the Enfant Hob. Rep. 281. for the Wife had her said Estate to her own use and then her Husband surviving her should have it and that without any admittance for that he is not in of any new Estate but in the Estate of his Wife as Assignee And it was said by them That if a Copyholder be for years and maketh his Executors and dieth that the Executors should have the Term Co. Case of Copyholders and that without any Admittance Weston contrary in that case as to the Executors XXIII Tindall and Cobbs Case 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAste was brought by Tindall Knight against Jeoffery Cobbe Esquire and the Plaintiff declared of a Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton and of the moyety of a Wood called Wolverton-Wood The Defendant pleaded That Robert Winckfield before the Waste supposed was seised of and in tertia parte alterius Medietatis of the said Mannor and of and in tertia parte alterius Medietatis of the aforesaid Wood and held the same insimul pro indiviso with the Plaintiff and that the said Robert Winckfield by his Deed sold to the Defendant omnes omnimodas arbores subboscos suos crescent in praedict tertia parte alterius medietatis praedicti bosci ad libitum ipsius Galfridi succidend and so justified the cutting down of 300 Oaks in which the Waste is assigned with this that he will aver That the aforesaid 300 Oaks were the third part only in numero precio medietatis omnium arbor subboscorum at the said time when the Waste is supposed to be done and demanded Iudgment if Action And divers Exceptions were taken to the Count 1. He sheweth Vaugh. Rep. 175. that the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor was per nomen c. and doth not shew that the demise was by writing and if not then he cannot plead it by a per Nomen 2. The Waste is assigned in digging of Clay in 100 Acres of Lands parcel Medietatis Maner de Wolverton and hath not shewed in what Town the Land is For he hath shewed before the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton in Wolverton 3. He shews the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton and of other Lands and assigns the Waste in cutting down Oaks in quodam bosco vocat Wolverton Wood parcel praemissorum and that cannot be for this Wood cannot be parcel of the Mannor of Wolverton and of the other Lands also And for these Causes the Count by the whole Court was holden to be insufficient XXIV Stamfords Case 7 Eliz. Dyer In the Common Pleas HUgh Stamford seised in Fee had Issue A. his eldest Son and B. his younger Son A. had Issue George and Elizabeth by divers Women Hugh made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of George in tail and afterwards to the use of A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of Hugh Hugh dieth A. dieth George levieth a Fine to the use of himself in tail the remainder over to B. in Fee and dyeth without Issue It was holden by Bendloes Carell Kelloway both the Bromleys and Kingsmill That Elizabeth is barred by this Fine by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. XXV 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this Grandfather Father and Son Lands are given to the Grandfather for life the remainder to the Son in tail The Grandfather and Father joyn in a Feoffment with warranty The Feoffee makes a Lease for years and afterwards conveys the Land to the Grandfather for life the remainder to the Father in Fee The Grandfather and Father die The Son entreth and puts out the Lessee Weston was of Opinion That the Entry of the Son was lawful for it was the Feoffment of the Grandfather and the Confirmation of the Father and the Warranty of the Grandfather collateral to the Father and his Estate but when the Land is re-assured as above is said and afterwards the Son entreth after the death of the Grandfather and Father now he is remitted and the warranty gone by taking back the Estate and the Son is now seised of as high an Estate as his Ancestor was at the time that he departed with the Land by which the warranty is determined Dyer contrary Here had not been any discontinuance if the warranty had not been for the Father was never seised by force of the entail And I conceive that against a warranty collateral one cannot be remitted for it binds the Right as a Fine with Proclamation after the Statute of 4 H. 7. And I conceive that during the possession of the Grandfather the Warranty is but suspended and not determined and although that by the death of the Grandfather it be determined yet having respect to the Lessee it is in being for his Estate is derived out of the Estate which was warranted and which descends with the Warranty Bendloes One cannot make Title by a Collateral Warranty only c. XXVI Simonds Case 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedom the Tenant vouched Rose Simonds as Daughter and Heir of Henry Simonds Clerk and because she was within age he prayed that the Parol might demur Bendloes recited the Case to be this A Fine was levied of the Lands to Henry Simonds upon Condition c. who rendred back the Land to the Conusor by the same