Husband and Wife before any such Gift die having issue and afterwards the Feoffee gives the Land to the Son and Heir of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Father and Mother begotten the condition is well performed and if the eldest Son to whom the Gift is made dieth without issue the youngest Son shall inherit And in a Formedon in the Reverter upon such a Gift the Writ shall be Et quae post mortem of the eldest Son ad ipsum reverti debet because the Husband and Wife obierunt sine haerede de corpor suis inter eos exeunt And such was also the Opinion of Saunders But Brook Brown and Catlin were clear contrary And he said that Bendloes Serjeant who reporteth that Case doth affirm That Iudgment was given in that case That the Estate-tail was spent and that the Daughter should have the Lands and not the second Son and so he said That in the Case at the Bar the Estate-tail was spent But he said That he conceived that in the principal case at Bar there is not any Estate-tail at all because the words upon which the Estate-tail is conceived are incertain and too general viz. secundum antiquam Evidentiam for there might be many ancient Evidences for the words may extend to Evidences which cut off the Estate tail as well as to the Entail of Guntwardy He also argued That the Partition was void and then the Lessee had a good interest for certain parts of the Lands for Partition cannot be made of an Vse and he said that he agreed That Partition betwixt Husband and Wives of Lands if it be equal should bind the makers because they are compellable to make Partition of them but contrary of an Vse for that they are not compellable to do Also in the principal Case the Land entailed is allotted to one of the Coparcenors which is not good but during the Coverture and afterwards void and then the Lease is void but in part and so the Conusance is not good Atkinson contrary and he said I conceive that by words of Relation a Fee may pass without the word Heirs See 39 Ass 12. The Father seised of Lands in fee doth enfeoff his younger Son in fee and the Father continues the possession of the Lands claiming to hold them at the will of the Son and the Son coming into the Town where the Lands do lie in the hearing of his Neighbours saith to his Father You have given to me these Lands naming them As fully as you have given them to me I give them back to you again and the same was holden to be a good Gift to the Father 43 E. 3. 22. The King seised of a Manor to which an advowson is appendant by Escheat or Conveyance gives the said Manor as entirely as such a one held the said Manor before the Escheat or Conveyance the Advowson shall pass without special mentioning of it And so here in our Case at Bar This Will hath reference to the ancient Evidence and it shall be as strong as if he had set down the special words of Entail and to ancient Evidence before the Entail it cannot extend for then a fee should pass and then the Devise should be void because to his Heir and the word Antiqua Evidentia shall have reference to the Charter which was made by Guntwardy for that was an ancient Evidence made two hundred years past and he cited the Case of 40 E. 3. 8. the Provost of Beverley's Case and conceived that the Estate was not spent for that the Estate-tail was in Jeofry as the fee was in him Lands are given to the Father for life the Remainder to the Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father the Father dieth the Tail and the fee are in the Son but yet after the death of the Son without issue the Lands shall be in the Brother's Son by descent and not as Purchasor And in our Case Jeofry was in in the Tail as right Heir of Henry and if Jeofry dieth without issue his Brother of the half bloud shall have the Lands as in the Case before cited of 40 E. 3. but that shall be in Tail by force of the Devise And he said That in this case here the Partition was made good enough although it were of Lands in use for a man might contract for an Vse without Deed 11 H. 4. Partition 156. Partition of an Advowson without Deed

and that is by reason of the privity betwixt them and because they are compellable to make Partition and in our Case they are compellable by Subpoena in Chancery to make Partition and notwithstanding that the Lands entailed be allotted to one Coparcenor onely and the fee to the other three yet thereby the Partition is not void but voidable As an Exchange by Tenant in tail is not void but if the Issue in tail accept of it it shall bind him during his life So here and also by the death of the Husbands the Partition is not void but voidable onely Clench Iustice How shall the Heir be said seised of the Lands entailed which was allotted to his Father and Mother after acceptance and agreement Atkinson Of certain part as Issue in tail and of other parts by force of the Partition and acceptance Quaere of that for if it be not of the whole as Issue in tail then the Lease is not void but for so much whereof he was seised in tail and then the Lessee is Tenant in common with Weston and then the Conusance is not good Cooper Serjeant elect Here wants certainty for the words of reference are too general and therefore void ad usum rectorum haeredum without shewing of the Donor or of the Donee and they are not helped by the subsequent words secundum antiquam Evidentiam ante hac factam for that also is incertain for it appeareth upon the Record That there are divers Evidences of the said Lands as the Charter of Gift the Recovery and the Conveyances made 4 H. 7. and which of them is intended by the Devise non constat and the said defect is not helped by any of the Averments i. That the Devisor was possessed of the said Charter of Entail at the time of his death and it is also not to the purpose for it may also be that he was possessed of other Evidences as ancient as the said Charter of Entail It is said that there is no other ancient Evidence of the Lord Scroop but it is not averred That there was not other ancient Evidences of the said Lands But admit that the limitation be good by that reference yet there was not any Estate-tail for every Estate-tail ought to be limited in certainty which see in the Statute of West 2. secundum formam in Charta Doni manifesto expressam c. and here it doth not appear upon the words of the Charter if the Estate-tail be limited to the Heirs of the Donor or unto the Heirs of the Donee and he said Admit that the same is an Estate-tail then the Question is If Jeofry be a Purchasor and if he be then by his death without issue the Estate-tail is spent And he said that the Estate for life in Jeofry is drowned by the Estate-tail limited to him for they are united together Egerton Solicitor-General Reasonable and favourable construction ought to be made of this Devise according to the intent of the Devisor As 35 Ass 14. Lands are given to B. and his Heirs if he hath issue of his body and if he die without issue of his body that the Lands shall revert to the Donor and his Heirs the same is a good Entail and upon the death of the Donee without issue the Donor shall re-enter And so here although that rectorum haeredum be incertain words yet the same is supplied by the subsequent words viz. secundum antiquam evidentiam As where the King grants to a Mayor and Commonalty such Liberties as London hath the same is a good Grant 2 H. 7. 13. 1 Leo. 245. And he conceived That this Estate-tail shall be said to begin in Henry although he was dead before and that all his Issues should inherit it and that it should not be determined by the death of Jeofry without issue and in proof thereof he vouched the Case before cited Littl. 81 82. for in that case the condition could not be holden to be performed if the Heir to whom the Gift was made in facto should be in by purchase and so the Estate-tail spent by his death without issue and also he vouched the Case of one Shelley That although the Heir took that which was not ever in his Ancestors yet he did not take it as a Purchasor but as in course of a descent and he also cited Robridge's Case And afterwards the same Term by award of the Court Iudgment was entred for the Plaintiff for the incertainty of these words secundum antiquam Evidentiam to what Evidence it should refer and also rectorum haeredum without shewing whose Heirs i. of the Donor or of the Donee And Wray chief Iustice said It shall be intended upon this Will That the meaning of the Testator was That the Lands should go unto his Heirs according to the Law according to all his Evidences which he had of his Lands and that is a Fee simple and it shall not be intended That the Testator had such a special remembrance of one Deed made two hundred years before viz. 25 E. 3. XXX Perry and Some 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 482. SOme Parson of the Church of Sherring in Essex 1 Cro. 139. libelled in the Spiritual Court against Perry for the Tithes of green Tares eaten before they were ripe and for the Tithes of the Herbage of dry Cattel and for Tithes of Sheep bought and sold and for Churchings and Burials Perry prayed a Prohibition and in his surmise as to the green Tares he said That they had used time out of mind c. in the same Parish In consideration that they had not sufficient Meadow and Pasture for their milch Kine and draught Cattel to pay for the Tithes of the ripe Tares the tenth shock but for their green Tares which are eaten up before they are ripe in consideration that they gave them to their Cattel they had used to be discharged of any Tithes thereof and the truth was That 400 Acres of Lands within the said Town had used to be plowed and sowed every year by the labour of draught Cattel and industry of the Inhabitants in consideration of which and that in the said Parish there was not sufficient Meadow nor Pasture for their draught Cattel they had used to be discharged of the Tithes of green Tares eaten before they were ripe It was holden by the Court that the same was a good custome and consideration for the Parson hath benefit thereby for otherwise the said 400 Acres could not be plowed for without such shift to eat with their draught Cattel the green Tares they could not maintain their plough Cattel and so the Parson should lose his Tithes thereof and for the Tithes of the green Tares he hath the Tithes of 400 Acres There was a Case lately betwixt the Lord Howard and Nichols where the suit in the Spiritual Court was for the Tithes of Rakings and a surmise to have a Prohibition was made that the

Postea 82 83. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That Mr. Graunt was seised of the Lands c. and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life and farther he willed That when Richard his brother shall come to the age of 25 years he should have the Lands to him and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten Mr. Graunt died having issue of his body who is his heir Richard before he had attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with Proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. Sic ut partes ad finem nihil habuerunt and if this Fine should bind the Estate-tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged M. 29 and 30 Eliz. Tenant in tail discontinues to E. and afterwards levieth a Fine to B. although the partes ad finem nihil habuerunt yet the Fine shall bind the entail But the Serjeants at Bar argued That there is a great difference betwixt the Case cited and the Case at Bar for in that Case the said Fine was pleaded in Bar but here the Fine is not pleaded but found by special Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the same was not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or conclusion but by the Statute doth bind and extinguish the Estate-tail and the right of it and Fines are as effectual to bind the right of the entail when they are found by especial Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar And by Periam Collateral Warranty found by Verdict is of as great force as if it were pleaded in Bar And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate-tail by the Fine was utterly destroyed and extinct XLIX Jay 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas JAY brought an Action of Debt before the Mayor of Shrewsbury c. and declared upon an Obligation which was upon condition to pay money at London and issue was there joined upon the payment And it was moved how this issue should be tried viz. 4 Inst 205. If it may be removed by Certiorare into the Chancery and thence by Mittimus into the Common-Pleas and from thence sent into London to be tried and when it is tried to be remanded back to Shrewsbury to have Iudgment See 21 H. 7. 33. Vpon voucher in the County Palatine of Lancaster the Law is such in matters real for real actions cannot be sued but in the said County Palatine but in personal matters it is otherwise for such actions may be sued elsewhere at the pleasure of the party And thereunto agreed the whole Court and although such matters have been removed before yet the same were without motion to the Court or opposition of the other party and so not to be accounted Precedents See 3 H. 4. 46. abridg'd by Brook Cause de remover Plea 41. Where he saith That a Foreign Plea pleaded in London in Debt goes to the jurisdiction but upon a Foreign Voucher in a Plea real the Plea shall be removed in Bank by the Statute to try the Warranty and afterward shall be remanded L. Sands and Scagnard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared that he was possessed of certain Chattels which came to the Defendant by Trover The Defendant pleaded That heretofore the Plaintiff brought Debt against the now Defendant and demanded certain moneys and declared that the Defendant bought of him the same goods whereof the Action is now brought for the summ then in demand to which the then Defendant waged his Law and had his Law by which Nihil Capiat per breve c. was entred And demanded Iudgment if c. And by Windham and Rodes Iustices The same is no bar in this Action for the waging of the Law and the doing of it utterly disproves the Contract supposed by the Declaration in the said Action of Debt and then the Plaintiff is not bound by the supposal of it but is at large to bring this Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LI. Spittle and Davie 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Owen Rep. 8 55. IN a Replevin the Case was That one Turk was seised of certain Lands in Fee and by his Will devised parcell of his said Lands to his eldest Son in tail and the residue of his Lands to his younger Son in Fee Provided that neither of my said Sons shall sell or make Leases of the Lands given or bequeathed unto them by this my Will or doe any Act with any of the said Lands to the hindrance of their children or mine by any devise or means before they come to the age of 30 years and if any of my Sons doe so then my other Son shall have the portion of my Lands so devised to his Brother the eldest Son before his age of 30 years leased the Lands to him devised ut supra for years against the intent of the said Proviso The younger Son entred 2 Cro. 398. and he leased the same Land for years before his age of 30 years Vpon which the eldest Son did re-enter and the opinion of the Court was that here is a Limitation and not a Condition and here the re-entry of the eldest Son was holden unlawfull for this Proviso did not extend but to the immediate Estate devised expresly to them and not to any new Estate which did arise upon the limitation and when the younger Son enters upon the eldest Son by the said Limitation he shall hold his Estate discharged of the Proviso or any limitation contained in it LII Martin Van Henbeck 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information was exhibited in the Exchequer against Martin Van Henbeck Merchant-stranger upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. Cap. 17. concerning the gaging of vessels of Wine and shewed That the Defendant had sold to such a one so many pipes of Wine and that none of them did contain as they ought 126. gallons and although they were so defective yet the Defendant had not defalked the price c. according to the want of measure for which he had forfeited to the Queen all the value of all the Wine so defective Exception was taken to the Information because there is not set down how much in every pipe was wanting as one or two gallons c. To as a ratable defalcation might be made according to the proportion of the want of measure But if the Informer had set forth in his Information that no defalcation was at all such general allegation of want of measure without other certainty had been good And the Case was cited 32 E. 4. 40. Lysle's Case Where the plea wants certainty or where he pleads that he was ready to shew to the Council of the Plaintiff his discharge of an Annuity c. and doth not shew

adjudged by the whole Court that the Covenant did not lie by one of them onely but ought to be brought by them both LXI Carter 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Being seised of the Manor of Staple in Odiham 1 Cro. 208. Owen Rep. 84. 8 Co. 119. and of divers other Lands in Odiham suffered a common Recovery of the whole and by Indenture expressed the uses in this manner viz. of all his Lands and Tenements in Odiham to the use of his wife for life the remainder over c. And of the Manor of Staple to the use of his youngest son in tail but by the clear opinion of the whole Court although the Manor of Staple was in Odiham yet the wife shall have nothing therein for the intent of the party was that the son should have the same and his wife the residue and accordingly Iudgment was given LXII Cobb and Prior 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case betwixt Cobb and Prior was this A man seised of Lands in Fee devised the same to his Wife during the minority of his Son upon condition that she should not do Waste during the minority of the said Son and died The Wife married a Husband and died the Husband committed Waste It was holden by all the Iustices That the same was not any breach of the Condition and Iudgment was entred accordingly LXIII Taylor and Brounsal 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. IN an Information upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. by Taylor against Brounsal the Case was That John Brounsal was seised and gave the Lands to T. B. and the Heirs of his body c. the Remainder to R. B. and the Heirs male of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J. B. T. B. died having issue a Daughter and R. B. made a Lease for years of the Lands And it was holden by the Court to be no maintenance within the said Statute for he in the Remainder might make a Lease for years Then it was given in Evidence That a common Recovery was had against the Husband and Wife with a single Voucher and so the Remainder limited to R. B. destroyed and that after that Recovery R. B. made the Lease To which it was said by the other side That the said Recovery was never executed and no discontinuance of the Remainder and then the Lease made by R. B. was good and the truth of the Case was That such a Recovery was had and an Habere facias seisinam awarded and retorned but no Execution was in truth had upon it nor the Recoveror never entred And if R. B. who is a stranger to the said Recovery shall be admitted against the Recovery to say That no Execution was thereof was the Question and therefore all the matter was found by special Verdict It was also given in Evidence That the Land was given to T. B. and the Heirs males of his body and then when the Daughter which is not in truth inheritable entereth if that Entry she being privy in bloud to R. hee Vncle shall be a Disseisin or Abatement c. as in the Case of Littleton where the youngest Brother entreth after the death of the Father for in such case the youngest Son doth not get any Freehold but is but a Tenant at sufferance Anderson When the Daughter enters and takes a Husband who leaseth for years and the Lessee entreth the same is a Disseisin Periam doubted it for he said When the younger Son entred the Freehold was in him which Anderson doubted LXIV Maunsel and Vernon 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IQ Debt by Maunsel against Hen. Vernon Esquire who came in by Capias i. compulsary Process and pleaded That he was Hen. Vernon Lord Powis and so a Baron of the Parliament and demanded Iudgment of the Writ Note some said That if the Defendant had come in by Issue joyned or gratis and not by compulsary Process he could not have pleaded this Plea or any other Misnosmer The Plaintiff replyed That the Defendant is an Esquire absque hoc that he is Lord Powis and a Baron of the Parliament and as the Iury was ready at the Bar to try this Issue this matter was objected And Anderson conceived That this Plea to the Writ was not good for the name of Lord is not any degree as Knight Duke Earl nor is it parcel of the name nor parcel of addition and therefore it is no Plea in abatement of a Writ and all the Writs of Parliament directed to Barons to summon them to Parliament shall have their Names Sirnames and Additions as if they be Knights Knights and if Esquires they shall be named Esquires and if a Bond be made by J.S. Lord R. the Writ shall not be so for the King by his Writ doth not name any one Lord but otherwise it is of Duke Earl c. for these are Offices of Dignity and parcel of their Names and not onely Additions Windham and Periam contrary and they conceived that there was no difference in this point betwixt a Lord and an Earl for which cause the Court being in doubt although that the Exception was entered of Record would have saved the same to the party and taken the Iury de bene esse but afterwards because it appeared it was joyned in the prejudice of Sir Edward Herbert who was a stranger thereunto and whose Title was concerned therein and there was none on his part to inform the Iury the Iury was at last dismissed by the Court. LXV Penruddock and Newman 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae by Penruddock against Newman 1 Leon. 279 the Plaintiff declared of a Lease made by the Lord Morley and upon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That W. Lord Mounteagle seised of the manner of D. whereof c. became bound in a Statute in such a sum of Money to A. who died the Executors of A. sued Execution against the said Lord scil Extendi facias a Liberate issued upon which the said Manor was delivered to the Executors but the said Liberate was not retorned and it was farther found That the Executors being so possessed of the Manor the Lord commanded a Court Baron to be holden there which was done by sufferance and permission of the Executors and in their presence at which time the Executors said to the Lord the Conusor We have nothing to do with this Manor And upon this Verdict several matters were moved 1. If the Execution were well done because the Writ of Liberate was not retorned and as to that divers Books were cited 21 H. 6. 8. 18 E. 3. 25. And there is a difference betwixt a Liberate and a Capias ad satisfaciend and Fieri facias these Writs are Conditional Ita quod habeas corpus c. Ita quod habeas denarios hic in Curia 32 H. 8. ca. 28. 16 H. 7.

in execution it was adjudged in this Case that the Conusee should have the Corn sowed The same Law in case of a Recognizance LXXVI Smalman and Lane 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was a Capias upon an original Process was delivered to the new Sheriff of Warwick against Lane at the suit of Smalman And the Sheriff informed the Court that before that the Process was directed to him That the said Lane was taken in Execution by the old Sheriff upon a judgment given against him in the King's-Bench and that the said old Sheriff had imprisoned the said Lane by force of the Execution in his own house and there he remained and prayed the advice of the Court what retorn he should make upon that matter because the said Lane was never in his possession for all the other prisoners which were in the Gaol and in the ordinary Prisons were delivered to him and the old Sheriff would not bring Lane to the place where the other Prisoners were delivered And it was the opinion of all the Iustices That by the Law the old Sheriff ought to deliver the body of him who is in his custody by view to the new Sheriff and such Prisoners ought to be brought unto him to view and from that time the Law shall adjudge such Prisoners to be in the possession of the new Sheriff and not before for he is not bound to go to them not being in the ordinary Prison of the County Anderson The new Sheriff may retorn That the said Lane is in Execution in custodia sua and so charge himself For although the Office of the old Sheriff be determined yet it is not an escape so long as the party be in custodia and not at large Periam contrary It is an escape in the old Sheriff as soon as his authority is determined the Prisoner not delivered See now C. 3. part 71. Wesby's Case LXXVII Megot and Broughton and Davie 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 105. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit it was found by Nisi prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank one of the Defendants died and after Iudgment given the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the same Court where the Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of one of the Defendants pendant the Writ Roll 798. b. 3 Len. 96. Vide 2 E. 3. 21. It was said that the Case is not like the Case of an Action of Trespass for every Trespass done by many is several by each of them but every Assumpsit is joint and not several Another point was moved If the Court could reverse their own Iudgement Quaere LXXVIII Farrington and Fleetwood 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THE Case upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries was this 3 Len. 164 165. ante 333. Plus The Abbat and Convent of A. c. 29 H. 8. made a Lease of certain Lands for three lives to begin after the death of one F. if they so long live and afterwards 30 H. 8 within a year before the dissolution they make another Lease to Fleetwood If the first Lease in the life of the said F. be such an Estate and Interest as by virtue of the said Statute shall make the second Lease void was the Question for it was not in esse but a future Interest Manwood All the reason that hath been made for the second Lease is because the first Lease is but a possibility for F. by possibility may survive all the said three and so it shall never take effect But notwithstanding be it a possibility or otherwise it is such a thing which may be granted or forfeited and that during the life of F. And note the words of the Statute If any Abbat c. within one year next before the first day of this present Parliament hath made or hereafter shall make any Lease or Grant for years life or lives of any Manors c. whereof and in which any Estate or Interest for life or years at the time of the making of any such Lease or Grant then had his being or continuance and hereafter shall have his being or continuance and then was not determined c. shall be void c. And here is an Interest and that not determined at the time of the making of the Lease to Fleetwood And of such Opinion were all the Barons and divers other Iustices and therefore a Decree was made against the Lease c. LXXIX Beaumont 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte it was holden by all the Barons in the Exchequer Owen Rep. 46. That a Duty which is not naturally a Debt but by circumstances onely as Debt upon a Bond for performance of Covenants or to save harmless may be assigned over to the Queen for a Debt but in such case a present Extent shall not issue but a Scire facias shall issue forth to know if the party hath any thing to plead against such Assignment LXXX Goddard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was moved in the Case of Goddard concerning the Manor of Staple in Hampshire 11 Leon. 8. If the Tenant of the King of Lands holden in Capite be disseised and the Disseisor aliens the Lands and afterwards the Disseisee doth re-enter Manwood said That the Land shall not be charged with a Fine for alienation without licence because the Title of the Alienee grew under the wrong of the Disseisor but the person of the Disseisor shall be charged with such Fine Tenant of the King in Capite makes a Lease for life the Lessee for life makes a Feoffment in Fee without licence the Lessor re-entreth neither his person nor the Land shall be charged But if my Feoffee upon Condition maketh a Feoffment without license and I re-enter for the Condition broken now my Land shall be charged with the Fine upon Alienation for the Feoffee was in by me by good and lawfull Title because he had power to make a Feoffment over although subject to the Condition So if Tenant in tail or the Husband seised in the Right of his Wife make a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards the Land is recontinued the Fine accruing for Alienation without licence shall bind the Land And if Tenant for life loseth issues and dieth the Lands shall be charged with the same LXXXI The Lord of Northampton and Lord St. John 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Roll. 195. Co. 12. 1 2. Co. 4. 95. Dyer 262. THE Lord of Northampton had by ancient Letters Patents bona catalla felonum fugitivorum within the Isle of Ely and one dwelling within the Island was attainted of Felony to whom another was indebted by Obligation and the money by the Condition of the Bond was to be paid at a Manor of the Lord St. John's who within his Manor