Fine and that the said Henry Simonds never had any possession or seisin but that which he had mean between the Conusans and the Rendee of which possession the Wife should not be endowed And therefore it is a good Counter-plea to say That the said Rose nor any of her Ancestors c. for that was not such a Seisin upon which Warranty might rise and so if a Feoffment in Fee had been made to the said Henry Simonds to the use of another And of that Opinion was Dyer Iustice for Henry Simonds had not any possession by force of which he might be vouched Welsh contrary For the Fine imports in it self that he hath a Fee and that he hath granted and rendred the same Fee and this Fine amounts to a Feoffment Dyer said to Bendloes The best way for you is to plead the Counter-plea generally and if he estop you by the Fine to demur upon it Afterwards Bendloes moved another matter viz. Henry Simonds was a Priest and therefore Rose is a Bastard and if so then she cannot be vouched as Heir But I would not trust the Bishop to Certifie the Bastardy if I should plead it generally and therefore I will plead the special matter and so it shall be tryed by the Country Dyer and Welsh So you may do if you please and yet if you plead general Bastardy it shall be tryed by the Country for Rose is not a party to the Writ and in such case Bastardy shall be tryed by the Country XXVII Mich. 8
of his Body after the decease of the said J.N. It was the clear Opinion of all the Iustices in this Case That by the said Indenture No use is changed in J N. nor any use raised to the said Son and Heir but that it is only a bare Covenant XIX Andrews and Glovers Case Trin. 4 Eliz. Rott 1622. IN Trespass by Andrews against Glover The Lady Mary Dacres being seised of the Mannor of Cowdam by her Indenture bargained and sold to the said Andrews all those her Woods More Rep. 15. Post 29. Winch. Rep. 5. Vnderwoods and Hedge-Rowes as have been accustomably used to be felled and sold standing growing being in upon and within the Mannor of Cowdam c. To have and to hold c. from the Feast of S. Michael last past during the natural life of the said Lady Mary And the said Andrews for himself his Heirs and Assigns doth Covenant and Grant to and with the said Lady her Executors c. to content and pay or cause to be contented and paid to the said Lady her Executors c. yearly during the said Term 10 l. By force of which Grant he cuts down all and singular the Trees Woods and Vnderwoods in the aforesaid Mannor growing at the time of the making of the Indenture aforesaid And afterwards the said Lady by her servants felled all the other Woods and Vnderwoods growing in the same Mannor after the said felling made by the said Andrews Whereupon Andrews bringeth Trespass And the Opinion of the Court was clear That after the Bargainee had once felled that he should never after fell in the same place where the first felling was made by force of the said Grant notwithstanding the Rent yearly reserved and notwithstanding the words of the Grant viz. To have and to hold during the life of the said Dame Mary Wherefore the said Andrews durst not Demur c. XX. 6 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. is bounden to B. in an Obligation to pay to B. 20 l. at the Feast of our Lady without limiting in Certain what Lady-Day viz. the Conception Nativity or Annunciation And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Deed should be construed to intend such Lady-Day which should next happen and follow the date of the said Obligation XXI Scarning and Cryers Case Mich. 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rott 1851. IN a Second Deliverance by Scarning against Cryer the Defendant makes Conusans as Bailiff to J.S. and sheweth More Rep. 75 That the said J.S. and at the time of the taking c. was Lord of the Mannor of A. Within which Mannor there was this Custom time out of mind c. That the Tenants of that Mannor and other Resiants and Inhabitants within the said Mannor or the greater part of them at the Court-Baron of the said Mannor at the Mannor aforesaid holden were used and accustomed to make Laws and impose Pains as well upon the Resiants and Inhabitants within that Mannor and the Tenants of the said Mannor there being as upon every Occupier of any Tenements within the said Mannor for good government there to be had and kept and for the preservation of the Corn and Grass there growing And that the said J.S. and all those whose Estate c. distringere consueverunt pro omnibus poenis sic forisfact per Juratores Curiae praed ex assensu dictor Tenent Inhabitant residentium ibid. in forma praedict assessis impositis tam super quibuscunque tenent Maner praedict aut inhabitantibus aut residentibus infra Maner illud quam super occupatoribus aliquor Tenementor infra idem Maner ' And further said That at a Court-Baron there holden That Coram Sectatoribus ejusdem Curiae by the Homage of the said Court then charged to present with the assent of other Tenants and Inhabitants of the said Mannor it was Ordained and Established That no Tenant of the Mannor aforesaid nor any of the Resiants or