was both against the common Law and also against all Conscience These matters coming to the knowledge of the Iustices and the mischiefs thereupon following being very frequent and it appearing that the Tenant in tail was a dangerous fellow and that there was no safe dealing with him they took consideration of them and considering also with themselves That Lineal Warranty and Assets and Collateral Warranty without Assets did bar the Entail upon this consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries So as by that means Tenant in tail hath Potestatem alienandi as he hath at the Common Law and by this means right was done to the Common Law because its authority was restored and thereby injury was done to no man But as for Tenant for life he never had Potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the recovery shall stand in force untill after the death of Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is alive Truly if the Law should be such great mischiefs would follow For then great Iointresses the Widows of great persons having assurances to them of great and stately Houses and of Lands furnished with Timber of great yearly value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit waste and the same should be dispunishable which would be an intolerable mischief and so he concluded that the suffering of a Recovery was a forfeiture and Iudgment Trin. 21 Eliz. was given and entred accordingly XC Noon 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer DEBT was brought in London against one as Executor and upon fully administred pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who assigned the same to the Queen whereupon a Scire facias issued out of the Exchequer against the Defendant into the County of Dorset The Serhiff retorned Nulla bona c. which Scire facias was upon a Constat of goods in another County It was agreed by all the Barons that the Debt was well assigned to the Queen And also that the Scire facias might issue forth of another Court than where the Record of the Iudgment remained and that upon a Constat of goods in another County than where the Writ is brought or where the party is dwelling he may well have a Scire facias in another County But the Retorn was challenged because contrary to the verdict As in a Replevin No such beast is not a good Retorn but Averia elongata or Nullus venit ex parte querentis ad monstrand averia And here the Sheriff might have retorned Devastavit which well stands with the Verdict 5 H. 7. 27. But as to that it was said by the Barons That it is true that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ was brought is concluded by the Verdict to make any retorn contrary to it but the Sheriff of another County shall not so be but the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought ought to retorn Devastavit c. and thereupon the Plaintiff shall have Process into another County But the Question farther was If a Scire facias upon Testatum shall issue into another County before that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought had retorned a Devastavit for some conceived That a Devastavit where the Writ was brought ought first to be retorned and then upon a Testatum Process should issue forth into any County within England But others were of opinion That without a Devastavit retorned upon a Testatum Process might be sued forth immediately into any other County Williams said If I recover goods by Action brought in Midd. I may upon a Testatum have a Capias into any foreign County XCI Western and Weild 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN a Writ of Accompt brought in London the Defendant pleaded Never his Receiver c. which was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgement given that the Defendant should accompt Afterwards the Defendant brought his Writ of Privilege and if the same should be allowed after Iudgment was the Question Coke It shall be allowed for the Defendant hath not surceased his time This Iudgement to accompt is not properly a Iudgment for no Writ of Error lieth upon it before the accompt be ended Manwood Regularly after Iudgment no privilege shall be allowed but that is to be intended of a Iudgment ended but here notwithstanding this Iudgment the Action is depending and therefore he conceived that the privilege should be allowed in this case It was objected That then the Plaintiff should be at great mischief for he should lose the advantage of his Trial for he must begin again and plead again and have a new Trial. Clark the Plaintiff shall have benefit of his former Trial by way of Evidence XCII Brian and Cawsen 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Rot. 1353. 3 Len. 115. IN an Action of Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen That William Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the custome of the Manor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he devised them in this manner i. I bequeath to John Th. my House and Land in M. called Larks and Sone To Steph. Th. my House and Land called Stokes and Newmans and to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said John Stephen or Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their bodies lawfully begotten then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their Heirs in manner aforesaid to give and sell at their pleasure but if it fortune one of them to die without issue of his body lawfully begotten Then I will that the other brothers or brother have all the said Houses and Lands in manner aforesaid and if it fortune the three to die without issue in like manner Then I will that all the said Houses and Lands be sold by my Executor or his Assigns and the money to be given to the poor The Devisor dieth John Stephen and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without issue John and Stephen are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath issue J. and surrenders all his part of the whole and his Estate therein to the use of Stephen and his heirs who is admitted accordingly Stephen comes of full age John the father dieth Stephen dieth without issue John the son as cosin and heir of Stephen is admitted according to the Will and afterwards dieth without issue The Wives of the Plaintiffs are heirs to him and are admitted to the said Lands called Larks and Sone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcell of Lands where c. by force whereof they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done and it was found That A. sole Executor died intestate and that Cawsen

the Defendant is cosin and heir of the Devisor and that he as heir entred and did the Trespass First it was agreed by all That by the first words of the Will the three Devisees had but for their lives But Fenner and Walmesley who argued for the Plaintiffs conceived that by force of the latter words scil If the said John Stephen and Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their body lawfully begotten Then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their heirs in manner aforesaid c. that they have Fee and the words in manner aforesaid are to be referred not to the Estate which was given by the first words which was but for life but to make them to hold in severalty as the first Devise would and not jointly as the words of the second Devise do purport And Fenner said It had been resolved by good opinion That where a Fine was levied to the use of the Conusee and his Wife and of the heirs of the body of the Conusor with divers Remainders over Proviso That it should be lawfull to the survivor of them to make Leases of the said Lands in such manner as Tenant in tail might make by the Statute of 32 H. 8. Although those Lands were never devised before the Fine yet the Wife survivor might demise them by force of the Proviso notwithstanding the words in manner c. So if Lands be given to A. for life upon condition the remainder to B. in manner aforesaid these words in manner aforesaid shall refer unto the Estate for life limited to A. and not to the Condition nor to any other collateral matter The words If they live untill they be of full age and have issue are words of Condition and shall not be construed to such purpose to give to them by implication an Estate tail for the words subsequent are That they shall have to them and their heirs to give and sell at their pleasures by which it appeareth that his intent was not to make an Estate tail for Tenant in tail cannot alien or dispose of his Estate c. And as to the latter words And if it fortune they three to die without issue c. these words cannot make an Estate tail and the express limitation of Fee in the former part of the Will shall not be controlled by implication out of the subsequent words As if Lessee for fourty years deviseth his term to his Wife for twenty years and if she die the remainder of the term to another although she survive the twenty years she shall not hold over And here the second sale appointed to be made by the Executor shall not take away the power of the first sale allowed unto the Devisees after issue Snagg and Shuttleworth Serjeants to the contrary And they said that the Defendant hath right to two parts for no Inheritance vesteth in the Devisees until full age and issue and because two of the Devisees died without issue they never had an Inheritance in their two parts and so those two parts do descend to the Defendant as heir to the Devisor no sale being made by the Executor These words If John Stephen and Roger are to be taken Distributive viz. If John live c. are to be taken Distributive scil If John live untill c. he shall have Inheritance in his part Et sic de reliquis As if I have right unto Lands which A. B. and C. hold in common and I by Deed release unto them all the same shall inure to them severally 19 H. 6. And here these latter words If they three die without issue it seems to be but an Estate tail See to that purpose 35 Ass 14. 37 Ass 15. For a man cannot declare his intent at once but in several parts all which make but one Inheritance and so it is said by Persay 37 Ass 15. we ought to adjudge upon all the Deed and not upon parcell And see Clatche's Case 16 Eliz Dyer 330 331. And it was said That if I give Lands to one and his heirs as long as J. S. hath heirs of his body the same is a Fee-simple determinable and not an Estate tail Quaere of that Then here the Fee-simple is determined by the death of the Devisees without issue and therefore the Lands shall revert to the heir of the Devisor especially there being no person in rerum natura who may sell for the Executor before any sale by him made died intestate and if he had made Executors yet the Executor of the Executor could not sell which see 19 H. 8. 9 10. And afterwards the Iustices resolved That no Estate tail is created by the Will but that the Fee-simple is settled in them when they came to their lawfull age and have issue so as the residue of the Devise is void And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs XCIII Hil. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. THE Case was this viz. By the Civil Law the Parson ought to have his Tythe by the tenth Ridg And in a great Field there was Corn upon the Arable Land Roll. 646. and Grass upon the Head Lands and in a Suit for Tythe Hay and Rakings of the Corn the Defendant did prescribe to pay the tenth Shock of Corn for all the Corn Hay and Rakings of the Corn and the Prescription was challenged not to be good for it is upon the matter a Prescription of Non Decimando for the tenth Shock is due of common Right and so nothing is for the Hay and Rakings It was holden by all the Iustices That for tying of Horses upon the Head Lands and eating of the Grass and Corn together that the Prescription was good But the doubt was when the Grass is made into Hay which is upon the Head Lands If it be a good Prescription then and discharge for the Hay because it is another thing than what is growing upon the Land But in the end all the Iustices agreed That by the Civil Law ut supra the tenth Ridg is due for Tythe Corn 1 Cro. 446. 475. therefore for the reaping binding and shocking it is a reasonable Prescription that the party shall have the Hay upon the Head Lands in recompence of the said other things and the Hay upon the Head Lands is but of little value XCIV 29 Eliz. Challoner and Bowyer 's Case IN Assise of Novel Disseisin by Challoner against Bowyer it was given in Evidence at the Assise That William Bowyer was seised and having issue two Sons and two Daughters devised his Lands to his younger Son in tail and for want of such issue to the Heirs of the body of his eldest Son and if he die without issue that then the Land shall remain to his two Daughters in Fee William Bowyer dieth the younger Son dieth without issue living the eldest Son having issue him who is Tenant in the Assise It was moved That notwithstanding that by way of Grant the

the Office found Also the Traverse is not good for he traverseth the matter of the Conveyance which is not traversable for if the King hath Title non refert quomodo or by what Conveyance he hath it As to the matter in Law scil Tenant in tail in Remainder is attainted of Felony if the King during the life of Tenant in tail shall have the freehold and he conceived that he should for it shall not be in abeyance and it cannot be in any other for when he is attainted he is dead as unto the King. The chief Lord cannot have it for Tenant for life is alive and also he in the Remainder in Fee c. the Donor shall not have it for the Tenant in Remainder is not naturally dead but civilly and the Land cannot revert before the Tenant in tail be naturally dead without issue but if there were any other in whom the Freehold might vest and remain then the King should not have the Freehold but onely the profits So if the Tenant be attainted the Lord shall have the Lands presently 3 E. 3. 4 E. 3. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have but the profits for the Freehold vests in the Wife and if the Lord entreth the Wife shall have an Assise And Tenant in tail may forfeit for his life as he may grant for his life See Old N. B. 99. If Tenant in tail for life dower or by the curtesie be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Lands during their lives and after their deceases he in the Reversion shall sue unto the King by Petition and shall have the Lands out of the King's hands and there it is farther said That the Lord by Escheat cannot have it for the party attainted was not his very Tenant nor he in the Reversion for the term yet endures But now it is to see if the Freehold be in the King without Office and he conceived and argued that it was Where the King is entituled to an Action there the King ought to have an Office and a Scire facias upon it as where the King is entituled to a Cessavit Action of Waste c. 14 H. 7. 21. where the Entry in case of a common person is necessary there it is requisite that there be an Office for the King As if a Villain of the King purchaseth Lands or an Alien born c. so for a condition broken Mortmain c. And in some cases an Office is onely necessary to instruct the King how he shall charge the Officer for the profits which may be supplied as well by Survey as by Office as if the King be to take by descent or as the Case is here And true it is that a person attainted of Felony may during his Attainder purchase Lands and yet he cannot hold it against the King and it is clear that by the Common Law in such cases the Land was in the King but not to grant for the Statute of 18 H. 6. was an impediment to it but now that defect is supplied by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 20. So that now the King may grant without Office See Doughtie's Case 26 Eliz. And in our Case an Office is not necessary to entitle the King but for explaining of his Title and see 9 H. 7. 2. The Lands of a man attainted of High Treason are in the King without Office so where the King's Tenant dieth without Heir or Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King dieth without issue See Br. Office before the Escheator 34. and see 13 H. 4. 270. A man is attainted of Treason the King before Office grants his Lands and Goods Things which lie in Grant as Advowsons Rents Remainder such things upon Attainder are in the King without Office. As to the general pardon of 23 Eliz. he said That that doth not extend to this Case and that this interest of the Queen by this Attainder doth not pass by that pardon out of the Queen so if the Queen had but a Right or Title onely Popham Attorney General By this Attainder the Estate of him in the Remainder in tail accrueth unto the Queen for the life of him in the Remainder for by our Law Felony is punished by the death of the Offendor and the loss of his Goods and Lands for the examples of others therefore nothing is left in the party Tenant for life is attainted of Felony the King pardoneth him his life yet he shall have his Lands during his life and he may dispose of the same for his life And so is it of Tenant in tail for he may forfeit all that which he hath and that is an Estate for his life which is a Freehold If Lands be given to one and his Heirs for the term of the life of another and the Donee be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Land during the life of Cestuy que vie for the Heir cannot have it because the bloud is corrupt and there is not any occupancy in the case for 17 E. 3. the Iustices would not accept of a Fine for the life of another because there might be an Occupant in the case But for a Fine of Land to one and his Heirs for the life of another they would take a Fine for there is no mischief of occupancy Land is given to A. for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. who is attainted of Felony B. dieth now the King hath the Fee executed And here in our Case If the Tenant for life had been dead no Praecipe had lien against him in the Remainder being in possession but the party who hath right is to sue unto the King by Petition 4 E. 3. If one seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for life be attainted the King shall have exitus proficua but he conceived that Case not to be Law For see F. N. B. 254 D. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife in Fee is outlawed for Felony the King seiseth the Husband dieth now shall issue forth a Diem clausit extremum the words of which Writ in such case are Quia A. cujus Terr Tenement quae ipse tenuit de jure haereditate N. uxoris suae adhuc superstitis occasione ejusdem Utlagar ' in ipsum pro quadam Felonia unde indictatus fuit c. in Man. Domini H. patris nostri extiterunt c. therefore the King had not the issues onely but also the Lands See to the same purpose the Register 292. b. Stamford's Placita Coronae 186 187. affirms That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall forfeit his Lands during his life And he said that the Estate of Thomas Venables was in the King without Office not to grant for that is restrained by the Statute of 18 H. 6. but it is in him before Office so as he who hath right ought

the Case of making this Statute it was not to overthrow a foundation as it hath been said but it was rather a gratuity of the Subjects to the King for his bounty towards them for whereas by the Statute of Vses Vses were executed in possession so as the Subjects could not dispose of their Lands by their Wills as before the Vses Now by this Statute the King was pleased to give his Royal assent to an Act by which Lands might become devisable in respect of which the Subjects added to this Act the last clause to give him Wardship where it did not lie before by the Common Law and that as a recompence from the Subjects for the King's bounty and therefore it ought to be construed beneficially for the King. And to prevent covin and fraud was not the scope of this Statute For if three purchase Lands unto them and to the heirs of two of them now it is uncertain whose heirs shall inherit for non constat which of them shall survive and therefore no covin is averrable in such case and yet if the survivor of two to whom the Fee is limited dieth his heir within age such heir shall be in Ward So if such Lands be given to two and to the heirs of him of those two who shall first come to the Church of Paul Now it is uncertain which of them shall first come to the Church of Paul yet if he who first cometh to the Church of Paul dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward which Cases prove that covin and fraud were not the cause of making this Statute but onely the thankfulness of the Subjects unto the King for his bounty as abovesaid for if this Act had not been made the Subjects should not have power to dispose of their Lands for the advancement of their children but all should descend So as now the King hath lost the Wardship and Primer seisin of two parts of the Lands of his Tenant and hath also lost the averment of covin which he had by the Common Law where Estates were made by the King's Tenant for advancement of their children In respect of which losses the Subjects gave unto the King Wardship in case where the Lands continue in jointure as to that which hath been said That this Statute shall not be taken by equity I conceive the contrary the words of the Statute are In every such case i. e. In every like case not onely where two or more persons hold jointly to them and the heirs of one of them but also in every the like Case as the Case now in question and in every Case where the life of him who hath the Freehold is the sole impediment quo minus the heir hath not the Land by descent in Demesne And it may be resembled unto the Statute of Marlbridge of Collusion which speaks of Leases for years Quas tradere voluerint ad terminum annorum and yet a Lease for life or Lease for years is within the said Statute for the Statute was made in restraint of an ill liberty that the Tenants had by the Common Law in prejudice of their Lords which see 4 E. 6. 53. Plow 59. And as to the word otherwise that may be construed for payment of his Legacies And as to equity enlarging the Statute speaks where many hold and to the heirs of one yet if two hold to them and the heirs of one of them the same is within the Statute And as to Equity restraining he puts this case Land is given to the Husband and Wife and the heirs of the body of the Wife who have issue the Wife dieth the issue within age he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute but because that other matter That the Estate for life in the Husband is an impediment Quo minus he shall be in Ward It is a maxim of the Common Law That the father shall have the Wardship of the son and heir apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within the Letter of the Statute So if Lands be given to my Villain and to another and to the heirs of my Villain who dieth seised his heir within age I seise the Villain and claim the remainder he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute But I conceive in our Case the King shall have two Wards Simul semel the heir general of Wiseman and the issue in tail the heir general by the Common Law by reason that his father was the King's Tenant who disposed of his Lands for the advancement of his children and therefore the Queen shall have the third part in Ward And also the heir special shall be in Ward for that part of the Statute And it is no new thing to have two Wardships for one and the same Lands As 14 H. 8. of the heir of Cestuy quae use and also of the Feoffee and if the Tenant dieth seised having issue a daughter who is his heir the Lord seiseth the daughter and marrieth her and afterwards a son is born he shall have the Wardship also of him So of the heirs of the Disseisor and Disseisee and he said If Lands holden in chief be leased for life the remainder to A. in Fee A. dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward and that by reason of these words in the Statute In every such case it is not the same Case but the like Case for if he who hath the Fee dieth so as the Freehold survives to the other now the Estate becomes as an Estate for life the remainder over It was adjourned CLXXXIV The Lord Howard and the Town of Walden 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer More Rep. 159. Post 162 163. BEtwixt the Lord Howard and the Town of Walden the Case was That the King made a Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster Tenend in feodi forma reddend inde sibi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. The question was How and of whom the Tenure should be It was argued by Plowden That it should be holden of the King as of his Dutchy he said The King is not bounden by the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum but here upon this Feoffment the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy All Grants of the King notwithstanding that they be of Lands yet they savour of the person of the King and his Prerogative being wrapt up in his person shall guide the disposition of the land and he said that this Tenure shall be implyed by reason and in respect of his person And the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum extends to Tenants onely Libere tenentes magnatum aliorum but the King is not Libere tenens alicujus magnat 32 H. 6. 21 22. The King hath an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy to which

That William Heydon was seised of the lands and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeoffa pas the parties were at issue and it was found by special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased the Lands to the Defendant for years and afterwards he made a Deed of Feoffment to the same Lessee of the same Lands in Fee by the words of Dedi concessi with a Letter of Attorney within the said Deed to make Livery to the Lessee and the Deed of Feoffment was delivered to J. to deliver the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same accordingly The Lessee delivered the same to the Attorney named in the Deed who made Livery accordingly And it was moved by the Council of the Plaintiff That upon all this matter here is not any Feoffment And by Walmesly Serjeant This Deed so delivered took its effect presently as a confirmation and then the Livery and Seisin comes too late for as soon as the said Deed was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave to it its operation to this effect To vest the Fee and the Freehold in the Lessee by way of confirmation See for that Littl. 532 533. But the whole Court was of a contrary opinion for it is in the election of the Lessee to take the Conveyance as a Feoffment or as a confirmation And here it appeareth upon the Deed that the intent of both parties was That the Lessee should take by way of Feoffment and not of confirmation for otherwise to what use should be a Letter of Attorney inserted in the Deed And here the Lessee hath liberty to make his election how he will take either by Feoffment or by confirmation which election he hath determined by the acceptance of the Livery And by Anderson If tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter of Feoffment and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorney named in the Charter who makes Livery accordingly here is a good Feoffment and a discontinuance and afterwards after many motions made and day given to shew cause Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should be barred CCXLII. Rooke and Denny 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN an Action upon the Case by Rooke against Dennis for misusing of the Plaintiff's Horse by occasion of which misuse the said Horse became blind of one eye and gall-back'd The Plaintiff counted That the said Horse was stolen by three Felons after whom the Plaintiff made fresh suit and that the Felons were apprehended and attainted at his suit because Iustice Windham Hetley's Rep. 64. Rolls 809. More 572. Hetley's Rep. 64. and that the said Horse came unto the hands of the Defendant who misused it Ut supra The Defendant said that before that and the said Attainder of the said Felons the said Felons had waived the said Horse within his Manor in which Manor he had waife and estray c. And it was holden by the Court that the same was no Plea without traversing the fresh suit whereof the Plaintiff hath declared for by the fresh suit the property of the Plaintiff in the said Horse was preserved and so upon that misuser of the Horse by the Defendant an Action well lyeth and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly CCXLIII Pretiman and Cooke 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Ejectione firmae The Case was Ante 129. 1 Cro. 52. 3 Len. 180. That one Hawkins was seised of three Messuages in Bury and had issue Robert a son and Christian and Joan daughters and by his Will devised his three Messuages to his wife for life the remainder of one of them to Robert his son and his heirs and the remainder of another of them to Christian his daughter and her heirs and the remainder of the third Messuage to Joan his daughter and her heirs And farther willeth That if any of his said three issues should die without issue of his or her body that then the other surviving shall have Totam illam partem betwixt them equally to be divided The Devisor died the wife died one of the daughters died having issue the son died without issue the sister surviving entred into the whole part of Robert the son and died her husband held in the land as tenant by the Curtesie and the question was If the surviving daughter should have all the part of him that died without issue or she and the issue of the other daughter Coke The survivor shall have the whole And he said that the Devisees have an Estate in tail for the Fee doth not vest in them for it is incertain which of them shall survive but when one surviveth then he shall not have for life but in Fee for the words Totam illam partem goe as well to all the Estate as to all the things A. tenant for life the remainder to B. in tail the remainder to the right heirs of A. A. grants Totum statum suum both the Estates pass and the Grant includes the whole See 41 E. 3. Fitz. Br. 541. In Ravishment of Ward supposing the ravishment of two daughters Quarum maritagium ad ipsum pertinet and it was challenged because he doth not say Maritagia but the challenge was not allowed and he said That if a man deviseth his land wholly to A. that he hath a Fee-simple See the Case H. 28 Eliz. the Case between Higham and Harwood And Coke said That they had by this Devise a Fee-tail with a Fee-simple Expectant each of them severally in the Messuage to them limited Golding Each of the Devisees hath an Estate-tail in the Messuage to them devised and but an Estate for life in the Messuage which is to accrue upon the death without issue c. For no Estate is limited expresly nor what Estate the survivor shall have for here are not any words which do import a Fee-simple as according to Littleton imperpetuum or to do what he will with c. See for that 22 E. 3. ad Terminum qui praeteriit but here are onely bare words of which no farther construction can be made but for life And as to the words Totam illam partem the same doth not extend farther than if he said Partem suam And he said that nothing vests in him who survives for there ought to be two to take by the survivor or otherwise nothing shall accrue to the survivor for the words of the Devise are aequaliter inter eos dividend and that which accrues by survivor shall be divided betwixt two otherwise nothing shall accrue And if it cannot survive to two then it shall descend to the issue of the sister who is dead and to the surviving daughter and they shall be tenants in common and not joint-tenants Clench These words Totam illam partem go onely to the house and not to the Estate in it which Shute granted If both the daughters had survived Robert they should have Fee

meaning of the Obligee to have fine gold it was so taken 39 H. 6. 10. and 11. The word uterque id est quilibet pro parte sua See the Book so it was lately adjudged in the Court of Common-Pleas where three were bounden Et eorum uterque which was construed to be Quilibet for we ought always in construction of Deeds to have regard to the meaning of the parties and not to argue the aptness of the Latine word And I conceive That if a Lease be made for life the remainder puero of J. S. who hath a son and a daughter the son shall have the land c. for the most worthy shall be preferred and therefore if a Freeman marrieth a Neife she is enfranchised for ever according to the opinion of Fitzherbert which I hold to be good Law for the husband is the more worthy So if the Lease for life be made 〈◊〉 J. S. the remainder to the right heirs of A. B. who hath issue three daughters and dieth the eldest shall have the remainder and not the other with her because she is the more worthy and so a remainder upon an Estate for life of lands in Gavelkind limited to the right heirs of J. S. who hath issue two sons the eldest shall have it So here in the principal Case Puer shall be expounded son because he is the more worthy But here are other circumstances which give occasion of another construction for this doubtfull word Puer is explained by the English Indenture which the father W. Humphreston caused to be made Unto the use of the eldest Child which is a good exposition of the former Conveyance and I am of opinion that the same ought to be meant of the daughter for so soon as she is born the remainder vests in her and by the birth of the son after shall not be devested Land is leased to A. for life the remainder to T. son of A. who hath two sons of the same name the eldest shall have it because the more worthy but if afterwards the Donor declares his meaning to the contrary the same shall stand c. And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff and that the daughter should have the Lands CCLXXVI Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Poph. 182. Hughs Abr. Tit. Devise 657. Case 5. Savile 72 73. Dy. 371. b. Shep. Touch. 449. 15 H. 7. 12. Ante 43. Perk. 547. A Man devised his Lands to his Wife for life and because he was in doubt whether he should have issue or no he farther willed by his Will That if he should not have any issue by his Wife that then after the death of his Wife the lands should be sold and the money thereof coming distributed to three of his bloud and made his Wife and another his Executors and died The Executors proved the Will The other Executor died and the Wife sold the lands and it was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustices That the sale was good although it be not expressed in the Will by whom the Lands should be sold for the moneys coming of the sale are to be distributed by his Executors to persons certain as Legacies and it appertains to Executors to pay the Legacies and therefore they shall sell c. As if a man willeth That his lands shall be sold and that the moneys coming thereof shall be disposed of for the payment of his debts now the Executors shall sell the Lands for to them it belongs to pay debts Also they held 3 Cro. 278. 3. More 341. 1 Inst 113. a. 1 And. 145. that the Lands should be sold in the life of the Wife otherwise it could never be sold and also the surviving Executor shall sell the lands because the authority doth survive CCLXXVII Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THree men were bounden by Recognizance jointly and severally against all which the Conusee sued forth Execution by Scire facias and upon issue joined it was found for the Plaintiff in the King's-Bench and Execution awarded by Capias ad Satisfaciend And because the same erronicè emanavit being upon a Recognizance it was drawn off the File and now the Conusee brought an Action of debt upon the Iudgment against one of them and the opinion of the whole Court was that it would not lie because the Iudgment was joint against them all three CCLXXVIII Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A. Brought an Action upon the Case and declared That the Dean and Chapter of Westminster did lease unto him a house for years by Deed indented of which Indenture he was possessed and afterwards lost it and by Trover it came to the hands of the Defendant who sold it and converted the money thereof coming to his own use The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and the Plaintiff gave in evidence That the said Lease was made to him and to one B. and that the said Indenture was delivered to the said B. And that was agreed to be the possession of them both and afterwards B. died and afterwards A. the Plaintiff was the sole owner of it and that was holdden to be good Evidence on the part of the Plaintiff and if the Plaintiff can prove the other part of his Declaration i. e. that the Indenture came unto the hands of the Defendant and that he sold it that then he should recover But it was given in Evidence on the Defendants parts that the said B. sold to the said Defendant his part and interest in the said Lease and also the said indenture so as now he is become Tenant in common with the Plaintiff and then his sale doth not give any cause of Action to the Plaintiff and that was holden by the whole Court to be good evidence without pleading of it The Case went farther That A. being within age his father leased the lands for 20 years and afterwards the son at his full age upon the back of the Indenture did release to the Defendant all his right and it was holden by Wray Iustice That when the father leased he did it as Guardian to his son and it was not any Ejectment of the son but it was a Lease in the behalf of the son although the son might avoid it and then when the endorsment is ut supra the same is a good assignment and afterwards the Plaintiff was Nonsuit CCLXXIX Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That B. by his Will did devise to each of his daughters he having two daughters 200 l. and that the survivor should have the whole and shewed farther that one of his two daughters died and that B. made his Wife his Executrix and that the said wife took to husband the Defendant and farther declared That the Defendant in consideration of all that and that the Defendant should take the surviving daughter to wife and in consideration that the Defendant had Assets to pay all Debts and

made the Reservation and he relied much upon the last Reason urged by Harper upon the Statute of 27 H. 8. that this was limited to the Executors Co. 13. Rep. and not to him who limited it and therefore the possession shall be executed to the Executors to whom the use was limited and this term shall not be Assets in the hands of the Executors And he said That he had seen a Record 2 H. 8. setting forth That A. having Feoffees to his use devised that his Feoffees should sell his Lands who did accordingly now the money coming by the sale shall be Assets c. but it is not so limited in our case therefore it shall not be Assets A Lease is made to A. for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of B. B. purchaseth the Estate of A. the Estate in Remainder is not executed for it is not conveyed by the Grant of the first Grantor but by the Act of another person after the Grant. A Lease for life to A. the Remainder to a Feme sole for years they entermarry Waste is committed the Lessor brings an Action of Waste he shall recover as well the Estate for years as for life A. Leaseth unto B. for life the Remainder unto the Executors of A. for years the Remainder over in Fee to a stranger the Remainder for years is good for the Lessor cannot limit such an Estate to himself and the Executors shall take the Estate as Purchasors and the term shall be in abeyance untill the death of A. There was a case before the Lord Brook in the time of Queen Mary viz. A Lease was made for life Proviso that if the Lessee dieth within the term of sixty years that the Executors shall have the Lands as in the Right and Title of the Lessee pro termino totidem annorum which do amount to the number of sixty years to be accounted from the said Indenture The Opinion of the Iustices of the Common Pleas upon the Case was That the term was not in the Lessee for life So this future term in the principal Case was not in Tho. Cranmer But see that Case cited by Dyer reported by himself 4 Ma. 150. and there the opinion of the Court was That the same was not a Lease but a Covenant And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff That the future term was not forfeited by the Attainder of Cranmer VIII 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was Dyer 317. b. 318. a. J. S. is seised of a Close adjoyning to the Close of J. D. and J. S. ought to enclose against J. D. J. S. leaseth his Close to another for years rendring Rent J. D. puts in his cattle into his own Close who for want of enclosure escape into the Close of J. S. and before that they be levant and couchant Distress for Rent J. S. distrains them for his Rent It was said by Manwood Iustice that the distress was not well taken Doctor Student 150. 1 Inst 476. Brown 1 part 170. Roll Tit. Distress 1 part in toto for there is a difference when the cattel come upon the Lands of another in the default of the owner of the cattel as by escape or stray and where in the default of another For in the first case the Lord may distrain them before they be levant and couchant but in the latter case not Also a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years is a new Rent and not like unto an ancient Rent due upon an ancient Tenure betwixt the Lord and the Tenant For for a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years Roll 1 part 672. acc Hob. 265. Brown part 2 170. or for a Rent charge a man cannot distrain the cattel before they be levant and couchant upon the Lands although they come upon the Lands by escape estray c. Dyer The Lord cannot distrain the cattel which escape into the Land of his Tenant for want of enclosure of his Tenant before they be levant and couchant and yet the seignory is favoured for the antiquity of it But here is new Rent not in respect of any seignory but of reservation upon a Lease for years and therefore no distress before the cattel be levant and couchant upon the Lands Quod Harper Mounson concesserunt and Iudgment was given accordingly IX 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Writ of Entry in the Per. THE Case was In a Writ of Entry in the Per against A. and B. A. pleaded several tenancy It was holden by Dyer chief Iustice that it is not any plea. Harper Iustice In Assise it is no plea for here the Land is not in demand Several Tenancy where no good Plea. but here it is a good plea and the Demandant ought to maintain his Writ Manwood In no action founded upon disseisin is this good For although the Demandant by policy will bring his Writ against the Tenant of the Land and another who he will name in the Writ upon trust and confidence and that he will not agree with the Tenant of the Lord in Dilatories for the Tenant of the Lands shall not be received to plead Dilatories Yet in that case several Tenancy is no plea for the Tenant but in a Formedon or other such like action which is not grounded upon disseisin if the Writ be brought in such manner as above the Tenant by policy that he may have the view and other reasonable delay may plead several Tenancy and so enforce the Demandant to maintain his Writ but contrary in the Case at Bar and so it was adjudged per Curiam X. Creswell and Cokes Case 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dyer 351. CReswell brought Debt against Coke and demanded 200 Marks upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. of fraudulent Deeds Gifts c. upon the second clause of the Statute Debt viz. That all parties or privies to such fraudulent Deed willingly putting in ure avowing c. as true simple Custome and given bona fide shall forfeit c. And shewed that one A. held of the Plaintiff 12 acres of customary Lands and died seised And that by the custome of the Manor Heriot the Lord was to have for a Heriot the best beast whereof his Tenant died possessed and farther shewed that the said A. in his life time and a little before his death being possessed of 30 Horses of the value of 200 Marks gave the said Horses to the Defendant with intent to defraud the Plaintiff and other Lords of their Heriots and that he went to the Defendant's house to seise his Heriot and the Desendant then strained the said Horses by reason of the Gift aforesaid for which the Action is brought To which the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had seised one of the Horses nomine Herioti and as to the rest he did demurr in Law. Mounson Iustice was of opinion that the Plaintiff should recover the whole 200 Marks

Iudgment of Action and not rein luy doit and the Court advised the Defendant to plead accordingly XV. Beamont and Dean 's Case Hillar 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Dower Dyer 361. IN Dower brought by the wife of Beamont Master of the Rolls in the time of E. 6. The Defendant said that he himself before the Writ brought did assign a rent of 10 l. per ann to the Demandant in recompence of her Dower upon which the Demandant did demur in Law and the cause was because the Tenant had not shewed what Estate he had in the Lands at the time of the granting of the Rent as to say that he was seised in Fee and granted the said Rent so as it might appear to the Court upon the plea that the Tenant had a lawfull power to grant such a Rent which was granted by the whole Court and the demur holden good XVI Hinde and Sir John Lyon 's Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN Debt by the Plaintiff against the Defendant as Heir Dyer 124. a. 3 Len. 70. 3 Len. 64. he pleaded That he had nothing by Descent but the third part of the Manor of D. The Plaintiff replied Assets and shewed for Assets that the Defendant had the whole Manor of Dale by descent upon which they were at issue and it was given in evidence to the Iury That the Manor was holden by Knight's-service and that the said Sir John the Ancestor of the Defendant Devises by his Will in writing devised the whole Manor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years and that at the age of his said Son of 24 years the Wife should have the third part of the said Manor for term of her life and her Son should have the residue and that if his said Son do die before he come to his age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain to J. S. the Remainder over to another The Devisor died the Son came to the age of 24 years and the Question was If the Son hath an Estate-tayl for then for two parts he is not in by Descent And by Dyer and Manwood Iustices here is not any Estate tayl for no tayl was to rise before his said age and therefore the tayl shall never take effect and the Fee-simple doth descend and remain in the Son unless he dieth within the age of 24 years and then the Entail vests with the Remainders over But now having attained his said age he hath a Fee-simple and that by Descent of the whole Manor and a general Iudgment shall be given against him as of his own Debt And an Elegit shall issue forth of the moyety of all his Lands as well those which he hath by descent from the same Ancestor as any else and a Capias lieth against him But Manwood conceived That if general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such a case a Capias doth not lie although in case of false Plea it lieth Dyer contrary and the Writ against the Heir is in the Debet Detinet which proves that in Law it is his own Debt and he said that he could shew a precedent where such an Action was maintainable against the Executors of the Heir XVII Hil. 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A Man made a Lease of Lands by Indenture Roll. 1. part 870. to begin after the expiration of a Lease thereof made to one Duffam and in an Action of Covenant brought by the second Lessee against the Lessor Covenant the Lessor said That there was no such Duffam in rerum natura at the time of the supposed Lease made to Duffam it was argued Estoppell That this Plea doth not lie for the Lessor for he is estopped to say against the Indenture That there is no such Duffam c. And also if no such person was then the first Lease was void and then the second Lease shall begin presently which Manwood and Mounson granted and by Manwood the Defendant shall be estopped by the Recital of the first Lease to say That there was no such Duffam And although the common Ground is That a Recital is not an Estoppel yet where the Recital is material as it is here it is otherwise for here the second Lease is to begin upon the expiration of the recited Lease and therefore in this case it shall be an Estoppel XVIII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Action upon the Stat. of 5 Eliz. for Perjury 3 Len. 68. IN an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for a Perjury by three the Plaintiffs declared That the Defendant being examined upon his oath before Commissioners If a Surrender was made at such a Court of a Copyhold to the use of A. and B. two of the Defendants The Defendant swore there was no such surrender made c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because that the certainty of the Copyhold did not appear upon the Declaration for the Statute requires that in such Case the party grieved shall have remedy so as it ought to appear in what thing he is grieved quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Another Exception was taken because the Action is given in this Case to the party grieved and it appeareth upon the Declaration that the Surrender in the negative deposing of which the Perjury is assigned Abatement of Writ was made to the use of two of the Plaintiffs onely and then the third person is not a party grieved for he claims nothing by the Surrender and therefore forasmuch as the two persons grieved have joined with the party not grieved the Writ shall abate against them all which Wray and Southcote granted XIX 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Action upon the Stat. of 13 E. 1. of Winchester 2 Inst 569. IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester 13 E. 1. against the men of the Hundred of A. Barham Serjeant took Exception to the Declaration because it appeareth upon it that the half year after the Robbery is not yet come for by the said Statute it is ordained that the Countrey have no longer time than half a year after the Robbery done within which time facent-gree of the Robbery or respondent the body of the Misfeasors And here the Action is brought within the half year And for this cause the Declaration was holden to be insufficient by the whole Court. And the Lord Dyer spake much in commendation of that Statute being made for the publick benefit of the whole Commonwealth for the Law intends when a Robbery is done That if the Countrey will not pursue the Malefactors that some of them are Receivers or Abettors of the Felons Manwood Iustice said When I was a Servant to Sir James Hales one of the Iustices of the Common-Pleas one of his Servants was robbed at Gadds Hill within the Hundred of Gravesend in Kent and he sued the men

interest in the Lands than strangers and they Uses have been in such reckoning and account since that an Vse hath obtained the name of an Inheritance and is now reputed amongst the Estates of Lands in our Law and therefore we say in Speeches and in penning of Statutes Estates in possession and Estates in use and a Vse cannot be limited to Parishioners no more than the Land it self so as there is a great affinity betwixt the words Lands and Use It is to be granted That the Statute of 27 H. 8. doth devest all out of the Feoffees yet it doth not devest it before that the use be vested in Cestuy que use for the words of the Statute are That the possession shall be executed in such manner quality and degree as was the Vse therefore the vesting of the Vse ought to precede the execution of the possession to it And he was of opinion That this future Vse in the principal Case limited to the second Wife did remain in the Feoffees at the first but that they had destroyed it by their Feoffment for the second Wife at the time of the Feoffment was not known and therefore it shall now accrue and he was also of opinion That this limitation to the second Wife was void at the beginning for the second Wife was not a person able to take when the Estate and Vse limited to the first Wife was determined and therefore she shall not take at all and if such an Estate had been limited in possession it should not have vested no more than now Mounson Iustice When the Feoffor and the Feoffees joyn in a Fine of that Land within which the use in future is wrapped he conceived That the Vse being in abeyance and consideration of the Law could not be touched by the Fine It is to be confessed That an Vse may be discontinued See 4. H. 7. 18. A Feoffment made to the use of A. for life and after to the use of B. in tail c. A. makes a Feoffment in Fee and dieth the same is a discontinuance of the other Vses and see 27 H. 8. 29. And in our Case the Vse might arise without any Entry of the Feoffees for the Vse is not discontinued but the Feoffees are barred by the Fine And he was also of opinion That this Vse might take effect without any Entry and take effect according to the limitation Manwood This Estate which is limited in use to the second Wife because it cannot vest in her because not known the Feoffees are yet content with it and this Vse is to grow out of their Estates at the seasonable time Then when they joyn in a Feoffment their Estate which was the root of the Conveyance and the Vses which are the branches spring not till she dieth and therefore if the Estate of the Feoffees which is the root of the Vses be destroyed by alienation of the Land before the Vses have their being as in our Case it is because that then the second was not known no use can afterwards rise for by the Feoffment they are destroyed and also every possibility of them But if the Vses had been in esse so as the persons to whom they are limited are known then the Statute shall execute the possession to such uses And as to that which hath been objected by my Brother Mounson That the Law shall keep and preserve the Vse and that notwithstanding any thing done by the Feoffees at its due time it shall rise That cannot be for the Statute of 27 H. 8. doth not speak of such Vses as this in our Case but of such Vses onely of which one may say such a use is limited to such a person and such to such a person c. and such Vses are onely executed by the Statute It may be demanded What Estate the Feoffees have in the Lands until such uses be executed It may be answered A Fee simple determinable as the Lord hath when he entereth upon his Villein Donee in tail And I conceive That this use was not in Custodia Legis quia de minimis non curat Lex and the use was such a thing of which the Law took no knowledge and in case of an Estate in possession such an use in abeyance should be bound As a Lease for life unto A. the Remainder to the right Heirs of B. A. suffers a common Recovery in the life of B. who afterwards dieth and afterwards A. dyeth the Heir of B. is bound for he had not right at the time of the Recovery This Fine levied by the manner shall not destroy the uses limited to the second Wife for as to the Feoffees they have nothing to doe with the Lands to transfer any Estate against the former limitation for the Statute leaves nothing in the Feoffees but vests all in Cesty que use and that which cannot vest in him to whom it is limited shall return to the Feoffor As if I make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of my self for life and after to the use of my second Wife all the Fee is now in me and when I take a second Wife then the Feoffees shall be seised to the use of such Wife in Remainder for her life but in the Case at Bar the Feoffees at the time when this second Wife was in esse had not any thing in the Lands for they had departed with all their Interest before by their Feoffment and Fine Note That by the first Feoffment the use was limited to D. the first Wife of the Feoffor for term of her life the Remainder in tail to A. Brent the Remainder in Fee to one Broughton and all these uses were executed by the Statute but these persons were not parties to the Livery but onely the Feoffees which had not any thing Then when they make their Letter of Attorney to make Livery of seisin not being seised of the Land the Attorney onely is a Disseisor and so nothing passed from the Feoffees if any right had been in them and for another reason nothing passed by this last Conveyance out of the Feoffees for the parties to the latter Conveyance had notice of the use and so it appeareth by the second Indenture the which makes mention of the first uses c. Dyer Here in our Case the Founders of these uses i. the Feoffor and the Feoffees have an intent to overthrow these uses for at the Common Law the Feoffees might doe it of themselves As if the Feoffees had made a Feoffment in fee in consideration of Money to others who had not notice of the uses now the uses are gone and the second Feoffees in such Cases were seised to their own uses I well know That by this Feoffment all is devested out of the Feoffees which might vest in the person to whom the use is limited but here this use which was limited to the second Wife could not upon the limitation of it vest in any person and therefore it shall

forfeiture because it is not any discontinuance It will be objected That the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. are That such Recoveries shall be utterly void and if so then he in the Reversion cannot be damnified and then no cause of forfeiture To that it was easily to be answered That where Tenant for life doth any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the Reversion by matter of Record although it doth not devest or otherwise prejudice the Inheritance yet it is a forfeiture Coke contrary Here in our Case there is not any Covin Sir William Pelham the Bargainee he was deceived by the Bargainor for he did not know but that the Bargainor was seised in tail at the time of the Bargain and it was lawfull for him to doe other act in the farther assurance of his bargain and it was also lawfull for him to vouch his Bargainor and although the Bargainor vouched a stranger yet it is not a forfeiture 39 E. 3. 16. Aid prayer of a stranger is a forfeiture and the reason thereof is because he acknowledgeth the Reversion to be in a stranger and that is the cause of the forfeiture See Book of Entries 254. Where upon aid prayer the party to have aid sheweth special matter but in our Case Sir William Pelham hath vouched his Bargainor and that not without cause for he hath a Warranty from him and the Demandant could not counterplead it for he had seisin by force whereof he might make a Feoffment As unto the Case of 14 E. 3. Tit. Receit 135. Lesse for life in a Praecipe against him without aid prayer pleaded to the Enquest at the first day in that case it is said that he in the Reversion may enter It is true that he may enter in the Receit but not into the Land for forfeiture for then Fitz. would have abridged the Case in title of Entry Congeable and not in the Title of Receit and the Book of 5 E. 3. is good Law for there the Tenant doth confess the Reversion to be in another but in our Case the Tenant voucheth which is a lawfull act done and according to the Covenants of his purchase And although the Recovery be by agreement yet it is not therefore a forfeiture for if the Tenant for life voucheth truly it is no forfeiture Before the Statute of West 2. cap. 3. which gave Receit to the Wife and to those in the Reversion where the particular Tenant is impleaded and maketh default vel reddere noluerit there was no remedy in such cases but by Writ of Right but no entry and that was for the reason of the credit which the Law gave to Recoveries for if they might enter wherefore is Receit given but that was in two cases onely But afterwards because it was found that many particular Tenants being impleaded would plead faintly the Statute of 13 R. 2. gave receit in such cases And upon what reasons were these Acts and Statutes made if in such cases the entry was congeable But after these two Statutes another practice was devised for such particular Tenants would suffer Recoveries secretly in such sort that those in the Reversion could not have notice thereof so as they could not before Iudgement pray to be received to remedy which mischief the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made by which all Recoveries had against Tenant by the Curtesie or otherwise for life or lives by agreement of the parties of any Lands whereof such particular Tenant is seised shall be void as Tenant by the Curtesie c. should be void against him in the Reversion and yet there was an evasion to creep out of that Statute for such particular Tenants would make a Feoffment with Warranty and then the Feoffee should be impleaded in a Writ of Entry and he vouch the Tenant for life who would aver and such Recovery was holden to be out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. For the Recovery was not against such particular Tenants c. For the remedy of which mischief the Statute of 14 Eliz. was made by which it is provided That such Recoveries had where such particular Tenants are vouched shall be void if such Recovery be by Covin betwixt them And he conceived That the forfeiture is not in respect of the Recovery it self but of the Plea pleaded by the Tenant And here in our Case there is not any Covin found or that Sir William Pelham knew that he was but Tenant for life but it is found that this Recovery was with their assent and that was lawfull as the case is for they might agree to have such a Recovery for farther assurance and so Sir William Pelham hath not vouched any but his Bargainor and that according to their Covenants and this Bargainor was not a bare Tenant for life but he had also a Remainder in tail although not immediately depending upon the Estate for life which he had cut off there it was not meerly a feigned Recovery See 5 E. 4. 2. and 24 H. 8. br Forfeit 87. where Tenant for life being impleaded in a Praecipe voucheth a stranger the same is no Forfeiture for the same doth not disaffirm the Reversion but contrary of Aid prayer for a stranger may release with warranty to Tenant for life upon which he may vouch And he reported in his Argument That Bromley Chancellor of England sent him to both the chief Iustices to know their Opinions upon this point and they were of Opinion That the Voucher of a stranger was not any Forfeiture and also that after the Recovery was executed he in the Remainder could not enter but they conceided that the Right of him in the Remainder was not bound And he said That after the Recovery was executed that he in the remainder could not enter See 24 H. 8. Br. Forfeit 87. For if Entry in such Cases should be lawfull infinite Suits would follow thereupon which would be much to the Discredit of common Recoveries which are now the Common Assurances of the Land. As to the objection of the Enfancy the same will not help the matter Br. Sav. Default 50. 6 H. 8. A Recovery had against an Infant in which he voucheth and loseth is not erroneous contrary of a Recovery upon a default And if an Infant Tenant in tail suffer a common Recovery the same is a discontinuance for in such Recoveries Infancy is not respected And in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment had against the Father the Heir shall not have his age And he cited a case out of Bendloe's Reports 5 Eliz. Tenant for life the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee Tenant for life is disseised by Covin in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Disseisor he voucheth the Tenant for life who enters into warranty generally and voucheth over the common Vouchee It was adjudged That the Recovery was out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. for the Recovery was not had against the particular Tenant for he