Inhabitants within the said Mannor nor any Occupier of any Tenements within the said Mannor from thenceforth should keep his Cattel within the several Fields of that Mannor by By-herds nor should put any of their Oxen called Draught-Oxen there before the Feast of St. Peter upon pain Quod quilibet tenens residens c. should forfeit 20 s. And further said That the Plaintiff at the time c. Occupied and had such a Tenement within the said Mannor And that at such a Court afterwards holden viz. such a day It was presented that the Plaintiff Custodivit boves suos called Draught-Oxen within the several Fields by By-herds contrary to the Order aforesaid by which the penalty of 20 s. aforesaid was forfeited Notwithstanding the said pain de gratia Curiae illius per quosd A. E. afferratores Curiae illius ad hoc jurat assess afferrat fuit ad 6 s. 8 d. And further he said That the place in which the taking c. is within the Mannor aforesaid And that A. B. Steward of the said Mannor extraxit in scriptis extra Rotulis Curiae praed the said pain of 6 s. 8 d. and delivered the same to the Defendant Bailiff of the said Mannor to Collect and Receive by force of which he required the said 6 s. 8 d. of the Plaintiff and he refused to pay it and so avoweth the taking c. And upon this Conusans of the Defendant the Plaintiff did Demur in Law And Iudgment was given against the Conusans 1. Because he pleaded That it was presented Coram Sectatoribus and doth not shew their Names 2. The penalty appointed by the By-Law was 20 s. and he sheweth it was abridged to 6 s. 8 d. and so the penalty demanded and for which the Distress was taken is not maintained by the By-Law and a pain certain ought not to be altered 3. He sheweth that it was presented that the Plaintiff had kept his Draught-Oxen and he ought to have alledged the same in matter in fact that he did keep c. XXII Dedicots Case 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. DEdicot seised of certain Customary Lands Dyer 210 251. Hob. 285. surrendred the same into the hands of the Lord to the intent that the Lord should grant the same de Novo to the same Dedicot for life and afterwards to Jane his Wife during the Nonage of the Son and Heir of Dedicot and afterwards to the said Son and Heir in tail c. Dedicot died before any new Grant Afterwards the Lord granted the said Land to the Wife during the Nonage of the said Heir the remainder to the Heir in tail the Heir at that time being but of the age of 5 years so as the said Wife by force of the said Surrender and Admittance was to have the said Lands for 16 years The Wife took another Husband and died And it was the Opinion of Brown and Dyer Iustices That the Husband should have the Lands during the Nonage of
abate For the Writ shall be brought by the Heir of the Survivor of the said two Daughters because they have that remainder as purchasors XXXIII Stuckly and Sir John Thynns Case Mich 9 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THo Stuckly Administrator of the Goods and Chattels of one Tho. Curties Alderman of London brought Debt upon an Obligation against Sir John Thynn and demanded of him 1000 l. Et modo ad hunc diem venerunt Tam praefatus Tho. Stucklie quam praedict Johannes Thynn Et super hoc dies datus est usque Oct. c. in statu quonunc c. salvis c. At which day the Defendant made default and thereupon the Plaintiff prayed his Iudgment against the Defendant But the Opinion of the Court was That he could not have it but was put to process over because Dies Datus is not so strong as a Continuance XXXIV Luke and Eves Case Pasch 10 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Luke against Eve The Defendant Avowed because that the Iury at such a Leet did present That the Plaintiff was a Resiant within the Precinct of the said Leet c. and that the Plaintiff was warned to appear there and notwithstanding that made default For which he was Amerced by the Steward there to 5 s. And so for that Amercement he avowed the taking c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry pleaded That at the time of the said Leet holden he was not a Resiant within the Precinct of the said Leet Vpon which they were at Issue And it was found for the Avowant Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Avowant to have a Retorn XXXV Mich. 14 Eliz. Rott 1120. In the Common Pleas. THe Abbot and Covent of York Leased to J.S. certain Lands at Will and afterwards by Deed Indented under their Covent Seal reciting That whereas J.S. held of them certain Lands at Will they granted and demised that Land to the said J.S. to hold for life rendring the ancient Rent And by the same Indenture granted the Reversion of the same Land to a stranger for life It was holden by the Court clear That an Estate for life accrueth unto J.S. by way of Confirmation and the remainder unto the stranger depending upon the Estate created by the Confirmation XXXVI Sir Francis Carews Case Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIr Nicholas Carew seised of the Mannor of A. of which Mannor B. held certain Lands B. is disseissed by C. C. assures the same