her customary interest as it were paramount the interest of the eldest Sister which she claimed by the Indenture Glanvil The customary interest of the eldest Sister is extinct upon this matter by reason of her agreement to it afterwards Where an Estate is given to one by a lawfull act it shall be adjudged in the party before agreement until it be disagreed unto and if the party do once agree he cannot afterwards disagree unto it If an Estate be lawfully made to a Copyholder but for years his whole interest in the Copyhold is determined and that a Freehold cannot be waived in pais but onely by matter of Record See 13 R. 2. Joynt-tenants 13. A Charter of Feoffment was made to four and Seisin was delivered to three of them in the name of them all and afterwards the fourth Feoffee came and saw the Deed and said That she would not have any thing in the Lands but altogether disagree unto it and it was that that disagreement by word in pais did not devest the Freehold out of her But when the party doth disagree in a Court of Record there the Freehold is out of the party ab initio and if he once agree he shall not disagree afterwards See Littl. Sect. 648. Tenant in tail enfeoffeth his Son and Heir apparent and another and Livery and Seisin is made to the other according to the Charter of Feoffment in the name of the Son also the Son not knowing of it nor disagreeing to the Feoffment the other Feoffee dieth the Son neither occupies the Lands nor takes the profits of them during the life of his Father the Father dieth the same is a Remitter to the Son because the Freehold is cast upon him and there is no default in him and therefore he is remitted But upon an illegal act is otherwise for if A. disseise B. to the use of C. in such case nothing is in C. before an express Agreement for the Disseisin was an unlawfull act And in this Case at Bar it doth not appear that the eldest Sister is dead and therefore the Right of the second Sister cannot now come in question Shute Iustice If the second Sister at the time of the making of the said Indenture had agreed unto it then it had been a full extiguishment but by an agreement afterwards it is not good Gawdy Iustice The remainder is in consideration of the Law and the Estate of the first Sister is not so determined that any can take advantage of it for the Lord against this Lease by Deed indented cannot enter or claim any thing and the second Sister although she hath not agreed yet she cannot enter during the life of her elder Sister for her Remainder takes effect in possession after the death of her said Sister But if any should take advantage of it it should be the Lord if his Deed indented did not stand against him And afterwards Iudgment was given against the younger Sister Clench Iustice was of another Opinion viz. That the Entry of the younger Sister notwithstanding that her elder Sister was alive was lawfull Quaere of that XCVIII Wellock 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A Parson in consideration of twelve pence granted to one of his Parishioners That he should hold his Lands discharged of Tithes It was holden by the whole Court That the same was no good Discharge being without Deed as a Lease of his Tithes But it was holden If the Parson afterward sueth the Parishioner for Tithes against the same Grant and Promise the Parishioner may have an Action upon the Case against the Parson upon his Promise although he cannot plead the Grant as a Lease XCVIII Lawson and Hare 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 178. A Replevin by Lawson against Hare who avowed for a Leet Fee and shewed how that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the Hundred of C. have used to hold a Leet once every year and that at each time when such Leet hath been holden the Inhabitants within the said Leet have used to pay to the Lord of the Leet 16 d. for a Leet Fee and that the Lords of the said Leet have used to distrain for the same and shewed farther that 5 Julii 26 Eliz. he held there a Leet c. The Plaintiff replied Absque hoc that they had used to distrain and issue being joyned it was found for the Defendant It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because that the Defendant had entitled himself to a Leet by an Estate in the Hundred and did not shew a Deed of it which was said he ought to have done as is 11 H. 4. 48. And of such opinion was Anderson and Windham Iustices Periam and Rhodes Iustices contrary as this case is and that the Avowant need not shew a Deed But if the hundred it self had been in question then a Deed ought to have been shewed But here the Avowant entitles himself to one thing scil a Leet and a Leet Fee by reason of the Hundred and it is sufficient for him to say That he is seised of the Hundred c. although it be by disseisin for if he hath possession of the Hundred be it jure vel injuria he shall have also all things incident thereunto for the possession of the Hundred draws to him the Leet and the Leet the Leet Fee. But admit in this case a Deed ought to be shewed 1 Cro. 217. 245. we are to see if the same be helped by the Statute of Jeofailes which extends to defaults in form in Writs Original or Iudicial Counts Declarations Plaints Bills c. 18 Eliz. cap 14. and such defects are thereby helped And by Anderson although that the Avowant be Quasi an actor yet in Rei veritate he is Defendant For although that he is to have retorn of the Cattel if it be found for him yet he who fueth the Replevin is the Plaintiff and if the Defendant will justifie the distress and not avow he is meerly Defendant and not a Plaintiff or Actor no more than in a Pra●cipe quod reddat The Tenant voucheth and recovereth in value he cannot be said Plaintiff or Defendant and the Avowant cannot be Nonsuit as the Plaintiff But Windham and Periam were of a contrary opinion For Avowry is in lieu of a Declaration and the Plea of the Plaintiff to the Avowry is not called a Replication but a bar to the Avowry But admit the Avowry be within the Statute then if the Statute of Jeofailes there extend to help it And Anderson conceived that it did But the Plaintiff might have demurred upon the Avowry for the not shewing the Deed and Iudgment should have been given for him but when he hath traversed and the issue found against him now it shall be intended that Avowant hath a Deed although he hath not shewed the same Another Exception was taken because it is said in the Avowry That the said Leet

Law doth admit the oath of the party in his own cause as in Debt the Defendant shall wage his Law Periam That 's an ancient Law but we will not make new Presidents for if such oath be accepted in this Case by the same reason in all cases where is secrecy and no external proof upon which would follow great inconveniencies and although such an Oath hath been before accepted of and allowed here yet the same doth not move us and we see no reason to multiply such Presidents The Declaration is that the Plaintiff was robbed of 10 l. de denariis ipsius querentis and upon the Evidence it appeareth That the Plaintiff was the Receiver of the Lady Rich and had received the said money for the use of the said Lady and exception was taken to it by Shuttleworth but it was not allowed for the Plaintiff is accomptable to the Lady Rich the said money And it was agreed that if he who was robbed after he hath made Hue and Cry doth not farther follow the thieves yet his Action doth remain CX Large 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Len. 182. THE Case was A. seised of Lands in Fee devised the Lands to his wife until William his son should come to the age of 22 years and then the Remainder of part of the Lands to his two sons A. and John The Remainder of other part of his Lands to two others of his said sons upon condition That if any of his said sons before William should come to the age of 22 years shall go about to make any sale of any part c. he shall for ever lose the Lands and the same shall remain over c. And before his said son William came to the age of 22 years one of the other sons Leased that which to him belonged for 60 years and so from 60 years to 60 years until 240 years ended c. Bois A. and J. are joynt-tenants of the Remainder and he said That the opinion of Audley Lord Chancellor of England is not Law scil where a man deviseth Lands to two and to their heirs they are not joynt-tenants as to the survivor but if one of them dieth the survivor shall not have the whole but the heir of his that dieth shall have the moyety See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 29. And he said That this Lease although it be for so many years is not a sale intended within the Will and so is not a Ioynture 46 E. 3. One was bounden that he should not alien certain Lands and the Obligor did thereof enfeoff his son and heir apparent the same was held to be no alienation within the Condition of the Obligation Of the other side it was argued The remainder doth not vest presently for it is incertain if it shall vest at all for if William dieth before he cometh to the age of 22 years it was conceived by him that the Remainder shall never vest for the words of the Will are Then the Lands shall remain c. 34 E. 3. Formedon 36. Land is devised to A. for life and if he be disturbed by the heir of the Devisor that then the Land shall remain to D. Here D. hath not any remainder before that A. be disturbed It was farther argued that here is a good Condition and that the Devisee is not utterly restrained from sale but onely untill a certain time scil to the age of William of 22 years And it was said that this Lease is a Covenous Lease being made for 240 years without any Rent reserved As such a Lease made for 100 years or 200 years is Mortmain as well as if it had been an express Feoffment or Alienation But it was said by some Antea 36 37. that here is not any sale at all nor any lease for the Lessor himself hath not any thing in the Land demised As if a man disseiseth a Feme sole and seaseth the Lands and afterwards marrieth the disseisee he shall avoid his own Lease 5 E 3. One was bound that he should not alien such a Manor the Obligor alieneth one Acre parcell of it the Obligation is forfeit See 29 H. 8. Br. Mortgage 36. A. leaseth to a religious house for 100 years and so from 100 years to 100 years untill 800 years be encurred the same is Mortmain Vide Stat. 7 E. 1. Colore termini emere vel vendere And in the principal Case if the Devisee had entred into a Statute to the value of the Land leased by the intent of the Will the same had been a sale and such was the opinion of the whole Court and by the Court the word in perpetuum shall not be referred to the words precedent but unto the words following scil in perpetuum perdat the Lands And if a custome be in the case that the Infant of the age of 15 years may sell his Lands if he make a Lease the same is not warranted by the custome And afterwards it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Lease made as before was a sale within the intent of the Will of the Devisor CXI Brooke 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench APpeal of Burglary was brought against Brooke who was found guilty and before Iudgment given the Plaintiff died And now Egerton moved that Iudgment should be given for the Queen upon that verdict or at least that the Declaration in the Appeal should be in lieu of an Indictment and that the Appealee be thereupon arraigned and put to answer the same For if the Appellant had been Nonsuit or released the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen Coke God hath now by the death of the party delivered the Defendant and it is not like where the Plaintiff releaseth for there it is the default of the Act of the party but here it is the Act of God and he held it for a rule That where auterfoits acquit is a good Plea there also auterfoits convict shall be a good Plea And it was holden in Sir Tho. Holcroft's Case Sir Thomas Holcroft's Case That where the party is convicted at the suit of the Queen there the Appeal doth not afterwards lie Wray If the Appellant dieth before Verdict the Defendant shall be arraigned at the suit of the King But if his life hath been once in jeopardy by Verdict he conceived that it shall not again be drawn into danger and some were of opinion that the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen upon the whole Record and plead auterfoits acquit and that they said was the surest way CXII Ognel and Paston 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer .. 1 Cro. 64. CLement Paston was Defendant in an Action of Debt brought against him by George Ognel upon an Escape and the Case was this Francis Woodhouse was bound in a Recognizance to the said Ognel Whereupon Ognel sued forth a Scire facias and upon two Nihils retorned had

also of Statutes We cannot deny but that we have Lands of the Conusor and of the Gift of the Conusor our Ancestor whose Heir we are who was indebted to the Queen and yet we are not within this Statute Was or shall be indebted shall not be intended after the Gift made for if he first convey his Land and afterwards becomes indebted the same is not within the Statute and where a mischief is to be remedied by a Statute the remedy in exposition of the Statute is to be applied according as the mischief doth require Shall be is to be intended of future Debts after the Statute and in our case the Father was not Receivor or other Officer to the Queen And if this Statute should be so construed the Father might take 10000 l. for the Marriage of his son and assurance of Lands unto him and then if he will acknowledge a Debt to the Queen he should defeat the whole which should be a very great mischief The words are By Gift after the Debt acknowledged to the Queen And he cited the Case 19 Eliz. Plow 191. betwixt Ludford and Gretton upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. the words of which are That whatsoever Warrant hereafter to the Chancellor of England addressed the day of the delivery of the same it be entred of Record in the Chancery and that the Chancellour make Letters Patents upon the same Warrants bearing date the day of the said delivery in the Chancery and not before and all Letters Patents made to the contrary shall be void And the Case was That a Warrant was directed to the Chancellour for the making of Letters Patents and delivered to him before the making of them but the day of the delivery was not entred of Record c. And it was holden that notwithstanding that the Letters Patents were good for the mischief at the Common Law intended to be reformed by that Act was not the post-dating of the Letters Patents but the ante-dating and therefore that ought to be principally taken into consideration which mischief being understood the words of the said Statute are to be applied to it ipsae etenim Leges cupiunt ut jure regantur i. with an Equity according to the Mischief and not always according to the precise words and in that case it is sufficient if the Letters Patents bear date after and not before the delivery of the Warrant and that was the matter intended to be reformed Also as our Case here is we are not within this Statute for the words are Of the Gift of his Ancestour but here the Son hath not the Lands of the Gift of his Ancestour but rather by the Statute of Vses and so he is in the Post and not in the Per by his Ancestour for here the Fine was levied to divers persons unto the Vses aforesaid and here the Gift was not a mere gratuity to his Son but in consideration that he should marry the Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston and also the Father was the King's Debtor after the Gift and not before Popham Attorney-General to the contrary The letter of the Statute is with us for he comes in of the Gift of his Ancestour who was indebted to the Queen and although that the Gift was by way of use yet the precedents in the Common-Pleas and other Courts are That he may declare of the Feoffment of such a one although it was by way of use and he said If A. be bound to enfeoff B. of such Lands if he maketh a Feoffment to the use of B. and his Heirs he hath well enough performed the Condition and if the Case should not be within the Statute then should that branch of the Statute be idle and to no purpose For if the Ancestour be seised and becometh indebted to the Queen and after makes a conveyance ut supra the same is provided for by the first branch of the Statute For the Land is liable to the Recognizance or Obligation made to the King and that they shall be as effectual as a Statute Staple and reason requires that the son who comes in by mere gratuity of his Ancestour should be charged And it was a common practice before the making of that Statute That the King's Officers would convey their Lands to their children and then become the King's Debtors for the remedy of which mischief the Statute was made and the Statute of 27 Eliz. doth not respect the Heir because he is Heir but as a purchasor onely and that upon good consideration Coke If any fraud can be found in our Case then without doubt we should be within the Statute but being upon good consideration it is out of the Statute nor was there any purpose in the father when he made the said Conveyance to become the King's Debtor or Officer to him for if there were then he is within the Statute also the Gift had been a mere gratuity c. And afterwards at another day the Case was moved by Coke and he said That here is not any Gift because it was in consideration of Marriage and then no gift for it is an old Proverb What is freer than gift Egerton The father giveth to his son and heir the same is within the Statute and yet here is consideration scil of blood Coke contrary Where the father giveth to his younger son or to his daughter which is not his heir and of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron And afterwards as Coke reported the son and his Lands were discharged CXV Amner and Luddington 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Error 3 Len. 89. 8 Co. 96. ERror was brought in the King's-Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. The Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased unto Pierpoint for ninety nine years who devised the same by his Will in this manner I bequeath to my Wife the Lease of my House during her life and after her death I will that it go amongst my Children unpreferred Pierpoint died his Wife entred and was possessed virtute legationis praedict and took Husband one Fulshurst against whom one Beswick recovered in an Action of Debt 140 l. upon which Recovery issued forth a Fieri facias and upon that a Venditioni Exponas upon which the Sheriff sold the said term so devised to one Reynolds Fulshurst died his Executor brought Error to reverse the Iudgment given against the Testator at the Suit of Beswick the Wife did re-enter and sold the Land and died Alice an unpreferred Daughter of Pierpoint did enter and upon that matter found by special Verdict in the Common-Pleas the entry of Alice was adjudged lawfull upon which Iudgment Error was brought in the King's-Bench And it was argued upon the words of the Devise because here the House is not devised but the Lease it self scil all his interest in the thing devised And it is not like unto the Case betwixt Welchden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plow 519.

upon the floor there so as vi ponderis it fell down To which the Defendant hath said That the walls were ruinous in occultis partibus and doth not answer to the surcharging scil Absque hoc that he did surcharge it Clark Baron It is a general Rule That every material thing alledged in the pleading ought to be traversed confessed and avoided which the Defendant hath not done here but he would excuse himself through the default of another and answer nothing to that with which he himself is charged And afterwards Iudgment was given in the Court of Exchequer for the Plaintiff Whereupon afterwards the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber where the Case was argued again But there the Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer was affirmed See this Case reported short in Popham's Reports lately published CXVII Linacre and Rhode 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Co. Rep. Blomfield's Case 3 Len. 230. THE Case was That Linacre was bound in a Statute and his body taken in Execution and the Sheriff voluntarily set him at large and afterwards the Conusee sued Execution of the Lands of the Conusor who thereupon brought an Audita Querela It was moved by Yelverton Serjeant That by that voluntary discharge of him by the Sheriff the whole Execution was discharged for the Execution is intire See 15 E. 4. 5. Where the Conusee in a Statute Merchant hath the body and lands of the Conusor in Execution and afterwards the Conusee surrendreth his Estate which he hath by Extent now the Execution of his body is discharged and the Conusor shall have a Scire facias or Audita Querela to discharge his body So if three Conusors be in Execution and the Conusee doth discharge one of them the same is a discharge of them all and in the principal Case the body is the principal and therefore the discharge of the principal part of the Execution is the discharge of the whole Hammon Where the Conusee himself dischargeth the Execution in part it is good for the whole but where discharged by the Sheriff Nihil operatur Anderson If the Conusor dieth in Execution yet the Conusee shall have Execution against his Heir of his land for the having of the body in Execution is not any satisfaction to the party for his body is but a pledge untill the money be paid and there is no reason that the act of the Sheriff should discharge the Execution Windham to the same intent And if the Conusee sueth Execution and hath the body of the Conusor in Execution this day he may the next day sue Execution of the lands and the next day after of the goods and if the Conusee doth discharge the body the whole Execution is discharged and it is true That if A. recovereth against B. in an Action of Debt and B. is taken by a Capias ad satisfaciendum and afterwards the Sheriff permitteth B. voluntarily to escape here B. is discharged although it be not the act of the party for there the Plaintiff had a full Execution which is not here for in Case of Execution upon a Statute-Merchant the Execution by the body is not the full Execution and therefore although the Sheriff hath discharged the body yet the Conusee may have Execution of the goods and lands but not of the body and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff That the Audita Querela did not lie and that Execution might be sued of the goods and lands but not of the body CXVIII Webbe and Mainard 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Ejectione firmae The Case was Walter Goldsmith seised of certain lands made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life and after to the use of John his eldest son in Fee Proviso That after his death his said son shall pay unto his younger son William 30 l. by 3 l. per ann at the Feast of St. Michael untill the entire sum be paid and if he fail of payment then to the use of the said William and his heirs Will. Goldsmith the Feoffor dieth the money is not paid but afterwards the said younger son makes an Acquittance and thereby acknowledgeth the Receipt of the said money according to the Proviso John dieth Now if the younger son may enter And first if the younger son be concluded by that Acquittance to say that the 30 l. was not paid And if he be not concluded Then if because that the words are but words of limitation the younger brother hath Title of Entry and then if this Entry be bound by the descent from John to his Heir or if John by continuance of the possession after the breach of the Proviso be a Dissesor or not were Questions propounded to the Court which the Court took time to consider of yet it was then said That the use was settled in William and the possession executed unto it but not such a possession upon which an Assise or Trespass lieth CXIX Willis and Jermine 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King's Bench. Rot. 647. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict 1 Cro. 167. Roll Tit. Estate 830. That the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Leased the Land where c. to Jermine rendering Rent to be paid at their Chapter-house at Exeter and for default of payment that such Lease shall be void and cease and that the said Jermine conveyed his interest to the Defendant and afterward the Rent was demanded at the Chapter-house but not paid and afterwards The Dean and Chapter by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary of Exeter where they are incorporate by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary in Exeter make an Indenture of Lease for forty years in their Chapter-house to Willis and thereunto put their seal in the Chapter-house and made a Letter of Attorney to another to enter and to make Livery of the said Deed which was done accordingly it was moved by Harris Serjeant That this Lease made in manner c. is not good for the Corporation is misnamed i. of Exeter for in Exeter but the Court disallowed that Exception for there is not any material variance and so it was said it hath been ruled And he said that for another cause the Lease is not good for when the Dean and Chapter in their Chapter-house make this Indenture of Lease Davis Rep. 42. and set their Chapter-seal to it It was their Deed presently without other delivery and then Jermine being in possession at the time of the putting of the seal to it they were out of possession thereof and so the new Lease void because they were not in possession at the time of the making of it for no delivery is necessary to the Deed of a Corporation but the date of the sealing of it makes it a perfect Deed and then the delivery of the same by the Attorney is of no effect Wiat to the

the Lessee entred 29 Sept. which is before the Term begins For the words of the Habendum are From the Feast of St. Michael therefore the Feast of St. Michael is no part of the Term and then was the Defendant a Disseisor and the day after the Term began which cannot alter his Estate but that he continueth a Disseisor and then he is not in by force of the said Lease and so no Rent can be due Williams As the Declaration is here the same is not any disseisin for the Plaintiff set forth in his Declaration That the Lessee the Defendant hath occupied the Land demised the whole year and so hath not admitted any Disseisin it being in his election to make it a Disseisin or not Clench Iustice Be it a Disseisin or not or be it that the Defendant entreth or not he is to pay the Rent Gawdy The Lessee is a Disseisor and continueth a Disseisor and yet Debt lieth against him for the Rent by reason of the privity of Contract which see Rysden's Case 24 H. 8. Dyer 5. And so in our Case Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXII Monings and Worley 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 561. Error IN Debt upon an Obligation brought by Mary Worley against Monings in the Common-Pleas The Condition was That if Mary Worley the Plaintiff in the said Action doth not depart out of the service of the Defendant without license of the Defendant Monings nor marry her self but with his consent Then if the Defendant shall pay to the said Mary within twenty eight days after demand by her made of Monings at his house at Waldersey 100 l. That then c. And the Defendant in the said Action pleaded That the said Mary the Plaintiff in the said Action 4 Maii 30 Eliz. departed out of his service without licence The Plaintiff Mary by Replication said That 6 Septemb. the same year she departed out of his service with licence and that 4 Octob. after she demanded the said 100 l. at Waldersey aforesaid and he refused to pay it Absque hoc that she departed out of his service 4 Maii 30 Eliz. without licence and the Writ bare date 18. of October next after the demand And it was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given for her in the Common-Pleas and now a Writ of Error is brought by Monings Tanfield The Iudgment ought to be reversed for always the Replication in such cases ought to contain sufficient Cause of Action and sufficient breach of the Condition or otherwise the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment although that the Issue be found for him as 7 E. 4. 31. In trespass for taking of goods of A. and B. A. pleads Not guilty B. justifies the Plaintiff makes Title to the goods by a gift B. traverseth the gift and it is found for him against the Plaintiff A. is found guilty Now although A. be found guilty yet the Plaintiff shall not have judgment against him for it is found that he hath not any Title to the goods As in Debt upon a Bond against A. and B. A. pleads Non est factum B. pleads the release of the Plaintiff and it is found the Deed of A. and that the Plaintiff hath released to B. the Plaintiff shall never have Iudgment for upon the Verdict it appears that he hath not cause of Action And here in the Replication there is not a sufficient breach shewed of the Condition for although that Mary hath not departed from the service of the said Defendant yet the same is not material but the Defendant had twenty eight days after the demand to pay the 100 l. but the same is not so here for the Plaintiff hath prevented the Defendant for the demand is alledged to be 4. Oct. and the Writ bears date 18. Octob. the same year and so the Defendant had not his time allowed him Gawdy The issue is taken upon the departure out of his service so as the demand is not now material and therefore the alledging of the same is surplusage and shall not hurt And the Defendant hath pleaded in Bar the departure of the Plaintiff out of his service upon which he relieth and the demand set forth in the Replication is not to be regarded as to prejudice the Plaintiff As 3 Ma. Dyer 115. Lessee for years covenants that he will not cut any Trees The Lessor assigns the breach of the Covenant in succidendo twenty Oaks The Lessee pleads that he did not cut the twenty Trees nor any of them The Iury found that the Defendant had cut down ten Trees The Plaintiff upon that Verdict shall have Iudgment for the rest is but surplusage and more put in issue than there needs to be Fenner It is not any full Plea to say That the Plaintiff did not depart out of the service of the Defendant 4 Maii for if she departeth at any other time she shall not recover for which cause she ought to have pleaded That she continued in his service untill such a day and then she departed with his licence and the inducement to the traverse ought to be sufficient matter otherwise it is not a full Plea nor the Traverse is not good And if it be surplusage yet if it be not matter against her self it makes the Plea naught which see 1 H. 7. 29. 6 H. 7. 16. Gawdy conceived that the Iudgment was well given for the Defendant was at his liberty to plead the departure of the Plaintiff without his licence or to stand upon the demand And now although he pleads the departure yet the demand is not confessed And afterwards the Iudgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas was affirmed CXXIII Bashpool 's Case 27 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was this The Father seised of Lands Stiles Rep. 148. is bound in an Obligation and deviseth his Lands to his Wife untill his Son cometh to the age of twenty one years the remainder to the Son in Fee and dieth and no other Lands descend or come to the Son from his Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in that case at his Election might wave the Devise and take by descent or è contra See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But Gawdy and Shute Iustices 3 Len. 118. were of opinion That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent Clench contrary CXXIV Bennet and Shortwright 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was 1 Cro. 206. The Defendant sued the Plaintiff in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in kind and now the Plaintiff prayed a Prohibition and suggested That they had used in the said Parish time out of mind c. to take the tenth Sheaf in satisfaction of Tythe of Corn c. and in those years in which the Plaintiff had supposed the subtraction of his Tythes he had severed the tenth Sheaf from the nine parts and the Parson would not take