to Sir Nicholas Carew who is attainted of Treason by which Attainder the Mannor and Land cometh to King Henry 8th who thereof dieth seised and the same descends to King Edward the 6th who grants the same Mannor to the Lord Darcy who grants the same to Queen Mary who grants the same to Francis Carew Son of Nicholas Carew who by Fine assures the same to the Lord Darcy the Proclamations pass and the 5 years pass she who hath right to the Lands whereof the Desseisin was made being for all that time a Feme Covert And therefore the Fine did not bar her But because that the King was entituled to the Land by a double matter of Record and by the descent from Hen. the 8th to Ed. the 6th And also because a Seignory is reserved to the King upon the Grant made by King Edward the 6th to the Lord Darcy The Iustices were all of Opinion That the Entry of the Heir of the Disseisee was not lawful upon the Patentee of the Queen 2 Len. 122. but that she ought to be Relieved by way of Petition XXXVII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man brought an Action of Trespass against another for chasing of his Ewes being great with Lambs so as by such driving of them he lost his Lambs The Defendant justified because they were in his several Damage-feasans wherefore he took them and drove them to the Pound And it was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for although that he might take yet he cannot drive them with peril c. XXXVIII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. More Rep. 16 23. THe Case was A. made a Lease to B. for life and further grants unto him That it shall be lawful for him to take Fewel upon the premisses Proviso That he do not cut any great Trees It was holden by the Court That if the Lessee cutteth any great Trees that he shall be punished in Waste but in such case 1 Len. 117. the Lessor shall not re-enter because that Proviso is not a Condition but only a Declaration and Exposition of the Extent of the Grant of the Lessor in that behalf And it was holden also by the Court That Lessee for life or for years by the Common Law cannot take Fewel but of Bushes and small wood and not of Timber-Trees But if the Lessor in his Lease granteth Fireboot expresly if the Lessee cannot have sufficient Fewel as above c. he may take great Trees XXXIX Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Roll. 787. IN Trespass upon an Evidence given to the Iury at the Bar the Case appeared to be thus Land was given to A. in tail the remainder in Fee to his Sisters being his Heirs at the Common Law A. made a Deed in this manner viz. I the said A. have given granted and confirmed for a certain piece of Mony c. without the words of Bargained Sold And the Habendum was to the Feoffee with warranty against A. and his Heirs And a Letter of Attorny was to make Livery and Seisin And the Deed was in this manner To all Christian People c. And the Deed was enrolled within one month after the making of it And the Deed was Indented although that the words of the Deed were in the form of a Deed Poll And after 4 months after the delivery of the Deed the Attorny made Livery of Seisin A. died without Issue and the Sisters entred and the Feoffee ousted them of the Land and thereupon they brought an Action of Trespass And the Opinion of the whole Court was for the Plaintiff for here is not any Discontinuance for the Conveyance is by Bargain and Sale and not by Feoffment because the Livery comes too late after the Inrollment and then the Warranty shall not hurt them And although that in the Deed there be not any word of Indenture and also that the words are in the first person Yet in as much as the Parchment is Indented 2 Roll. 787. and both the parties have put their Seals to it it is sufficient Also It was clearly agreed by the Court That the words Give for Mony Grant for Mony Confirm for Mony Agree for Mony Covenant for Mony If the Deed be duly Inrolled that the Lands pass both by the Statute of Vses and by the Statute of Inrollments as well as upon the words of Bargain and Sale. And by Catline Wray and Whiddon the party ought to take by way
See the Case 14 Eliz. in Dyer L. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Tottenham and Bedingfields Case Owen Rep. 35 83. IN an Accompt by Tottenham against Bedingfield who pleaded That he never was his Bailiff to render accompt the Case was That the Plaintiff was possessed of a Parsonage for Term of years and the Defendant not having any Interest nor claiming any Title in them took the Tythes being set forth and severed from the 9 parts and carried them away and sold them Vpon which the Plaintiff brought an Action of Accompt And by Manwood Iustice the Action doth not lie for here is not any privity for wrongs are always done without privity And yet I do agree That if one doth receive my Rents I may implead him in a Writ of Accompt and then by the bringing of my Action there is privity and although he hath received my Rent yet he hath not done any wrong to me for that it is not my Mony until it be paid unto me or unto another for my use and by my Commandment and therefore