side if the Plaintiff had any remedy the same ought to be against the Executors of the Father of the Defendant and the Plaintiff hath not allowed that the Defendant is Executor to his Father and therefore he hath not any colour of Suit against him nor therefore is there any consideration Fenner The Defendant by the Law is not chargeable nor in conscience upon this matter he shall be charged for by the same reason he should be charged for the simple Contract of his Father and a promise to pay it will not bind him And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CXXXIV Veal and Robert 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectione Firmae the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 199. How that John Veal leased to him 30 Eliz for twenty one years ten Acres of Land called M. The Defendant pleaded That before the Demise and Ejectment one John Roberts was seised of the said ten Acres called M. in Fee and 14 Eliz. demised the same to one John Cox for life and afterwards 25 Elizab. John Roberts dyed and the Reversion descended to the now Defendant Cox demised the Land to John Veal for thirty years who leased unto the Plaintiff as in the Declaration of which he was possessed quousque c. Cox dyed 30 Eliz. after whose death the Defendant entred and ejected prout was lawfull for him to do c. The Defendant by replication saith That before John Roberts had any thing one Wall of P. of Glocester was seised of the said ten Acres inter alia and 29 H. 8. demised to John Veal Father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff the said Land inter alia by the name of two Messuages and two Yard Lands in the County of Glocester nuper in tenura J. S. and of two other Houses in a Yard Land tunc in tenura E. H. nec non de ten acres vocat M. lying inter C. I. tunc in occupatione E. W. for term of years yet during Habendum dict four Messuages and three Yard Lands in tenura I.S. E.H. nec non the said ten acres to the said John Veal à tempore mortis sursum redditionis forisfactur vel determinationis status vel terminor praedict I.H. W. in eisdem for sixty years by force of which he was possessed of the interest of the term aforesaid and afterwards 14 Eliz. the Estate of the said E. W. in the said ten acres ended for which the said John Veal entred and 25 Eliz. dyed intestate and Administration was committed to J. S. Lessor of the Plaintiff by force of which he entred and Leased to the Plaintiff and so he was possessed untill ejected The Defendant did rejoyn and said That long before John Roberts had any thing William Roberts was seised in Fee and enfeoffed the said John Roberts before the Ejectment supposed who demised unto John Cox and so as in the Bar absque hoc That the said Abbat demised to the said John Veal modo forma prout the Plaintiff replicando allegavit the which matter he is ready to aver petit Judicium The Plaintiff said That the Abbat demisit ut supra hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam and it was found for the Plaintiff And it was objected by Snag That this issue was not well taken for the Estate of John Veal was not to begin before all the Estates being in esse at the time of the making of the Lease by the Abbat of Glocester are expired Coventry contrary and that the Estates do begin severally and singulatim as the Estates precedent shall end and shall not expect untill the other Estates be determined which see Iustice Needham's Case now reported by Coke 5 part 37 Eliz. and see Pollard's Case there cited At another day it was objected by Snag That the new Estate could not begin in any part untill all the former Estates be determined for if this new Lease be made reserving Rent and one part thereof is now come in possession then he should pay for that part all the Rent But the Court was clear of Opinion That the Lease in the ten Acres did begin presently without having regard to the other Estates in demand for the intent of the Lessor was That no mean time should be betwixt the expiration of the Lease for ten years and the beginning of the new As in the Case betwixt Wrotesley and Adams 1 Eliz. Plo. Com. 198. A Lease is made to begin after the expiration of a former Lease for years the first Lessee takes a new Lease of the Lessor which was a Surrender of the former Lease If the Lease scil the second Lease shall now begin was the question or should expect untill the first Lease shall end by expiration for the former Lease is ended but not expired i. by effluction of time And it was holden that the said second Lease should begin presently for the intent of the Lessor was that no mean time should be betwixt the end and beginning of the said Estates And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXXV Pasch 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench NOTE If a Record be removed out of the Common-Pleas into the King's-Bench by Writ of Error and the Plaintiff shall not assign his Errors then a Scire facias shall issue forth quare executionem habere non debet and upon summons or two Nichels retorned the Plaintiff shall have Execution yet the Plaintiff may assign his Errors And to such a Scire facias Exception was taken because the Writ was coram nobis apud Westm where it should be ubicunque fuerimus in Anglia and for that cause a Supersedeas was granted It was also holden That although a Writ of Error doth not lie here upon a Iudgment given in London yet upon a Iudgment given at Newgate which is upon Commission in their Sessions Error lieth here CXXXVI Bows and Vernon 's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DEBT upon an Obligation was brought by Bows against Vernon and Hennington who pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. and shewed that Vernon was in Execution and that the Bond was made for his deliverance against the Statute The Plaintiff replied and said That at the time of the making of the said Bond the said Vernon fuit sui juris and at large absque hoc that he was in Prison tempore confectionis scripti praedict modo forma c. Egerton Solicitor moved that the Traverse was not good for if a man be in Prison in Execution and makes a promise to make a Bond for which he is inlarged and within an hour after he makes the Bond the same is within the Statute and therefore this issue is not well joined but it ought to be absque hoc that it was pro deliberatione c. and of such opinion was Fenner and Gawdy Iustices See Dive and Manningham's Case 4 E. 6. Plo. Com. 68 69. acc CXXXVII Hunt and Sone 's

Covenant wherein the breach was assigned was That if R. W. Brother of the Plaintiff should say Make assurance of such a Manor to the Defendant as the Council learned of the said Defendant should advise Then if the Defendant pays unto the Plaintiff 50 l. the Obligation to be void The Defendant by advice of Council demanded a Release with Warranty c. And by Periam and Windham The same is not any Assurance but a means to recover in value Anderson contrary That it was a Collateral Warranty c. CLXXIII Cropp and Hambleden 's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 48. IN Trespass by Cropp against Erasmus Hambleden upon the special Verdict the Case was That one Martin Hastings was seised of the lands where c. in the right of his wife for the life of the wife and that they both did Lease unto the Defendant for years rendring Rent payable at the Feast of S. Michael and the Feast of the Annunciation c. with clause of re-entry if the Rent be behind by a Month after any of the said Feasts and after the feast of S. Michael 26 Eliz. and before the Month expired the Lessee the now Defendant sent his servant unto the house of the Lessor for to pay to him the Rent then due the servant went unto the house of the Lessor and there asked for him to whom it was answered by one Mary Briggs daughter of the wife of the Lessor who there dwelt in the said house with her mother that the Lessor was not at home for which the said servant delivered the said Rent to the said Mary requiring her to deliver the same over to the Lessor upon his retorn to the house in the name of his servant Mary reserved the said Rent and upon the retorn of the Lessor at his house told him all the matter aforesaid and that the servant of the Lessor the Defendant had required her to tender the said Rent to the Lessor in the name of the Defendant and thereupon offered and tendered to him the said Rent and the Lessor refused it And the Iury found That the third half year before the tender mentioned before the Lessor commanded the said Mary to receive the Rent then due who did accordingly and that the next half year then following the said Mary did receive the said Rent without commandment of the Lessor but after the Lessor agreed unto it and that the immediate half year before this tender in question the Defendant paid the Rent then due to the Lessor himself who received it And it was the opinion of Wray chief Iustice that this tender was good and it is not like unto the case of an Obligation for there the Obligee cannot have an Action of Debt before the last day but here the Lessor might have distrained or have had an Action of Debt before the Month expired and so the Lessor is bound by this tender and by Gawdy Iustice This tender cannot be said a tender by a stranger for here Mary came in privity of the servant of the Lessee and as it is found by Verdict Mary tendered it to the Lessor as being requested by the servant of the Lessee And afterwards upon consideration had betwixt the Iustices themselves the Iustices viz. Clench Gawdy and Wray for Shute was then sick it was clearly resolved against the Plaintiff and that the said tender as it is found in the Verdict is a good and sufficient tender and the Lord Wray delivered the reason as before and farther said That if the said Rent had been reserved payable at the feasts aforesaid or within a Month after each of them there the tender as above had not been good nor should bind the Lessor for in such case the Lessor could not distrain or have an Action of Debt for the said Rent before the Month expired And this is a case of extremity and deserves no favour and here is no mischief to the Lessor for he might have had his Rent in due time if he would and his captious refusal shall not avail him And Iudgment was given accordingly CLXXIV Bostock and Covert 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas BOstock and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Covert son and heir of her former Husband who pleaded That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of Lands amounting to the number of 300 Acres and held the same by Knights-service and died seised after whose death by virtue of the Statute of 34 and 32 H. 8. he entred into 100 Acres of the said Lands as the third part of the said Lands descended and held the same in severalty being the third part of the clear yearly value of the whole discharged of a Dower and that the Wife ought to have all her Dower out of the two parts devised And Anderson said That the Plea was not good for the heir who will take advantage of the Statute in that point ought to enter generally as Tenant in common with the Devisee and then in a Writ of Dower it is a good Plea so if after his entry as Tenant in common Partition be made betwixt him and the Devisee such a Plea is good but here he hath entred severally into a third part distinct from the residue and so hath ousted the Devisee of a third part severally for which cause he cannot have advantage of this Plea To which the rest of the Iustices Non contradixerunt CLXXV Sir John Southwel 's Case Pasch 37 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 147. SIR John Southwel of the County of Lancaster 7 Julii 19 Eliz. made a Conveyance of his Lands to divers Feoffees and their Heirs upon condition that they should find him and his Wife and so many persons in his house c. prefer his Daughters in marriage pay his debts c. And if there fell out at the years end upon accompt made by the Feoffees any surplusage that then at the end of every such year they should answer such surplusage as should then remain in their hands unexpended of the Rents and profits of his said Lands with clause of revocation c. Afterwards the said Conveyance being in force came the Statute of 23 Eliz. concerning Recusants upon which Statute the said Southwel is now endicted and afterwards upon a Commission issuing out of the Exchequer to the Sheriff of Lancaster to enquire of the Lands of the said Southwel although against the said Conveyance it was given in Evidence That after the said Conveyance the said Sir John Southwel had granted Trees from off the said Lands and had received Fines and Incomes for Leases c. yet the Iurors charged to enquire would not find that the said Sir John Southwel had any Lands c. And by special command from the Queen it was referred out of the Exchequer to all the Iudges of England If the Lands of the said Sir John Southwel conveyed as aforesaid were subject to the said

be determined or not And he said That Leases which are of Record are to be recited in Patents of the King but not those which are not of Record for Leases on Record may be easily found but contrary of Leases in Fait but in our case all is helped by the Non obstante for the words of the Letters Patents are Non obstante That no office be thereof found misrecital or non-recital of the former Leases c. It hath been objected That because that the Law of the Land is That in Grants of the King all former Estates ought to be recited the Non obstante of the Queen shall not help it To that he said That where the Law makes for the Queen there the Queen for a particular respect may dispense with the Law. If the Queen be deceived by the not recital that makes the Letters Patents naught but if the Queen be not deceived by the not recital the same shall not hurt And it is clear That the Queen may dispense with a Statute Law although perhaps not with the common Law The Queen grants upon suggestion if the suggestion be false the Patent is void because the Queen is deceived in her Grant and if the suggestion rest in Articles and some of the Articles be false the Patent for that is void but if in the Patent such clause be That be the suggestion true or false the Patent shall be good If the King seised of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant grant the Manor cum pertinentii● the Advowson shall not pass But if the Grant be in tam amplis modo forma c. prout ipse Rex tenuit the Advowson shall pass And he said That the Office here is not necessary to determine the Lease but to enable the Queen to punish the Lessee for the continuance of his possession And if the conclusion of the Condition had been by way of re-entry for non-payment of the Rent and after the Rent is behind and afterwards the Queen accepts the Rent due after the Queen is not bounden by that but upon an Office found she shall avoid the Lease Drew Serjeant contrary and he said That here is a condition but not a limitation for here is the natural word of a Condition scil Proviso Some Cases put by Popham are Conditions and not limitations As a Lease for years Proviso that if the Lessee die within the term that then the Lease shall be void the same is a Condition And in many Cases many words less apt than these in our Case shall make a Condition As a Feoffment dummodo solvat c. And he said That without an Office the Lease is not void See 35 H. 6. 57. The King giveth to Religious use certain Lands ad effectum to find a certain number of Monks to hold in Frankalmoign the King in that case cannot have Cessavit for the Services are not certain but if it be found by Office that they have not their number or do not make their Prayers the King shall cease by Br. Tit. Offic. 4. And he said that this was often done in the time of Hing Henry the eighth Lands given Habend pro erectione Collegii Cardinalis Eborum c. Where the King is to have Lands but as a pledge as for an Alienation without licence Office ought to be found of such Alienation So of a Feoffment made to an Alien otherwise it is in case of necessity because the Freehold cannot be in abeyance Tenant of the King is attainted of Treason before 33 H. 8. the King shall ha●●●●e Land in point of common Escheat untill Office be found and afterwards by force of the Attainder So if the Tenant of a Subject be attainted of Treason before Office found the Land shall be in the Lord but after Office it shall be in the King 7 H. 4. If the King's Tenant dieth his Heir within age the King may seise the Body and grant it over without Office but not the Lands See for the same 5 E. 6. Br. Office 55. in the Case of Charles Brandon 35 E. 3. Villainage 22. The Villein of the King purchaseth Goods and Chattels the property of them is in the King before Office or seisure but in the case of lands he ought to seise If this had been the case of a common person the Lease should not be avoided without demand therefore neither in the Case of the King without Office For as the Lease it self was made by matter of Record so it ought to be avoided by matter of Record otherwise it shall not be taken void in Law notwithstanding that the words are That the lease shall be void By the Statute of 11 H. 7. Alienations and Discontinuances by Women are made void the same ought not to be holden altogether void as betwixt such Women and the Alienee but onely betwixt the Woman and the Heir the Statute of 1 Eliz. enacts That all Leases made by a Bishop above the term of twenty one years shall be void the same shall not be construed to be void but onely as to the Successor for it shall bind the Lessor himself as it was adjudged 5 Eliz. in the Case of the Bishop of Bath As unto the Office here in our case the same shall not enure to avoid the Lease but onely to enable the Queen to punish the party for the Mean profits after the breaking of the Condition But in our case nothing is due to the Queen for the Mean profits for we have shewed the payment of all the Rents and the Arrearages thereof after the breach of the Condition and before the Grant of the King and therefore this Office being for no use shall be void unless it had been found that the Land was of more yearly value than the Rent c. As in the case of common experience of Chantries the Lands shall not be intended to be of greater value than the Rent to be paid out of it if not that it be found by Office When the Queen hath after received the Rent and granted over the Reversion now the Forfeiture is purged not by way of conclusion but it amounts to as much as if the Queen had said That she would not take benefit of it 4 H. 6. Champernoun's Case The King by taking in Ward of the Heir of the Donee hath waved the Heir of the Donor See Plow in the Lord Barkley's Case 3 Eliz. 237. and F. N. B. 143. And here in our Case when the Queen grants over the Reversion here the whole use of an Office is gone for no Office shall be found for the benefit of a Subject and as to the Queen no benefit shall accrue unto her by such Office for if she by such Office shall be entituled to the possession she should avoid her own Grant of the Reversion for she ought to have as great an Estate by the breach of the Condition as she had at the time of the Condition And in this Case

by the Lessor to the Lessee cannot enure and that for want of privity Lit. 109. And such Lessee cannot attorn and if the Lessor after that accepts of the Rent the same doth not make the Lease good and all for want of privity therefore here is no privity As to property such a Lease shall not be said Assets in the hands of an Executor nor shall be sold upon an Extent nor forfeited by outlawry And here in this Case the Queen cannot be said to take any thing by the breach of the Condition but hath her reversion discharged of the Lease and he said That the Office is found well enough for time and it shall relate to the time when the title accrued that is when the Rent was behind and the arrearages of the Rent do not pass by the grant of the Land or the reversion The Queen hath a Rent-charge out of Lands which is behind the Lands come to the Queen and she grants the same over yet she shall charge the Lands with the said arrearages but contrary in case of an injury done upon the Land of the Queen As the Tenant of the King aliens without licence and afterwards the Lands so aliened came to the King's hands who grants them over the Grantee nor the Land shall be charged but onely he who was party to the alienation his Lands and his Executors So of an Intrusion Tenant for life of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee the King grants over the reversion and afterwards the tortious Feoffment is found by Office this Office is soon enough for time and the Grantee of the reversion shall have advantage of it and the King the mean profits from the time of the alienation and afterward in Mich. Term 33 Eliz. the Case was argued by the Barons Clark Puisne Baron The Lease is conditional and with a limitation also so conditional and limitation mixt together 3 Ass 10. Land given to one untill he come from foreign parts Lands given to one so long as he shall continue sole is an Estate for life with limitation upon her marriage so during the coverture c. and these limitations are not collateral but begin with the Estates when the Estates are limited but conditions always come when the Estate is settled as it is in our Case yet if the intent and substance of the Contract betwixt the King and the Subject be well considered there shall not be any difference c. Lands devised to one Proviso That if the Devisee shall disturb the Executors of the Devisor his Estate shall be void and the land remain over c. the same is a good remainder for it is a limitation conditional See Scholastica's Case Plowd Com. 14 Eliz. 413. concerning an Estate tail with a limitation And Fitz. James Case there put by Dyer See Browning and Beston's Case before cited and Martin Dockra's Case where a condition is conceived in words of Covenant c. Gent Baron argued to the same intent Manwood chief Baron to the same intent The Rents reserved upon the Leases of the Queen are to be paid to Receivors Baileys or at the Receipt of the Exchequer The Queen shall not make any demand of her rent for she hath an infinite number of Farmors and if demand be necessary she were to send an army of Receivors or Baileys to receive and demand her rents If the Rent of the King be to be paid at the Exchequer if the King 's Fermor be there and tender the rent at due time and none be there to receive it he hath saved his Lease for he hath done his possible endeavor although the words of the Condition in the Lease be behind and unpaid yet not tendred shall be understood as in the common case of Mortgages and Obligations But in all the Record before us there is no words of any tender therefore according to the words of the condition the Lease is meerly void and determined in right in privity and in tenure for so is the pleasure of the Prince expressed in her Letters Patents under the great Seal of England That it shall be then void and of no effect Then i. whensoever the Rent shall happen to be behind and therefore as soon as the Rent was behind the Lease was determined so that if after the non-payment a stranger had entred upon him scil the Lessee upon which he brings Ejectione Firmae the Defendant might have pleaded the special matter against him Iudgment if Action so as the Lease is void in Right It is also void in Privity and Tenure for a Release to such Lessee after the Rent is behind is altogether void for he was not then Lessee and so the privity is gone and no acceptance can make such Lease good And if such a Lessee after his Rent would surrender and in consideration of such Surrender obtain a new Lease from the Queen this new Lease is also void for here upon the matter is no surrender Also such a Lease is void in property for if the Lessee in such case dieth his interest such as it is shall not be accounted Assets in the hands of his Executor upon the breach of this Condition for the Rent although that the Lease be become void yet the possession of the land is not resetled in the Queen without Office and although the Office doth not make the Lease void which was void before for non-payment of the Rent yet before Office found the possession is not vested in the Queen for before Office found we cannot award Process against such a Lessee for his continuing the possession after the Rent behind and untill Office found the Lessee cannot be found an Intruder and Tenant at Will he cannot be for no other Will appears of the Queen but that in the Letters Patents and that is to have the Lease void whensoever the Rent shall be behind and that Estate is gone because the Rent is behind Tenant at sufferance he cannot be in this case In case of a common person when Lessee for years holds over his term he is become Tenant at sufferance and such a Tenant shall not pay Rent for it is the folly of his Lessor to suffer his Lessee at sufferance to continue possession of the Land after his term so as every Tenancy at sufferance is made by the Laches of the Lessor which Laches cannot be imputed to the Queen therefore here this Lessee when the Condition is broken is not a Tenant at sufferance nor shall have the profits of the Lands to his own use but the Law shall account him to be a Bailiff of his own wrong and so be accountable to the Queen but no Intruder till Office be found and that appears in our Books 1 H. 7. 17. The King's Tenant dieth his Heir within age if any entreth into the Land of the Heir he shall not be an Intruder untill Office found but the Heir or a stranger who entreth before Office and takes the profits

in fact so as he might have an Assise or an Action of Trespass Antea 210 1 Cro. 920. Ow. 96. So the Law is now taken A. deviseth his Lands to B. and dieth and a stranger entreth and dieth seised before any Entry by the Devisee now is the Devisee without remedy And here in our Case the Intruder hath not gained any possession in the Lands by his intrusion no more than if the King gives Lands to one in Fee and before the Patentee enters a stranger enters now cannot the Patentee grant it over if he doth not reduce the Estate by Entry See Dyer 9 and 10 Eliz. 266. P. 20 Eliz. in Curia Ward Garbery's Case acc The Queen seised of the Manor of Beverley a stranger erected a Shop in a vacant plat of the Manor and afterwards took the profits of it without paying any Rent for the same to the Queen and afterwards the Queen granted the Manor to the Earl of Leicester and he never entred into the said Shop nor took any Rent for the same and afterwards the Occupier of the Shop died in possession and his Son and Heir entred and the better opinion was that the same was not a descent against the Patentee because at the first it was not a disseisin against the Queen Another Question was moved as to a path-way then in question And the Iury found that one side of the path-way was the Land of the Parson of the Church and the other side the Church-yard and prayed the opinion of the Court therein to whom the interest of the path-way did belong to which it was said by the Court That that ought to be found by the Verdict For although that both be the Freehold of the Parson yet the soil of the path-way might be conveyed by an express Grant unto another But the Court seemed to incline that the soil of the path-way did belong to him who had the Lands on both sides and that is the Case as well of a high-way as of a path-way And it is also good Evidence to prove such matter Who hath used to cut down the Trees or to cleanse the way CLXXXIII Wiseman 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Court of Wards 6 Co. Weeden Baldwin's Case IN the Court of Wards before the Lord Treasurer Master of the Wards Wray chief Iustice Anderson and Periam Assistants to him the Case was That Wiseman was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service in Capite had issue by a former Wife who died and made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of her who should be his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of himself and of his issue of the body of such Wife to be begotten the remainder over Wiseman took a Wife and had issue and died If now living the Wife the issue shall be in Ward was the question It was argued by Coke That he shall not be in Ward And first it was agreed of both sides and also by the Iustices That it was a remainder and not a reversion and that at the Common Law the descent of a remainder during the Estate for life doth not entitle the King unto Wardship and there we are to see if upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. the last branch of it where two or more persons hold any Lands of the King by Knights-service jointly to them and the heirs of one of them and he that hath the Inheritance thereof dieth his heir being within age in every such Case the King shall have the Ward and marriage of the body of such heir so being within age the life of the Freeholder or Freeholders of such Lands notwithstanding See 33 H. 6. 14. That the father to prevent Wardship may alien and take to him and his son and the heirs of the father which mischief was intended to be remedied by the said Statute But these words shall not in construction thereof extend farther than the words especially because they cross the Common Law and go to charge the Inheritance of others and therefore they shall be taken strictly and not by equity as the Statute of West 2. cap. 40. Cum quis alienat jus uxoris suae concordat est Quod de cetero secta mulieris aut ejus haeredis non differatur propter minorem aetatem haeredis qui warrantizare debuit that Statute is taken strictly for if the Vouchee voucheth over the second Vouchee shall have his age Quod vide 18 E. 4. 16. Also the Stat. of West 1. enacts That where the Disseisor dieth seised the Disseisee shall have his Writ upon the Disseisin against the heir of the Disseisor of what age soever he be So the heirs of the Disseisee yet it is holden 9 E. 3. If the Disseisor leaseth for life and dieth and the Lessee be impleaded and makes default after default upon which the heir of the Disseisor prayeth to be received being within age he shall have his age notwithstanding the said Statute which shall be taken strictly because it controlls the Common Law and chargeth the Inheritance of the Subject So upon the Statute of West 1. cap. 39. That none shall vouch out of the line upon that Statute although the Tenant to the Action against whom the Praecipe is brought is bound by the Statute yet Tenant by receit is at large and he may vouch at the Common Law 2 H. 7. 2. 16 H. 7. 1. for these Statutes go in abridgment of the Common Law and therefore shall be taken strictly Now according to this Statute it is of the same nature as the other before remembred and therefore shall not be extended in construction beyond the Letter As Sir Rowland Hill's Case Grandfather father and son the grandfather seised of Land ut supra makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the son in Fee The grandfather dieth the father dieth the son shall not be in Ward Causa qua supra For this Statute shall not be construed by equity and by it the words thereof Preferment of children shall not extend unto the childrens children but to the children onely of the King's Tenant who makes the Conveyance And the words in this Statute or otherwise shall not be intended to other persons than are remembred in the Statute There was a Case late where the Statute was construed in such a manner Quod vide 18 Eliz. 345. Thornton's Case A Lady seised of Lands in chief made Conveyance of her Lands for the advancement of her bastard-daughter the same Conveyance is not within the Statute See also the Lord Powes's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. So in the Case of Sir Hugh Calverley the Law was taken That where the Husband dieth seised in the right of his Wife and they levy a Fine unto the use of the Husband and Wife for the advancement of the Husband such Conveyance and disposition is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Popham contrary And as to

being void he presents he may repeal his presentment and he vouched divers presidents of Grants of the King of such lands to hold of him as of his Dutchy and sometimes of others And the King by his Dutchy seal may give lands in Mortmain and the King under his Dutchy-seal hath made divers Corporations within his Dutchy And although this Rent be a new thing never parcel of the Dutchy yet because it is issuing out of the Dutchy lands and reserved thereout shall be of the same nature and accounted parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy If before the Statute of West 3. one seised of lands on the part of his mother made a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services and died the Seignory should go to the heir on the part of his mother and should be descendable as the land it self in lieu of which it came And if Tenant in tail now after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the Statute rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be expounded such heirs which are inheritable to the land according to the entail Manwood chief Baron Demanded of Plowden this Question The King makes a Feoffment in Fee of lands of his Dutchy Is the same a matter of Record who answered yes Manwood Truely no for then there needed not any livery Egerton Solicitor argued to the contrary and he argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. and 1 H. 7. of the separation of the Dutchy of Lancaster from the Crown which see in the Comment 215. in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster by which Acts the possessions of the Dutchy were devested out of the body Politick of the King and vested in his body natural and are as their corporal holding in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster being a Subject who if he had made a Feoffment the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King Ergo so shall it be in the case where the King himself makes a Feoffment and he cited a Case put in the end of the Dutchy Case 4 Eliz. 223. The Queen made a Feoffment of lands of the Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of her in Capite the Feoffee shall hold of her in Capite as of her Crown of England The case went farther the King after this Feoffment granteth the Fee-farm the Question is If the Rent reserved upon this Feoffment shall pass by such grant or not and he said That this Rent is not parcel of the Fee-farm but rather a collateral charge upon the land for in all cases where there is a Tenure expressed in fait or implyed in Law there the rent reserved after shall not be parcel of the Tenure but a Rent in gross by it self As in our case Tenend in feod firm makes a Tenure therefore the Reddend after shall not make the sum reserved parcel of it 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dominis Capital rendring the rent of 20 l. that Rent is a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Tenure King E. 6. granted to Cranmer Archbishop and his heirs Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's-fee Reddend 6 l. per ann Cranmer in Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of his son in tail the remainder to the use of the right heirs of Cranmer made a Fee who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder to his right heirs Escheats to the King and so the Seignory is extinct but it was adjudged That the Rent was in esse and not extinct by the Escheat of the remainder for it was not parcel of the Seignory So here in our case Another matter was moved If this Rent being a new thing created de novo and not parcels of the possessions of the Dutchy 1 H. 4. nor 1 H. 7. shall be accounted in Law in the right of the Crown or of the Dutchy and if of the Crown then it cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal and the Statute of 1 H. 4. speaks of such Lands and Tenements which were to his Ancestors Dukes of Lancaster but this Rent never was in them c. and the Queen cannot enlarge the possessions of her Dutchy by her own Act and therefore if J. S. being Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat and saith that he holdeth for life the remainder to the King in Fee in the right of his Dutchy now this remainder is vested in the King in the right of his Crown and not in the right of his Dutchy for it is onely an Estoppel So the Villein of the King in the right of his Dutchy purchaseth lands the King seiseth he shall have the lands in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy If the King giveth Common out of his lands parcel of his Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee of the lands out of which the Common is granted and afterwards the Commoner dieth without heir the King shall have the same in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy So although the rent doth follow the nature of the lands out of which it is issuing yet it is not so to all intents and he said That by the Statute of 2 3 Phil. Ma. the King could not enlarge the possessions of the Dutchy and therefore by the said Act authority is given for to annex possession unto the Dutchy by Letters Patents And there is another clause in the said Statute That if any part of the possessions of the Dutchy have been aliened or granted unto any subject and are reverted to the Crown by Escheat attainder forfeiture purchase c. they shall be deemed and accepted parcel of the Dutchy which case proves That if the King makes a Feoffment of such lands the same is a Tenure in chief for if it were a Tenure of the Dutchy then upon Escheat it should be parcel of the Dutchy again without the help of that Statute Now this Rent being a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Seignory Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus successoribus suis aut Domino aut Dominis feodi when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it hath been moved that it was in the Election of the Feoffee to pay the Rent to the King or to the Lord Audley but that is not so for although the Law be so betwixt Subjects yet in case of the King it is otherwise for the King shall never be over-reached by an Election and therefore he shall pay the Rent to the King. It was adjourned CLXXXV The Executors of Sir William Cordel and Clifton 's Case Hill. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 59. THE Case was The Earl of Westmerland seised of a Manor whereof the Demeans were usually let for three lives by Copy

according to the custome of the Manor granted a Rent-charge to Sir William Cordel 2 Roll 157. Pro concilio impendendo for the term of his life and afterwards conveyed the Manor to Sir William Clifton in tail The Rent is behind 12 Brownl 208. Sir William Cordel dieth Sir William Clifton dieth the Manor descends to John Clifton who grants a Copihold to Hempston the Executors of Sir William Cordel distrain for the Rent It was agreed by the whole Court Antea 109. That the Copyholder should hold the land charged Windham Iustice It hath been adjudged that the wife of the Lord shall not be endowed against the Copyholder Dyer 270. which Periam granted but gave the reason of it for the Title of the Dower is not consummated before the death of the husband so as the Title of the Copyholder is compleated before the Title of Dower More 94. but the Title of the Grantee of the Rent is consummated before the Dower Fenner conceived That the Executors could not distrain upon the possession of the Copyholder and he argued that this case is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills For by the preface of the said Statute he conceived That the said Statute did extend but to those cases for which by the Common Law no remedy was provided but in this case the Executors by the Common Law might have an Action of debt ergo But Periam and Windham contrary For this Statute doth intend a farther remedy for that mischief scil not onely an action of debt but also distress and avowry See the words of the Statute Distrain for the arrearages c. upon the lands c. which were charged with the payment of such rents and chargeable to the Distress of the Testator or in the seisin or possession of any other person or persons claiming the said lands onely by and from the same Tenant by purchase gift or descent in like manner and form as their Testator might or ought to have done in his life time And it was moved by Fenner That here the said land charged doth not continue in the seisin or possession of the Tenant and here Sir John Clifton was issue in tail and therefore he doth not claim onely by the father but per formam Doni and therefore he is not liable therefore neither his Copyholder Shuttleworth Serjeant contrary That Sir John Clifton was chargeable and he claims onely from them who immediately ought to have paid the Rent and the Copyholder claims by purchase from Sir John Clifton so he claims from Sir William Clifton the Tenant c. although he doth not claim immediately from him For if the Tenant ought to have paid it and dieth and the land descendeth to his heir and the Heir maketh a Feoffment in Fee the Feoffee shall be charged within this Statute although he doth not claim immediately so where land descends from the Tenant which ought to have paid it and so from Heir to Heir The Statute of 1 R. 3. wills that all grants c. shall be good against the Donor his Heirs c. claiming onely as Heirs to Cestuy que use c. Yet if Cestuy que use granteth a Rent-charge and the Feoffees are disseised the Grant shall be good against the Disseisor and yet he doth not claim onely by Cestuy que use And although Sir John Clifton be Tenant in tail and claims per formam Doni Yet because the Estate tail cometh under the Estate of him who grants the Rent he shall be subject to the charge And this Statute extends not onely to him who claims by the Tenant but also to the Heir of him who grants c. And by Windham and Rhodes The Copyholder doth not claim onely by the Lord but he claims also by the custome but the custome is not any part of his Title but onely appoints the manner how he shall hold c. The possession continues here in Sir John Clifton for the possession of his Copyholder is his possession so as if the Copyholder be ousted Sir John Clifton shall have an Assise And so the strict words of the Statute are observed for the seisin and possession continues in Sir John Clifton who claims onely by Sir William Clifton who was the Tenant in demean who ought to pay the Rent But Fenner said to that that the seisin and possession intended in the Statute is the very actual possession scil Pedis dispositio and such a possession in which the distress may be taken and that cannot be taken in a Freehold without an actual possession CLXXXVI 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 3 Len. 65. A. Seised of land in Fee by his Will in writing granted a Rent-charge of 5. l. per an out of it to his younger son towards his Education and bringing up in Learning and if in pleading the Devisee ought to aver that he was brought up in Learning was the Question And it was holden by Dyer Manwood and Mounson that such averment needs not for the Devise is not conditional and therefore although he be not brought up in Learning yet he shall have the Rent and the words of the Devise are Towards his bringing up and he well knew that 5 l. per an would not nor could extend to maintain a Scholar in Learning Dy. 329. a. in diet apparel books c. and this Rent although it be not sufficient to such purpose yet he shall have it And Dyer said That such a case was here Two were bound to stand to the award of certain persons who awarded that the one of them should pay unto the other 20 s. per an during the term of six years towards the education and bringing up of such a one an Infant and within the two first years of the said term the Infant died so as now there needed not any supply towards his education yet it was adjudged that the yearly sum ought to be paid for the whole term after for the words toward his education are but to shew the intent and consideration of the payment of that sum and no word of condition c. CLXXXVII West and Stowel 's Case Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 870. Townsend 17. 1 Roll 28. More 549. Sty 353. a. IN an Action upon the Case by Thomas West against Sir John Stowell The Plaintiff Declared That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that if the Defendant shall win a certain match at shooting made between the Lord of Effingham and the Defendant then the Plaintiff should pay to the Defendant 10 l. and promised to the Plaintiff That if the said L. Effingham shall win the same match of the Defendant that then the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff 10 l. And farther declared That the Lord Effingham won the match for which the Action is brought It was moved that here is not any sufficient consideration for the promise of the Plaintiff to

the Defendant Non parit actionem for there is not any consideration upon which it is conceived but is onely Nudum pactum upon which the Defendant could not have an Action against the Plaintiff And then here is not any sufficient consideration for the promise of the Defendant Mounson Iustice conceived that here the consideration is sufficient for here this counter promise is a reciprocal promise and so a good consideration for all the communication ought to be taken together Manwood Such a reciprocal promise betwixt the parties themselves at the match is sufficient for there is consideration good enough to each as the preparing of the Bows and Arrows the riding or coming to the place appointed to shoot the labour in shooting the travel in going up and down between the marks But for the Bettors by there is not any consideration if the Bettor doth not give aim Mounson A cast at Dice alters the property if the Dice be not false wherefore then is there not here a reciprocal Action Manwood At Dice the parties set down their monies and speak words which do amount to a conditional gift scil If that the other party cast such a cast he shall have the money CLXXXVIII Dunne 's Case 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DUnne possessed of divers goods in divers Dioceses died intestate at Bristow The Bishop of Bristow committed administration to Jones and his Wife who administred and afterwards the Bishop of Canterbury by reason of his Prerogative committed administration to Austen and Dunne and they brought an Action of Trespass against Jones and his Wife for taking of the goods of the intestate It was holden by Wray and Southcote 5 Co. 2 30. 1 Cro. 283. 457. that the Letters of administration granted by the Bishop of Bristow were void Gawdy and Jeofreys contrary for the granting of Letters of Administration de mero jure doth belong to the Ordinary and it might be that neither the Ordinary nor the parties to whom he granted the Letters of Administration had notice that the Intestate had bona notabilia in another Diocese and therefore it should be hard to make the Defendants Trespassors Exception was taken to the Declaration because it is shewed that the Archbishop of Canterbury by reason of his Prerogative committed Administration c. without shewing that the Intestate had bona notabilia c. but the Exception was not allowed for so are all the precedents as the Declaration is here which all the Clerks in Court did affirm and afterwards Exception was taken to the Bar because it is there pleaded that the Defendant had paid a certain sum of Money to one A. to whom the Intestate was indebted by Bond and did not shew how the Bond was discharged as by Release Acquittance cancelling of the Bond c. And that was holden to be a material Exception For the Defendants in such case ought to shew such discharge which is sufficient and by which the Plaintiffs may be discharged and for that cause the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXIX Kingwell and Chapman 's Case 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond by Kingwell against Chapman 1 Cro. 10. The Defendant pleaded that it was endorsed upon condition That where divers debates were betwixt the Plaintiff and one J. Brother of the Defendant the said Plaintiff and J. put themselves to the award of one Copston and the Defendant was bound by Bond to the Plaintiff that his brother should perform the award of the said Copston And the award was That the said J. should pay to the Plaintiff 30 l. viz. at the Feast of the Annunciation 20 l. and at Michaelmas after 10 l. and shewed that the said J. had paid the said 20 l. at the Annunciation and as to the 10 l. he pleaded That the said J. died before the said Feast of Michaelmas upon which there was a demurrer And by Wray Southcote and Gawdy Iustices the Bond is forfeit First because the sum awarded by the Arbitrament is now become a duty as if the condition of the Bond had been for the payment of it Secondly day is appointed for the payment of it 10 H. 7. 18. Thirdly the Executors cannot perform the condition But if I be bound by Bond to enfeoff the Obligee at such a day and before the said day I die my Executors shall not be charged with it for the Condition is become impossible by the Act of God for the Land is descended to the heir CXC Lodge 's Case 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Syderf Rep. 362. LOdge an Attorney of the Common-Pleas was indebted unto Booth in 34 l. payable at a day to come and Booth was indebted to Diggs in 40 l. Diggs according to the custome of London attached in the hands of Lodge 34 l. to be paid to him at the day as part of his debt of 40 l. Lodge brought a Bill of Privilege directed to the Mayor and Sheriff of London and that every person who had cause of Action against Lodge Sequatur ad Com. Legem c. Si sibi videbitur expedire c. At the retorn of which Writ Bendloes prayed a Procedendo And by Harper Iustice the privilege shall not be allowed because that this Attachment is by custome and not allowable here and if Lodge should have the privilege then is the other party without remedy And if an Attorney of this place be impleaded in London upon a Concessit solvere debit alterius he shall not have the privilege Manwood contrary For according to the Common Law Lodge owed nothing to Diggs but is his Debtor by a custome And as to the Case of Concessit solvere there the promise was to the party himself who brought the Action and he hath no other remedy but in the Case at Bar Diggs who is a stranger vexes Lodge who ows him nothing having remedy against his proper Debtor which Dyer granted and farther said That the privilege of this Court ought not to be impeached by any custome And the Prothonotaries cited a Case adjudged in the point That such a privilege was allowed in the Case of one Underhil and afterwards in the principal Case the privilege was allowed CXCI. Segar and Bainton 's Case 21 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 3 Len. 74. IN an Action of Trespass the Case was That King Hen. 8. an 27. of his reign gave the Manor of D. to Sir Edw. Bainton Knight and to the heirs males of his body Sir Edw. Bainton had issue Andrew his eldest son and the now Defendant his younger son and died Andrew Bainton covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore That the said Andrew Bainton would assure the said Manor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the use of the said Lord and his heirs and the said Lord in recompense thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Bainton in tail

Case 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dom. Capital Feod c. Reddend 10 s. Rent here because that the Tenure was reserved Capital Dom. feodi illius this Rent reserved is not parcell of the Tenure but a Rent in gross King Edward the sixth gave certain Lands to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's Fee Reddend inde 6 l. per ann Cranmer made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail the remainder to the right heirs of Cranmer who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder in Fee escheated to the King by which the Seignory is gone But it was adjudged that notwithstanding that escheat the Rent did remain for the Rent was not parcel of the Seignory Now this Rent being a thing newly created and not parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy in 1 H. 4. nor ever descended from any Ancestor of the King being Duke of Lancaster shall be accounted to be in the King in the right of his Crown and so cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal See the said Statute of 1 H. 4. and the King cannot enlarge the said Dutchy nor the possessions thereof beyond the possessions which were of the Dutchy at the time of the making of the said Acts As if J. S. seised in Fee is impleaded and he saith that he holds the Lands in demand for life the remainder to the King in the right of his said Dutchy now the said remainder is vested in the King not in the right of the said Dutchy but in the right of his Crown The Villain of the King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster purchaseth Lands the King seizeth he shall be seised thereof in the right of his Crown and not of the Dutchy The King grants Common out of certain Lands parcel of his said Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the said Lands to another the Grantee of the Common dieth without heir so as the Common escheats to him now he shall have the Common in the right of the Crown and not of the Dutchy so although it is said That the Rent shall follow the nature of the Land out of which c. yet the same is but to some intents and not to every intent See the Statute of 2 and 3 Phil. Ma. cap. 20. by which it is enacted That all the Lands which have been granted or severed from the Dutchy to any person or persons and after such grant have come or reverted to the King in possession reversion or remainder or otherwise by attainder escheat forfeiture c. shall for ever be united to the said Dutchy and shall be adjudged and esteemed as part and member of the same which proves that such Lands were not holden of the King as Duke of Lancaster but as King for if they had been holden of the Dutchy upon the escheat they should be parcel of the Dutchy again without help of that Statute See the special Reservation Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet c. Now when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it was in the Election of the Ter-tenant to whom he would pay the Rent if it had been in the Case of a common person but it is otherwise in the Case of the King As if A. holdeth of two several Lords by owel Feoffment and dieth his heir within age the Lord which first gets the Ward shall have him but in the Case of the King it is otherwise Plowden The King is not bound by the Statute of West 3. But in this Case in the making of this Feoffment with this Tenend Reddend the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy for all grants of the King savour of the person of the King and then his Prerogative wrapt in the person shall guide the same and see the Statute of West 3. extends to all who make Feoffments Tenend de Feoffatoribus but the King is not Tenant to any one And if the King be seised of an Advowson in the right of his Dutchy and the same becomes void and the King presents to the same he may repeal his presentation and he vouched divers precedents of Patents made to many great Lords to hold of the Dutchy and also to hold of others And the King by his Dutchy-seal may give Lands in Mortmain And he argued That this Rent although newly created yet in so much as it came and accrued in respect of the Land which was parcell of the Dutchy it should be accounted also parcel of the Dutchy as if before the Statute of West 3. A. seised of Lands in Fee of the part of his father makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services c. the same Seignory shall go to the heirs of the part of the father in lieu of which the Seignory is come Tenant in tail after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the said Act rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be intended heirs in tail It was adjourned CXCVIII. Forster and Walker 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione firmae by Foster against Walker the Case was 3 Cro. 106. Shepherd's Touch-ston● of Conve●…ances 416. That Richard Meager was seised of a house in London and 6 E. 6. he devised the same to his Wife for life the remainder to John his son in tail the remainder to the Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors in London and died the Wife entred and died John died The Master Wardens and Commonalty of the Cordwaynors entred and leased the Plaintiff upon whom the heir general of the Devisor did enter The onely question was inasmuch as the Cordwaynors of London are incorporated by the name of Master and Wardens and Commonalty of Cordwaynors If this devise made to them by the name of Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors of London be good or not It was argued by Daniel that the Devise by the manner was good enough and he insisted much upon the favour which the Law gives to Wills and to Legatees in the Devises and construction of them even in Devises and Grants to Corporations and as to Grants to Corporations he cited the Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Decanus Capitulum sanctae individuae Trinit and they make a Lease leaving out these words sanctae individuae and yet held the Lease was good notwithstanding that for the words left out are not words of substance of the name but for the beauty and ornament of it But in the Case of Devise if the name be mistaken in matter of substance yet if upon the Devise the intent of the Devisor sufficiently appeareth it is good enough for the intent of the Devisor shall guide the Devise and

relief of the poor resident in the Parish where the offence was committed and therefore it ought to appear upon the Indictment of what Parish the party Indicted is or otherwise Non potest constare Curiae to which Parish the third part of the Penalty doth belong so that full execution may be made according to the Statute But the whole Court was clear of opinion That the Indictment is good enough notwithstanding that Exception for all the penalty which accrues by the said Statute belongs first to the Queen viz. a third part thereof to her own use another third part for the relief ut supra to be delivered by Warrant by the Officers of the Receipt of the Exchequer And afterwards the Inhabitants of the Parish in which the offence was committed are to sue in the Exchequer for their third part of the penalty and surmise in their Bill that the offence was committed within their Parish and Rule was entred accordingly CCV Gerrard 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 98. GErrard Master of the Rolls presented Chatterton Bishop of Chester to the Church of Bangor to which Church one Chamber 's also presented his Clerk by which several presentments the said Church became Litigious The Archbishop of York being loci illius Ordinarius awarded a Jure Patronatus c. depending which the Archbishop admitted the said Bishop whereupon Chambers Libelled in the Spiritual Court against the said Bishop because the said Archbishop Dicto Episcopo plus aequo favore admisit dictum Episcopum pendente the Jure Patronatus in which case by the Law of the Church the admittance is void For Lite pendente nihil movetur and now came the said Bishop and prayed upon that matter a Prohibition which was granted because that the right of the Patronage came in debate after which came the said Chambers and prayed a consultation because he did not meddle with the right of the Patronage but onely with the tortious admittance To which it was said by the Court That the awarding of the Jure Patronatus is not a thing of necessity but at the will of the Ordinary and so for his better instruction but if he will at his peril take notice of the right of the Patronage he may admit which of them he will without a Jure Patronatus awarded And it may be in this Case that after the Jure Patronatus awarded and before any Verdict given upon it the Archbishop was satisfied of the right of the now Plaintiff in the Prohibition to the Patronage and thereupon admitted the Clerk c. and if he was deceived to subject himself unto a Quare Impedit whereof he had discharged himself if he had attended the Verdict in the Jure Patronatus and by the clear opinion of the Court the Consultation was denyed CCVI. Barker and Taylor 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was That a woman Tenant in tail within the Statute of 11 H. 7. accepted of a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine rendred back the lands to the Conusor for 100 years It was moved If this conveyance and disposition be within the penalty of the said Statute for the Statute speaks of Discontinuances c. And it was the clear opinion of the whole Court That it is within the Statute for by such practice the meaning of the Statute might be defeated 3 Co. 51. and if such a render for 100 years should be good by the same reason it might be for 1000 years which is like mischievous and as dangerous unto him in the reddition as a Discontinuance And by Rhodes Iustice It hath been adjudged That if a woman who hath Title of Dower before that she be endowed will enter and levy a Fine that the same is within the said Statute and yet she is not Tenant in Dower See Dyer 5. Ma. 140. Penycock's Case and see now 36 Eliz. Sir George Brown's Case adjudged accordingly CCVII. Morris and Webber 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae by George Morris against Webber alias Turnor 5 Co. 98. the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease by Humphrey Bury c. And upon Not guilty the Iury found this special matter That Hen. Bury was seised Et cepit in uxorem quandam Willmottam Gifford 4 Mariae And afterwards 1 Eliz. she Libelled in the Spiritual Court against the said Henry in causa divortii de nullitate matrimonii and found upon the Libel In haec verba and all the sentence upon it viz. In Dei Nomine Amen Per depositiones examinationes Medicorum aliorum fide dignorum honestarum expertarum matronarum comperimus invenimus Quod praedict Henr. Willmotta legit aetatis plenae pubert exist per duos annos integros simul cohabitaverunt in uno lecto concubuerunt licet dict Willmotta operam liberis dare cupierit nunquam tamen per carnalem copulam cum dicto Henrico conjungi aut ab illo cognosci potuit aut potest idque propter vitium perpetuae frigiditatis naturae impotentiae generandi Quae nulla medicorum opera curari pot idque praedict Humphrid saepius confessus est se nunquam cum praedicta Willmotta tanquam virum cum uxore conjunctum fuisse aut conjungi potuisse Igitur invocato primitus Dei nomine Matrimonium praedict irritari cessari quatenuscunque de facto processit cassum irritum nullumque in Lege Juribus juris omnino carere carere debere decernimus declaramus ipsosque quatenus sunt de facto matrimonialiter ad invicem conjuncti a vinculo Matrimonii separamus c. Humphry made a Feoffment in Fee unto the use of himself for life and after to the use of the first or eldest son of the body of the said Henry in tail Willmot married Cary Henry took to wife Phillippam Mountjoy scientem Matrimonii praedict definitivae sententiae praedict durantibus ambobus Matrimoniis tam inter dict Cary Willmotta quam inter dictos Henricum Phillippam dicta Phillippa exitum habuit per dict Henricum Humphrey the Lessor upon which Lease the Plaintiff declared Humphrey died Henry entred and leased to the Plaintiff Shuttleworth Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff That this Divorce not reversed or undone by appeal or otherwise should stand in force and according to it the Law of the Land should judge See 47 E. 3. 17. Casu ultimo Five manner of Divorces are mentioned 1 Causa professionis 2 Praecontractus 3 Consanguinitatis 4 Affinitatis 5 Frigiditatis upon a Divorce Causa professionis the wife shall be endowed and the heir shall inherit but in the other not And the principal Cause is reported by the Lord Dyer 2 Eliz. 179. where Cary and Willmott levying a Fine of the lands of Willmott as husband and wife and it was moved That such Fine ought not to be