notwithstanding such his Receipt I may resort to the Tenant of the Land who ought to pay unto me the said Rent and compel him to pay it to me again and so in such case where no wrong is done unto me Hob. 32â— I may make a privity by my consent to have a Writ of Accompt But if one disseiseth me of my Land and taketh the profits thereof upon that no Action of Accompt lieth for it is meerly a wrong And in the principal case so soon as the Tythes were severed by the Parishioners there they were presently in the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant by the taking of them was a wrong doer and no Action of Accompt for the same lieth against him And upon the like reason was the Case of Monox of London lately adjudged which was That one devised Land to another 1 Len. 266. and died and the Devisee entred and held the Land devised for the space of 20 years and afterwards for a certain cause the Devise was adjudged void and for that he to whom the Land descended brought an Action of Accompt against the Devisee And it was adjudged That the Action did not lie Harper contrary For here the Plaintiff may charge the Defendant as his Proctor and it shall be no Plea for the Defendant to say That he was not his Proctor no more than in an Accompt against one who holdeth as Gardian in Socage it is no plea for him to say that he is not Prochein Amy to the Plaintiff Dyer The Action doth not lie If an Accompt be brought against one as Receiver he ought to be charged with the Receipt of the Mony and an Accompt doth not lie where the party pretends to be Owner as against an Abater or Disseisor but if one claimeth as Bailiff he shall be charged and so it is of Gardian in Socage Latch 8. And it was agreed That if a Disseisor assign another to receive the Rents that the Disseisee cannot have an Accompt against such a Receivor LI. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte That this Case was ruled in the Court of Wards That where Tenant of the King of Lands holden by Knights Service in chief made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died his eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest Son comes of full age that the younger Son should sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate and value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversioner For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffee is in truth a Reversion for the Fee simple was never out of him because there is not any consideration as to that nor any Vse expressed And because Livery shall not be sued by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but he shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession and if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part the whole value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two parts the moiety of the value of a year as of a Reversion LII Oliver Breers Case 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards OLiver Breer who was Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of A. his eldest Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of the said A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the second Son of the said A. c. and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was holden by the Council of the Court of Wards That he should pay for his first Primer Seisin a third part as in possession and two parts as a reversion See the Case before LIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte 1 Roll. 626 This Case was moved to the Iustices in the Court of the Kings Bench A Man had Issue two Daughters by divers Women and being seised of Lands in Fee he made his Will and by the same Devised That his Wife should have the moyety of his Lands for years and that his eldest Daughter at the day of her Marriage should enter into the other moyety his eldest Daughter married and died without Issue And the Question was Whether her Vncle should have that moyety or the fourth part of the whole Land. Catline conceived and said That when the Devise which was made to the eldest Daughter that she might enter after certain years is not the Inheritance in her presently and the other words void So he said here That it is not a purchase in the eldest Daughter but both the Daughters should enter in Common as one Heir to their Father until the Marriage and then the Inheritance which was once settled in them should not be removed Southcote Iustice said There are no words of Limitation of any Estate that the Daughter should have after the Marriage and therefore the Devise was void and if he had limited that the Daughter after Marriage should have it for life the Fee-simple is vested in her before and then she cannot have it for life And he said That if a Lease be made to the eldest Daughter for years by the Father and afterwards