60 years and afterwards enfeoffed Oxenbridge to the use of the said Cheney and his wife for their lives with divers remainders over and it was adjudged in the Court of Wards that by the Feoffment the term was not extinct And he put the case of the Lord Paget in the King's Bench adjudged A Feoffment was made unto the use of the Feoffor for life the remainder to him whom the Feoffor should name at his death in Fee the Feoffor and the Feoffees for good consideration levied a Fine unto a stranger and afterwards the Feoffor named one and died the party named by the Feoffor shall have the land notwithstanding the Fine Beamount The contingent use here is utterly destroyed by the Feoffment aforesaid and it appeareth by the preamble of the Act of 27 H. 8. That the makers of the Act did not favour Vses but their intent was utterly to extirpate Vses And if contingent Vses which are not nor cannot be excused by the Statute should stand in force The mischief would be That no purchasor should be secured and safe in his purchase but should always be in danger of a new born Vse not known before and he grounded his farther argument upon the reason of Manwood and Dyer Where a man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife which shall be and afterwards he and the Feoffees and those in remainder make a Feoffment to divers new Feoffees and to new Vses and afterwards he takes another Wife and dieth It was the opinion of the said two Iudges That by that Feoffment ut supra the contingent Vses are destroyed For when the Estate which the Feoffees accept is taken away which was the root and foundation of the Vses which are the branches and fruit of the body of the said Tree it necessarily followeth That they be also taken away and because the Feoffees by their Livery are barred to enter to recontinue the Estate which should yield such Vses they also are gone and extinguished Yelverton was of opinion that notwithstanding the said Feoffment that the Vse should rise in his due time according to the limitation of it It was adjourned CCXIX. The Lord North 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Queen granted unto the Lord North and his heirs the Fines pro licentia concordandi and one would not pay him the Fine for which cause the Lord North brought an Action upon the Case against him and declared upon Indebitatus assumpsit c. Godfrey moved this matter to the Court to know their opinion if such Action would lie for the matter or not Fenner For a Fine in a Court-Baron or Court-Leet debt lieth but as he conceived 1 Leon. 249 250. 3 Len. 56. 234. here this Action doth not lie for it is a real Fine and there is no contract betwixt the parties but the same is given by the Law and some were of opinion that debt lieth for a relief for there is a contract by Fealty Gawdy conceived That the Action doth well lie for it is not any casual profit and therefore debt lieth for it although it be an inheritance And see Dyer 28 H. 8. 24. The heir shall have an Action of Debt upon a Nomine poenae reserved by his Ancestour Wray I do not see that he hath any other remedy and therefore I am of opinion that this Action will lie CCXX Mrs. Paschall 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer MIstress Paschall was bound with sureties for her appearance before the high Commissioners that she should not depart without licence under the hands of three of them and she pleaded the general Pardon at the last Parliament in which there is an Exception of all Bonds and Recognizances except onely such Bonds and Recognizances as are for appearance And Atkinson argued That she ought to be discharged by the Exception for although the departure without licence be not specially named yet it is within the sense for the not departure without licence is no other thing than to continue her appearance Popham contrary For The Non departure without licence was set down in the Condition to this purpose That she should not go into the Countrey to be corrupted there or to corrupt other and receive Seminaries c. therefore it is another thing than appearance Between Hore and Hare the Case was One was bound to make his appearance at such a day and in the mean time thrice every Month to repair unto such a Preacher to be better informed in Religion although the Non appearance was pardoned yet the other point i. the resorting to the Preacher is to be answered Atkinson There the resorting to the Preacher is collateral and a several point from the appearance But in the Case at Bar the not departure is pursuant to the appearance And the opinion of all the Barons was That the pardon did not extend to the same CCXXI Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Len. 205. AN Action was brought against an Executor who pleaded That he refused the Executorship upon which the parties were at issue The Bishop certified Quod non recusavit whereas in truth he had refused before the Commissary of the Bishop Fenner Serjeant moved to have the advice of the Court upon this matter and argued That the Court ought to write to the Commissary which was denied by the Court for he is not the Officer to this Court as to that purpose but the Bishop himself is our Officer and the party cannot have an Averment against the Certificate of the Bishop no more than against the Retorn of the Sheriff And the Court also held That the onely remedy for the Defendant was by an Action upon the Case against the Bishop for his false Certificate But it was moved That the issue joined upon the refusal ought to be tried by the Countrey and not by the Certificate of the Bishop and such was the opinion of Windham and Walmsley Periam Where the issue is that the Executor refused before such a day or after there the issue shall be tried by the Countrey contrary Where the issue is upon the refusal generally for the refusal is before him as Iudge as also resignation is CCXXII Giles 's Case Mich. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A Writ of Error was brought in the King's-Bench to reverse a Iudgment given in an Action upon the Case in the Court of Common-Pleas where the Writ brought against the Defendant there in that Case was Quare exaltavit stagnum per quod pratum of the Plaintiff was inundatum The Defendant in the Action there pleaded Not guilty and the Iury found That the Defendant Erexit stagnum and they said That if the Court shall judge That Erectio and Exaltatio be all one then they find that the Defendant is guilty and afterwards Iudgment was given in the said Court of Common-Pleas for the Plaintiff Whereupon this Writ of Error is brought And Glanvile Serjeant who

Statute is recited which needs not and therefore being misrecited made the Indictment insufficient but here the Statute is well recited and therefore as unto that matter the Indictment is sufficient As to the second exception the Iustices were of opinion That the Indictment in that respect Antea 184. was too general and incertain The third exception was not allowed for the latter words i. e. in Putney do refer to the whole and extend as well unto the house as unto the lands But as to these words Lands to the said house belonging See the Case between Partridge and Croker 7 E. 6. 85. where it is good enough because that the number of the acres is set incertain And it was holden by the Court That a Schoolmaster is a good addition for it is a mystery as a Scrivener and afterward the Indictment for the house onely was holden good CCXXXIII Gray a Bencher of the Temple 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Chancery GRay a Bencher of the Temple's Case was this It was found by Office That one H. was seised in Fee of certain lands called Drayners and Codred alias Codreth in the County of Hertford in his Demesne as of Fee and thereof enfeoffed certain persons unto the use of himself and Anne Capel with whom he afterwards intermarried and of the heirs of their two bodies begotten and of such Estate died seised and farther it was found that the said H. was also seised of other Lands in Barmesden in his Demesne as of Fee and therefore died seised and now came Gray into the Chancery and shewed that the said H. was seised of the said Land called Drayners in his Demesne as of Fee and thereof enfeoffed certain persons unto the use of himself and the said Anne Capel for the term of their lives and afterwards by his Indenture dated the 23. of Decemb. and enrolled bargained and sold the Reversion thereof to the said Gray c. by force whereof c. Absque hoc that he was seised in tail and absque hoc that he thereof died seised in his Demesne as of Fee-tail as it is found by the said Office and for the Land in Barmesden he said that the Lady Judde was seised thereof for the term of her life the Reversion to the said H. in Fee who granted to him the said Reversion in Fee c. absque hoc that he died seised in his Demesne as of Fee c. And upon that the Queen's Attorney joined issue and the Venire facias issued De Cottred Barmesden and the Iury found That H. did not make the Feoffment to the use of himself and Anne his Wife in tail and farther found for Gray in all c. And it was objected here That the same is not a good and lawfull trial For the Land is alledged to be in Codrett and the Venire facias is of Codred c. And although the Venire facias be well awarded as unto Barmesden yet being naught in part it is naught in all which was granted by the whole Court And then a new Venire facias shall issue forth for the whole Another Objection was because he pleads that the Lady Judde was seised of that Land for the term of her life in which Case Gray who is in Reversion ought not to be admitted to this Traverse because that Tenant for life for any thing that is pleaded to the contrary is yet alive and it is clear that none shall be put to his Traverse but the party grieved and here he in the Reversion upon an Estate for life cannot be restored to the possession and by consequence shall not have Traverse See for that 6 H. 7. 15. and 37. Ass 11. c. 2. The seisin in tail ought to be traversed and not the descent or dying seised for if they were seised and disseised and so died the Queen shall have the Ward Coke contrary For Codred and Cottered idem sonant c. And although that it be found by Office that H. was seised of Lands in Codred alias Codreth yet the Defendant supplies the said matter for he saith thus as unto the Land in Codred praedicta which words import that the said Land was known by the one name or the other for this word praedicta is as an Averment which see 33 H. 8. Br. Averm 42. And so here this word praedicta is an Averment that Cottered and Codred are one And if so then the Venire facias is well awarded The Statute of 18 H. 6. gives Traverse to those who find themselves grieved by such Offices or which are put out of their Lands or Tenements and we are within the words of it for upon the whole matter we are out of possession as it was ruled in the Case of one Stukely in the Court of Wards the last Term. If it be found by Office That A. died seised of my Manor and that he held the said Manor of the Queen Now I am out of possession and for that cause the bargain and sale of Dorrel to Sir Francis Walsingham was holden void by the whole Court And 4 H. 6. 12. Traverse is given in lieu of Petition but he in the reversion may have Petition therefore he shall be also admitted to Traverse and this Case may be resembled to the Case of 2 E. 3. 23. where a Praecipe was brought against Tenant for life and he in the Reversion for life prayed to be received It was said by Thorp That is not within the Case of the Statute for he is Tenant onely in the Remainder and it is possible that neither shall have any thing and the Statute speaks onely of Reversion and yet it was awarded That he should be received otherwise great prejudice would follow And here we are at prejudice for now by reason of this Office we cannot have our Action of Waste Also here we need not to Traverse the dying seised in tail but it is sufficient to Traverse the gift in tail for if there be not a gift in tail it is not possible that he should die seised in tail which see 2 E. 4. 15. by Laicon Gawdy Iustice conceived that the trial is not good for the Venire facias is not from the place where the Land is and this word praedicta doth not amount to an Averment and the Case cited before is but the opinion of Brook. Wray said That as to the first exception that it was good enough for both the names idem sonant and as to the Office by that the Queen hath gained possession so as he who traverseth cannot have an Action of Waste and so he is prejudiced by the Office c. CCXXXIV Perchall 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench PErchall was Indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 4. for drawing of his Dagger in the Church against J. S. without saying That he drawed it to the intent to stick the Plaintiff and therefore the Indictment was holden void as to the

upon the Statute of 5 R. 2. against J. and E. J. died pendant the Writ and E. pleaded in Bar and the Plaintiff did reply and conclude and so was he seised untill the said E. Simul cum dicto J. named in the Writ entred upon the Plaintiff c. But the opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here in the case at Bar Drake by his several issue which he hath joyned with the Plaintiff upon Not guilty is severed from the other five Defendants and then when they plead in Bar The Plaintiff ought to reply to them without meddling with Drake who upon his several Plea and issue joyned upon it is a stranger to them as if the said five had been the onely Defendants But if he had not replyed to Drake as if Drake had made default or had died after the Writ brought as in the case before cited of 28 E. 4. there he ought to have replyed as it is objected So in an Ejectione firmae of twenty acres The Defendant as to ten acres pleads Not guilty upon which they are at issue and the Plaintiff replies and says as to the other ten acres and so was he possessed untill by the Defendant of the said ten acres he was ejected this is good without speaking of the other ten acres upon which the general issue is joyned And the Court was ready to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff but they looked upon the Record and seeing that one issue in this Action was to be tryed between the Plaintiff and the said Drake And although the Plaintiff offered to release his damages and the issue joyned and to have Iudgment against the five Defendants who had demurred Vid. antea 41. yet the Court was clear of opinion that no Iudgment should be given upon the said Demurrer untill the said issue was tryed for the Action is an Ejectione firmae in which Case the possession of the land is to be recovered and it may be for any thing that appeareth That Drake who hath pleaded the general issue hath Title to the land c. But if this Action had been an Action of Trespass there in such case Ut supra upon release of damages and the issue joyned the Plaintiff should have Iudgment presently CCLI French 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IT was presented before the Coroner That John French was Felo de se and that certain goods of the said John French were in the possession of J. S. and this presentment was certified into the King's Bench upon which Process issued forth against the said J. S. and continued untill he was Outlawed And now came J. S. and cast in his Writ of Error to reverse the said Outlawry and assigned for Error because that in the presentment upon which he was Outlawed there is not any addition given to the said J. S. And at the first it was doubted If upon that presentment Process of Outlawry did lye and Ive one of the chief Clerks of the Crown-Office said to the Court That such Process in such case did lye and that he could shew five hundred precedents to that purpose Another matter was moved upon the Statute of 1 H. 5. 5. of Additions If this Outlawry by the Statute aforesaid ought to be reversed by default of Addition for as much as the said Statute speaks onely of Outlawries upon original Writs in personal Actions Appeals and Indictments But it was agreed by the whole Court That as to this purpose the presentment should be accounted in Law as an Indictment and afterwards the Outlawry against French was reversed CCLII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. A Lease for thirty years was made by Husband and Wife if they so long should live and if they die c. That the land should remain to A. their son during the term aforesaid And it was holden by Wray Iustice That if the Husband and Wife do die within the term that the son should have the land De novo for thirty years But Gawdy was of opinion that he shall have it for so many years which after their death should be expired CCLIII Cooper 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectionefirmae The Case was That the Husband and Wife had right to enter into certain lands in the right of the wife and a Deed of Lease for years is written in the name of the Husband and Wife to one A. for to try the Title and also a Letter of Attorney to B. to enter into the land and to deliver the said Deed of Lease to the said A. in the name of the Husband and Wife 3 Cro. 118. 2 Cro. 617. Yel and as well the Letter of Attorney as the said Deed of Lease are sealed by the said Husband and Wife with their seals and entry and delivery is made accordingly the said A. enters and upon Ejectment brings an Ejectione firmae and the whole matter aforesaid was found by special Verdict and the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover for the special matter found by Verdict i. e. the Deed of Lease and the Letter of Attorney do maintain the Declaration well enough and here is a Lease made by Husband and Wife according to that the Plaintiff hath declared CCLIV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of the Plaintiff's Close Owen 114. 1 Cro. 876. 2 Cro. 195. 229. Godb. 123. and killing of eighteen Conies there the Defendant as to all the Trespass but to the killing of the Conies pleaded Not guilty and as to the killing of the said Conies He said that the place Where is a Heath in which he hath common of pasture and that he found the Conies eating the grass there and he killed them and carried them away as it was lawfull for him to do Cowper Although Conies be Ferae naturae yet when they are in in-grounds they are reduced to such a property that if they be killed or carried away I shall have an Action of trespass Vid. 43 E. 3. 24. And if a Deer be hunted by the Plaintiff in a Forest and afterwards in hunting it be driven out of the Forest and the Forrester doth follow the chase and the Plaintiff kill the Deer in his own grounds yet the Forrester may enter into the land of the Plaintiff and re-take the Deer 12 H. 8. 9. And although the Defendant hath common in the soil yet he cannot meddle with the wood there nor with the land nor with the grass otherwise than with the feeding of his cattel for he hath but a faint interest And if he who hath the Freehold in the land bringeth an Action of trespass against such a commoner for entring into his land and the Defendant plead Not guilty he cannot give in evidence that he hath common there And it hath been late adjudged That where commoners prescribe Godb. 123. That the Lord hath used to put in

in which was parcel demised and demiseable according to the custome of the said Manor by Copy in Fee whereof Langley was a Copiholder in Fee c. and the said Earl so seised enfeoffed divers persons of the said Manor unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Lord Lumley and Elizabeth his wife daughter of the said Earl and the heirs of their two bodies begotten who made a Lease of the said Customary lands by Indenture unto the Plaintiff for 100 years and the question was If by this Lease the lands be so severed from the Manor that the Copihold is extinct Walmesly took exception to the pleading for that Langley pleads That the custome within the Manor is That if any Copiholder seised of Customary lands of the said Manor dieth thereof seised having many sons That the youngest son shall inherit and he sheweth That the Lord of the said Manor granted to his father and his mother the said customary lands by Copy to have to his said father and mother and the heirs of his father c. And that his father died and that his mother survived him and died and he as youngest son according to the custome entred and he said That this custome set forth by the Defendant doth not maintain his entry For the custome intendeth but a general and immediate descent upon a Copy made unto a man and to his heirs but such is not the descent here for the wife surviveth during whose life the heir cannot enter nor is there here such Estate in the father of the Defendant unto whom the custome set forth in the Avowry can extend For the custome is alledged Where a Copyholder hath a Copyhold Estate to him and his heirs And here the Title of the Defendant is That a customary Estate was granted to the father and the mother and the heirs of the father so as this Estate is not within the Letter of the custome And to that purpose he cited the Case of Sir John Savage Sir John Savage's Case ante 109. late adjudged Where one entitled himself to a Copihold in this manner That within the Manor there is such a custome that if one taketh to wife any customary Tenant of the said Manor in Fee and hath issue by her he if he over-live such wife should be Tenant by the Curtesie and the Case in truth was That he married a woman who at the time of the marriage had not any Copihold but afterwards during the coverture a Copihold descended to her In that Case it was holden That no Tenancy by the Curtesie did accrue by that custome which did not extend but where the wife is a Copiholder at the marriage and a custome shall be in construction taken strictly and shall not be extended beyond the words of it And as to the matter in Law he said That by this Lease the custome was gone and then by consequence the customary Tenancy as to that land is determined for the Estate of the Copiholder is Secundum consuetudinem Manerii ad voluntatem Dom. And now by the Lease Langley cannot hold Secundum consuetudinem Manerii for now the services reserved upon the Copy and the advantages of Waste and other forfeitures are extinct so that if notwithstanding the Lease the customary interest should endure then such a Copiholder should hold this land discharged of all services c. in better Estate than any Freeholder at the Common Law and because the services in Law are discharge and cannot be recovered for that cause the customary interest is determined For the Case is 7 E. 4. 19. by Danby That the Copiholder shall have remedy against his Lord if he put him out for he payes a Fine when he enters but here during this Lease no Fine can be paid upon any descent c. and the Fine is the cause for which the Copiholder shall maintain his possession against the Lord But here no descent or surrender can be presented for there is not any Tenant who can do it See 21 E. 4. 80. by Brian As long as the Copiholder payeth unto the Lord the customs and services If the Lord putteth him out he shall have an Action of Trespass 42 E. 3. 25. If the Copiholder will not do his services the Lord shall seize the lands Dyer 100. 1 Cro. 35. And he resembled this Case to the case where the King grants lands probis hominibus de D. the same is a good Grant and that onely in respect of the Rent and for the reason of that it is a good Corporation But if the King releaseth the Rent the Corporation is dissolved and the Grant is become void Fenner Serjeant contrary and he said That by this Lease being the act of the Lord himself the customary interest is not determined c. And the whole Court was of clear opinion with Fenner That the Copihold did remain for otherwise by such practices of the Lords all the Copiholders in England might be defeated and if any prejudice be grown to the Lord by this act it is of his own doing and against his own act he shall not be relieved And by Periam Iustice The Lord by his act i. e. the making of the Lease hath destroyed his Seignory and lost the services as to this land And Windham Iustice said That the Lord himself had destroyed the custome as to the services but not as to the customary interest of the Tenant but the Lord Anderson was of opinion That the Rents and services do remain and if the Copiholder after such Lease committeth Waste that it is a forfeiture to the Lord and that will fall in evidence upon a trial although such Waste cannot be found by an ordinary presentment and the same Law which alloweth the Copiholder his Copihold interest against this Lease will allow unto the Lord his Rents and services and he said That the Lord shall have the Rents and services and not the Lessee Quod mirum against his own Lease See 33 Eliz. between Murrel and Smith now reported by the Lord Coke in his 4 Report fol. 20. CCLVIII. Russel and Broker 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RUssel brought Trespass against Broker 3 Len. 218. for cutting down of four Oakes The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. and that he is seised of a Messuage in D. And that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consuerunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad libitum suum capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in quolibet tempore anni but in fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is within the Forrest of c. and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de boscis c. per liberationem Forrestarii vel ejus Deputati prout boscus pati potest non ad exigentiam

as taken for Rent arrere yet he cannot be said his Bailiff at the time of the distress which was granted by Rhodes Periam and Windham and as to that which hath been objected That if this traverse be allowed the meaning of the party shall be drawn in question i. e. the meaning of him who took the cattel the same is not any mischief for so it is in other cases as in the case of Recaption See 9 H. 6. 1. 45 E. 3 4. CCLXXV Humphreston 's Case Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. More 103. 1 Anders 40. Dyer 337. Owen 64. Sty 293. IN an Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That W. Humphreston seised of the Manor of Humphreston suffered a common Recovery to be had thereof by Kinnersley and Fowk in the Writ of Entry in the Post to the intent that they should make an Estate to the said W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife for their lives the remainder Seniori puero dicti W. and to the heirs of the body dicti senioris pueri legitime procreat the remainder to the heirs of the body of the said W. Humphreston with divers remainders over And afterwards the Recoverers in December following by Indenture made an Estate accordingly and made Livery to W. Humphreston and his wife and afterwards in November 2 E. 6. by Indenture between the said W. Humphreston of the one party and Kinnersley on the other part The said W. Humphreston did covenant with the said Kinnersley to do all such lawfull and reasonable things for to assure the said lands unto the use of the said W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of the eldest child of the body of the said W. Humphreston lawfully begotten and to the heirs of the body of the said eldest child of the body of the said W. Humphreston and after to divers other uses over and afterwards Ter. Pasch 2 E. 6. W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife levyed a Fine of the said land to C. and B. in Fee to the use of the said Indenture Elionar died W. Humphreston married another wife and had issue a daughter named Frances and afterwards had issue a son named William and died William the son being of the age of six years entred into the lands and leased the same to the Plaintiff for years who being ejected by the Defendant brought the Ejectione firmae And this special Verdict And the points moved upon it were argued by Atkins Phetiplace Fenner Fleetwood Plowden and Bromley and afterwards this Case was argued by the Iustices And Gawdy puisne Iustice conceived That Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff First he conceived that this Lease for years made by the Infant without Deed and without Rent reserved is not void so as every stranger shall take advantage of it but onely voidable for an Infant may make a Bond and a Contract for his commodity and profit and the same shall bind him as for his meat and drink apparel c. But if upon such Lease he had reserved a small Rent as one peny where the land was worth 100 l. per ann such a Lease had been void and in our Case this Lease was made upon the land and was made for to try the title to it which is a good consideration and to the profit of the Infant and for his advancement and then the Lease is not void It hath been objected That here the Recovery being suffered to the intent that the Recoverers should make an Estate ut supra c. that the use shall rise presently upon the Recovery to him who suffered the Recovery and then the Recoverers could not make Livery unto him he held strongly That the use and the possession should be adjudged in the Recoverers untill they made the Estates c. for they otherwise could not make the Estates c. 2 Roll 789. and these words To the intent shall be construed that they shall have the lands untill they made the Estates c. And he held that the remainder limited Seniori puero where there is not any in rerum natura is good enough as a remainder limited to him who shall first come to Pauls And he conceived that the son should take this remainder and not the daughter and he conceived that the Estate tail here was not executed i. e. the second intail Divers Authors of Grammer have been produced to prove that Puer may be taken both ways Tam puer quam puella Desporterius Calapine Melancthon and the Grammer allowed but I conceive that Puer is a word proper for a Boy and Puella for a Maid and where we have proper words we ought not to iudge but according to them and because the word is doubtfull we ought to consider the cause upon the circumstances and therefore it is to be intended that W. Humphreston had a greater desire that his son should have his Inheritance than his daughter if there be not some special matter to prove that the intent of the father was for his daughter Southcote Iustice agreed with Gawdy in the first point and also that the Recoverers have convenient time to make the Estates and that they are to make the same without request for the benefit of the wife who is a stranger to it and is to have the lands for her ioynture and he cited the Case of the Abbat of York 44 E. 3. 8. and 9. where the difference is taken between a Feoffment made upon condition to re-enfeoff the Feoffor or to enfeoff a stranger And here in our Case the Feoffment is made in convenient time and here is sufficient consideration That the Recoverers shall be seised to their own uses untill c. And these words Roll supra Roll 407. Ea intentione shall be taken for a Condition And also that this remainder limited Seniori puero is good notwithstanding that there be not any Senior puer alive at the time And as to the word puer he held that it did extend to both Sexes indifferently and because it is doubtfull what Sex the father intended we are to construe the same upon the circumstances which appear upon the parts of the Indentures and here it appeareth upon the Indenture that he hath explained his mind scil Eldest child be it Male or Female As if I have two sons named J. and I devise my lands or limit a remainder to J. my son the Law shall construe this Devise to extend to my younger son for without devise or limitation my eldest son should have it But if J. S. hath two sons known by the names of A. and I Devise lands to A. son of J.S. there I ought to explain my meaning openly And he conceived That the Estate tail is executed defeasiable in W. Humphreston upon issue afterwards had and that the daughter should have the lands and not the son and if the Fine destroy the remainder in abeyance limited

to the eldest child then the said eldest child shall have it de novo by the later conveyance And as to the Warranty of the Fine because the possession of the Conusees is removed by the Statute of 27 H. 8. to the daughter she shall not have the benefit of the Warranty as to vouch but she shall Rebutt as 22 Ass 37. 69. Where a Feoffment in Fee is made to my Villein with Warranty and before that the Feoffor dieth I enter upon my Villein so as the Warranty upon the death of the Warrantor is not attached upon the possession of my Villein I shall not have advantage of that Warranty A Disseisor makes a Feoffment in Fee upon Condition the Disseisee re-leaseth the Feoffee with Warranty the Disseisor entreth for the condition broken now the Disseisor shall Rebutt by that Warranty but not vouch And here in our Case the Fine is a discontinuance so as the son is put to his Action if he had right and then the Warranty shall bind him but contrary if his entry be lawfull And as to the Lease made by the Infant he conceived that it being made without Rent it was meerly void for it was without consideration Wray chief Iustice As to the first point he was of opinion That the Recoverers shall be seised to their own use untill they make the Estate for that was the use implied for all uses are directed and ruled by the intent implied or expressed of him to whom the land is and his intent was that such Estates should be made and to such purpose the Recovery was suffered As if I enfeoff A. unto the use of B. for his life there it is implied That B. shall be seised of the Fee to my use I covenant That J. S. shall take the profits of my lands for his life this is a good use of the lands for his life and he held that the Recoverors should be seised to their own use untill c. And the Recoverers ought to make the Estates within convenient time or otherwise the use should be revested again in him who suffered the Recovery and here the Estate was made within convenient time And he said That in every Case where a remainder is limited in abeyance to one by a proper name the same is not good but by a general name it is good enough if the party be in esse when the remainder falls as a remainder limited upon an Estate for life unto the first son or daughter of J. S. where J. S. at the time hath not any son or daughter the same is good if such person shall be in esse at the time of the death of the Tenant for life 17 E. 3. A remainder limited Filio primo genito c. and 3 E. 3. Fitz. Tail. 8. Land given to J. S. Et uxori quam primo matrimonio duxerit in uxorem and afterwards he taketh a wife she shall take by the same Conveyance And as to the Warranty This Fine with Warranty was levyed to C. and B. unto the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the eldest child c. and he intended That the daughter should not have the benefit of this Warranty for by the Statute the possession is removed and transferred in the Post before the Warranty could attach and therefore the same shall not bind the son neither by Voucher nor by Rebutter But Tenant by the Curtesie shall have benefit of the Warranty for although he be in the Post yet he continueth the Estate which was made to the wife And as to the point in question we ought to consider that the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Vses is That Cestuy que use shall have the lands in such plight as he had the use which was without Warranty and therefore it shall be transferred into possession without Warranty As to the Lease made by the Infant without rent profit or other recompence he conceived the same to be utterly void as if he grant a Rent or an Advowson he may say that he did not grant c. for the thing included in the Deed doth not pass although he delivereth the Deed of Grant with his own hand Two ioynt-tenants within age one makes a Lease of years and dieth the other shall avoid it for the Lease is utterly void of which every stranger may take advantage but of acts voidable it is otherwise As two Infants joynt-tenants the one Leaseth for life and makes Livery in person and dieth the other shall not avoid it Two joynt-tenants the one maketh a Feoffment upon condition and dieth the other shall not take benefit of the condition But here the Lease is meerly void of which every stranger shall take advantage and therefore upon this point the Plaintiff shall be barred And also he was of opinion That this remainder in abeyance limited Seniori puero was not destroyed by the Fine for it is in the consideration of the Law and so preserved by the Law and therefore a descent in the time of vacation of an Abbat shall not bind the successor and so where the party is beyond the seas for such persons and their estates the Law privilegeth and preserveth So a remainder limited to the right heirs of J. S. And where the King seiseth by reason of a Ward and during such seisin of the King a descent is cast the same shall not bind him who hath right for he could not enter upon the possession of the King and by the Statute of 32 H. 8. A Recovery had against Tenant for life the remainder unto the right heirs of J. S. who is alive at the time of the Recovery is not helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For the words of the Statute are To whom the reversion or remainder shall then appertain See 11 R. 2. Fitz. Detin 46. and so he concluded because that this remainder is in the custody of the Law and not in esse it is privileged and preserved and not destroyed by the Fine and upon issue had the remainder shall be executed notwithstanding the said act done by the father and without any entry to be made by the Conusees to raise the use for the remainder limited Seniori puero neither was nor could be discontinued As to the principal point of the Case viz. How these words Seniori puero shall be expounded although divers authorities have been cited out of Latine Authours That this word puer shall be taken for the Male or Female yet I conceive That more commonly it shall be taken for the Male than for the Female and we ought to judge according to the intent of the parties and not according to the strict signification of the word in Latine especially where it is doubtfull how it shall be expounded 9 H. 7. 16. A. was bound in a Bond upon condition to pay decem libras auri puri although there be not any such phrase in Latine yet because it appeareth so to be the

Legacies c. did promise to pay to the Plaintiff 400 l. at four several days The first day of payment incurred and no money was paid whereupon the Plaintiff brought the Action the Defendant pleaded That he made no such promise and it was found for the Plaintiff and damages were assessed for the default of payment at the first day and that was moved in arrest of Iudgment because the Assumpsit was intire and the Plaintiff ought to have forborn his suit until all the days of payment were past and then to have one entire Action for the whole but the opinion of the whole Court was against that for they said It is not like unto a Debt upon a Contract or a Bill where the debt is to be paid at several days for here no debt is to be recovered but onely damages for the debt and this default of payment is a wrong and therefore the Action will well lie and so it was adjudged CCLXXX Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A. Devised that his lands should descend to his son but he willed 1 Cro. 252. Hob. 285. Dyer 251. a. Dy. 210. a. 3 Len. 9. 79. Yel en Ayleff Choppins Case Vaugh. 184. That his wife should take the profits thereof until the full age of his son for his education and bringing up and died the wife married another husband and died before the full age of the son and it was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustices That the second husband should not have the profits of the lands until the full age of the son for nothing is devised to the wife but a confidence and she is as Guardian or Bailiff for to help the Infant which by her death is determined and the same confidence cannot be transferred to the husband but contrary if he had devised the profits of the land unto his wife until the age of the Infant to bring him up and educate him for that is a Devise of the land it self CCLXXXI Bawell and Lucas 's Case Pasch 16 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin by Bawell against Lucas It was agreed by all the Iustices viz. Mounson Manwood Harper and Dyer That if a man seised of a Manor leased part of the Demeans for years or for life That the reversion doth remain parcel of the Manor but such a Reversion by the Grant of the Manor doth not pass without Attornment of the Lessee And where a Manor is granted by Feoffment unto another and afterwards the Tenants attorn the services pass by the Livery and not by any Grant and although in the first Grant the Lessee doth not attorn but a long time after yet the Reversion is not severed from the Manor for the Attornment as to that intent shall have relation to the Livery to make the Reversion to pass from the time of the Grant but not to charge the Lessee with Waste and Dyer said That if a Feoffment in Fee be made of a Manor with an Advowson appendant and the Tenants do not attorn yet the Feoffee shall have the Advowson for the Advowson is appendant to the principal part of the Manor scil the Demeans and cannot be appendant to the services and Dyer said That if A. maketh a Feoffment in Fee of a Manor part of which is in Lease for years Habendum to the Feoffee and his heirs to the use of the Feoffee and his heirs upon condition that the Feoffee shall pay to the Feoffor within ten days 1000 l. and if he fail then to the use of the Feoffor for life the remainder to the use of his son in tail and the money is not paid the Lessee attorns after the ten days to the Feoffee 2 Leon. 265 266. the same is a good Attornment to raise secondary uses although that the first uses did not take effect for the condition is not annexed to the Estate of the Land but unto the use onely and the meaning was that the Feoffor should never have again the Inheritance A Feoffment is upon condition that the Feoffee shall give the Land in tail to a stranger who refuseth the gift there the Feoffor may re-enter but a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff a stranger or to grant a Rent-charge if the stranger refuseth there the Feoffor shall not re-enter for his intent was not that the Land should revert c. CCLXXXII Vavasor 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That Nicholas Ellis seised of the Manor of Woodhall leased the same to William Vavasor and his wife for the life of the wife the remainder to the right heirs of the husband The husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his wife for their lives the remainder to his right heirs the husband died the wife held in and committed waste in a Park parcel of the Manor It was moved If the Writ of Waste shall suppose that the wife holdeth in Ex dimissione Nichol. Ellis or Ex dimissione viri and the opinion of all the Iustices was That the Writ upon this matter ought to be general viz. That she holds in de haereditate J. S. haeredis c. without saying ex dimissione hujus vel illius for she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Uses and therefore the Writ shall be Ex haereditate c. And also the opinion of the Iustices was That the wife in this case is not remitted but that she is in according to the form of the Feoffment Dyer The Formedon brought against Manures rehearsed in the Writ a Will and divers Conveyances by reason of which the Writ was of exceeding length and in such cases the Writ is good yet if the Writ be general it is sufficient Note in this Case That the Plaintiff assigned the waste in destroying of Deer in the Park And Mead Serjeant said That waste cannot be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant hath destroyed all the Deer and of that opinion was Dyer Manwood If the Lessee of a Pigeon-house destroy all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is waste and if the Keeper doth destroy all the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is waste although he hath not destroyed the whole See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Wast 97. If there be a sufficient store left in a Park Pond c. it is well enough c. CCLXXXIII Mutton 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. JAne Mutton brought a Writ of Entry Sur disseisin 1 Anders 42. More 96. against Anne Mutton who pleaded That one John Mutton was seised and levyed a Fine to the use of himself and such wife and wives as the said John should after marry by what name or names they should be called for term of their lives and afterwards to the use of the same Jane now Demandant in tail the remainder over to the right heirs of the said John Mutton and afterwards the said

did well lie and he said That this Case is not like unto the Cases which have been put of the other side For there is a great difference betwixt Contracts and this Case for in Contracts upon sale the consideration and the promise and the sale ought to meet together for a Contract is derived from con and trahere which is a drawing together so as in Contracts every thing which is requisite ought to concur and meet together viz. the consideration of the one side and the sale or the promise on the other side But to maintain an Action upon an Assumpsit the same is not requisit for it is sufficient if there be a moving cause or consideration precedent for which cause or consideration the promise was made and such is the common practice at this day For in an Action upon the Case upon a promise The Declaration is laid That the Defendant for and in consider action of 20 l. to him paid posted scil that is to say at a day after super se assumpsit and that is good and yet there the consideration is said to be Executed And he said that the Case in Dyer 10 Eliz. ●72 would prove the Case For there the Case was That the Apprentize of one Hunt was arrested when his Master Hunt was in the Country and one Baker one of the neighbours of Hunt to keep the said Apprentize out of prison became his ball and paid the Debt afterwards Hunt the Master returning out of the Country thanked Baker for his neighbourly kindness to his Apprentize and promised him that he would repay him the sum which he had paid for his servant and Apprentize And afterwards upon that promise Baker brought an Action upon the Case against Hunt and it was adjudged in that Case that the Action would not lie because the consideration was precedent to the promise because it was executed and determined long before But in that Case it was holden by all the Iustices That if Hunt had requested Baker to have been surety or bail and afterwards Hunt had made the promise for the same consideration the same had been good for that the consideration did precede and was at the instance and request of the Defendant Rhodes Iustice agreed with Periam and he said That if one serve me for a year and hath nothing for his service and afterwards at the end of the year I promise him 20 l. for his good and faith full service ended he may have and maintain an Action upon the Case upon the same promise for it is made upon a good consideration but if a servant hath wages given him and his Master ex abundanti doth promise him 10 l. more after his service ended he shall not maintain an Action for that 10 l. upon the said promise for there is not any new cause or consideration preceding the promise which difference was agreed by all the Iustices and afterwards upon good and long advice and consideration had of the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and they much relied upon the Case of Hunt and Baker 10 Eliz. Dyer 272. See the Case there CCLXXXVII Higham 's Case Trin. 25 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Cro. 15. More 221. 3 Len. 130. IT was found by special Verdict That Thomas Higham was seised of 100 Acres of Lands called Jacks usually occupied with a House and that he let the said House and 40 of the said 100 Acres to J. S. for life and made his Will by which he devised the said House and all his Lands called Jacks then in the occupation of the said J. S. unto his Wife for life and that after the decease of his Wife the remainder thereof and of all his other Lands belonging to Jacks should be to R. his second son c. And by Mead The Wife shall not have by implication the residue of Jacks for she had an express Estate in the House and 40 Acres of Lands and having expressed his Will concerning the same it shall not be extended by implication and he said It had been adjudged between Glover and Tracy That if Lands be devised to one and the heirs Males of his body and if he die without heirs of his body that then the Land shall remain over that the Donee hath but an Estate in tail to the heirs Males of his body Anderson 1 Roll. 839. in the time of Sir Anthony Brown it was holden that if a man seised of two Acres of Lands deviseth one of them to his Wife for life and that J. S. shall have the other Acre after the death of his Wife that the Wife hath not any Estate in the latter Acre It was also moved What thing shall pass to his second son by this Devise and by the Lord Anderson The words usually occupied with it amount to the words the Lands let with it but these 60 Acres are not let with it therefore they shall not pass Windham contrary Although they do not pass by the words occupied with it yet they shall pass by the name of Jacks or belonging to Jacks and afterwards Anderson mutata opinine agred with him A TABLE OF THE Matters in this Book A ASsise 11 55 94 Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for Perjury 18 Abatement of Writs 18 64 Action upon the Statute of 13 E. 1. of Winchester 19 109 212 Actions of Slander 34 74 120 127 146 Assignment of a duty to the Queen for a Debt if good 79 Accompt 91 245 Appeal of Burglary 111 Award where good and where not 130 145 Action not good upon a Lease untill the whole term be expired 137 In Appeal of Robbery one shall not have restitution without fresh suit 183 Attaint of Felony 169 Appeal of Murther 195 Action against an Executor who refused the Executorship 221 Assumpsit upon an agreement to become bound in a Bond for the sum promised 223 Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. concerning Perjury 249 C COvenant 5 17 60 153 155 164 237 268 Covenant to levy a Fine 114 Custome 10 140 Costs none upon Non-suit in an Action upon an escape 12 Conversion by the Executors of the goods of the Testator 42 Challenge of Jurors 53 141 Common Recovery 61 89 169 170 275 Costs upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. not allowed 71 Copiholds and Copiholders 97 142 264 Capias ad satisfaciendum sued out and not prosecuted within a year and a day if Scire facias must be sued out 101 Condition in a Lease void if repugnant to the Demise 176 Conveyance of Lands to Feoffees with condition c. 175 Capias ad satisfaciendum sued out after a Release an Audita quaerela lies 215 Case for disturbing him of his Common 229 Case for Toll 240 Case for misusing of the Plaintiff's Horse to which the Defendant pleaded that the Horse was waved within his Manor c. 242 Case upon a promise whereas one became surety and bail to J. S. and afterwards for default of

Tho. Henage Hungate's Case the Queen leased for years unto Hungate provided that he should not do Waste Waste is done the Queen granted the Reversion to Sir Tho. Henage Office is found the Grantee entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull and that the Queen should have the mean profits from the time of the Waste done untill the time of the Grant. Some say Sir Walter Mildmay's Case that that case was not adjudged but compounded And he vouched Sir Walter Mildmay's Case The Lord Sturton held Lands of the Queen in Knights-service and was attainted of Felony by which the Lands escheated to the Queen who granted those Lands and it was holden that the Queen should have the mean profits betwixt the time of the Felony committed and the Grant. And after in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff scil the Patentee of the Queen against the Lessee who cast in a Writ of Error and by his Council prayed That the Writ of Error be not broken open untill the Iudgment be entred Manwood The Iudgment hath reference and relation unto the first day of this Term and therefore do not doubt of that CLXXIX Sted 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 259. STed of Great Melton in the County of Oxford was assessed to 7 s. for Fifteens and upon refusal to pay it the Collectors distrained the Beasts of Sted and sold them Sted brought Trespass thereupon in the King's-Bench and the Collector exhibited his Bill into this Court against Sted who shewed by his Council That the Statute of 29 Eliz. which enacted this Fifteen provideth That the said Fifteen shall be levyed of the movable Goods and Chattels and other things usual to such Fifteens and Tenths to be contributary and chargeable and shewed farther that the Cattel distrained were tempore districtionis upon the Gleab Land of a Parsonage presentative which he had in Lease which Gleab Land is not chargeable usually to Fifteens granted by the Temporalty nor the Chattels upon it But it was the Opinion of the whole Court Although that the Parson himself payeth Tenths to the King yet the Lay-Farmor shall pay Fifteens and his Cattel are distrainable for it even upon the Gleab Land of the Parsonage and therefore it was adjudged that in the principal Case the Distress and Sale were good and lawfull CLXXX The Dean and Chapter of Winsors Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 258. IN this Case it was moved If one hath a Rectory impropriate and by the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 3. is to pay an annual Rent for the same in the name of a Tenth and by that is discharged of Tenths and first fruits If he shall have the Privilege of the Exchequer for he is to pay the same sum yearly And the Barons were of Opinion that he should not for so every one who is to pay any Tenths or first fruits should draw another who sueth him into the Exchequer and so all Controversies concerning Tithes and Parsonages should be drawn hither which should be a great prejudice to the Spiritual Courts But Egerton Conier's Case Solicitor vouched a Case scil Conier's Case where the King gave a Parsonage to a Priory in Frankalmoign and the Tithes thereof being withdrawn the Prior impleaded him who withdrew his Tithes in the Exchequer and in that Case it was holden that the Prior should have the Privilege for the King is in danger to lose his Patronage or rather his Foundership if the Rectory be evicted Gent Baron The Tenant of the King in chief or he who pays first fruits or he who holds of the Queen in Fee-Farm shall not have in such respect the Privilege here Quaere CLXXXI Cony and Beveridge 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 216. IN Debt upon a Bond the Case was That the Plaintiff leased unto the Defendant certain Lands lying in the County of Cambridge rendring Rent and afterwards the Defendant became bounden to the Plaintiff in a Bond for payment of the said Rent upon which Bond the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the County of Northampton to which the Defendant pleaded payment of the Rent without shewing the place of payment and upon payment they were at issue and found for the Plaintiff by Nisi prius in the County of Northampton In Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that the issue was mis-tryed for here the payment of the Rent being pleaded without shewing the place of payment it shall be intended that the Rent was paid upon the Land which is in the County of Cambridge See 44 E. 3. 42. Anderson was of opinion that no Iudgment should be given for the cause aforesaid Rhodes and Windham contrary for it doth not appear that the issue is mis-tried because that no place of payment is pleaded and it might be for any thing is shewed that the Rent was paid in the County of Northampton CLXXXII Berry and Goodman 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae upon a special Verdict the point was Ow. 95 96. One intruded upon the possession of the Queen into Lands in Kisgrave in Suffolk and during this Intrusion the Queen granted these Lands to A. B. by her Letters Patents and the Patentee before any Entry made in the said Land granted the same over Some held that the Grant was good for the Intruder had gained nothing against the Queen and by the Grant of the Queen and the assignment over nothing accrued to him and where a man hath possession of Lands his continuance therein cannot gain to him any interest or increase his Estate without some other act done of later time If the Guardian do continue in possession after the full age of the Heir he is not a Disseisor nor hath any greater Estate in the Lands and upon the Book of 21 E. 3. 2. this Case was collected The Tenant of the King dieth his Heir within age a stranger intrudes the Heir at full age sueth his Livery out of the King's hands the Intruder dieth in possession the same descent shall not take away Entry Coke contrary The Intruder cannot be Tenant at sufferance for at first he enters by wrong and none can be Tenant at sufferance but he who comes in by Title And it is clear That the Intruder by his first Entry doth not gain any Estate in possession upon which he can have an Action of Trespass but after the Grant of the Queen he hath presently Fee by wrong 8 H. 4. 129. A stranger enters upon the King to which he hath right in the right of the Ward yet the Freehold doth remain in the Heir And he said that if A. levyeth a Fine to B. sur Conusans de droit c. now the Conusee hath possession in Law but not in fact and if before the entry of the Conusee W. entreth and dieth seised he hath no remedy for he had not possession