Bar for no person is named there Manwood If a Lease be made made to J.S. except Green-Close to J.D. who is a stranger the Exception is good and J.D. shall have it The Principal Case was Adjourned LXI The Lord Windsors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence given to a Iury in the Kings Bench in an Ejectione Firmae the Case appeared to be thus That Sir Roger Lewknor Knight being seised in Fee of the Mannor of South Myms made an Indenture Anno 11. H. 8. by which Indenture he Leased the said Mannor to 20 persons to the use of Andrew Windsor afterwards Lord Windsor and Henry his Son and the Survivor of them as long as any of the said persons named in the said Indenture should live And further Covenanted by the same Indenture To stand seised of the said Mannor To the use of the said Andrew and Henry and the Survivor of them during the lives of any of the said Feoffees named in the same Indenture which Deed was made without Livery and Seisin and reserved upon it an yearly Rent and afterwards the Son died And in 22 H. 8. A Fine was levied by a stranger upon a Release to Andrew Lord Windsor And afterwards 34 of Henry 8 Andrew Lord Windsor made a Lease to one for years and died and made William and Edmond his Sons his Executors And afterwards William his eldest Son being Lord Windsor 2 3 Phil. Mary made a Lease of the same Land unto another to begin after the first Lease ended Which William died and the Lord Windsor that now is accepted the Rent and of late time agreed with one Vaughan who had married the Heir of Sir Roger Lewknor for the Reversion in Fee and afterwards the Lease made by Andrew Lord Windsor 34 H. 8. ended in the 4th year of the Reign of the Queen that now is Whereupon the second Lessee that is to say the Lessee of William Lord Windsor entred and being ousted he brought the Ejectione firmae And then and yet one of the 20 Feoffees of Sir Roger Lewknor is alive so as the Estate of Cestuy que Vie is not as yet determined And now the Question upon the first part of the Evidence is If this later Lease made by William Lord Windsor be a good Lease or not And who shall be said Occupant For when the Lord Andrew died then the Lessee as Catline said shall not be said in otherwise than according to his Lease when his occupation by Lease was lawful before And he who shall be said Occupant shall have a Freehold and if he should be Occupant he should be in by a new title Then we are to see If the Executors of the Lord which have the Rent and to whom the same is paid by the Lessee shall be said Occupant And he conceived That they should not although that they enter unless they claim the Freehold at the time of their entry for if they enter generally it shall be intended according to the Will as Executors and if he had granted his Estate to another there after his death the Grantee shall be said to be in by reason of his Grant and not as Occupant And so if he would devise his Estate the Devisee shall be in by reason of the Devise and not as Occupant Which Case of Devise Southcote denyed That he should not be in by reason of the Devise when his Estate determines with his death But if the Devisee entreth by force of the Devise he shall be in as an Occupant And also Southcote denyed that which had been said That the Lessee for years who holdeth the Lands after the death of Andrew Lord Windsor should not be an Occupant For as he said the Lessee being in possession after the death of the Lord Andrew should be said Occupant and no other for the Executors of the Lord could not be Occupant by the having of the Rent because they had not the possession of the Land for none shall be Occupant but he who is in possession Whiddon said That if the first Lease made by Andrew Lord Windsor was now in esse and that an Ejectione Firmae was brought upon that that the Lessee ought to aver That some of the Feoffees for whose lives c. were then living Southcote If a Praecipe quod reddat shall be brought against whom shall it be brought against him in the Reversion or against him in possession And if it shall be brought against the Tenant in possession then he ought to have the Freehold for it cannot be brought but against one who hath a Freehold at the least And then if the Lord William Windsor had nothing in the Land then how could he make this Lease to the Plaintiff that now is when the first Lessee continueth Occupant after the death of the Lord Andrew during the life of Cestuy que Vye And as to the Fine the Question did further arise If the Lord Andrew Windsor should have a Feesimple by that Fine For being levied as Catline said It cannot be to the first Vses because a Fine upon a Release cannot be intended to the use of any other but to him to whom it is levied unless an use be expressed in the Fine or by another Deed And upon a Fine levied upon a Release made unto Tenant life by a stranger the same is not a forfeiture of his Estate But if Tenant for life taketh a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. the same is a forfeiture And although a Fine levied by those who have not any thing in the Lands be void Yet here it is not so and it ought to be pleaded specially and shewed that he had not anything in the Land at the time the Fine was levied as Anderson said And Catline said That this Fine was not without good advice for the Lord Brook and others who were learned in the Law were of Counsel with the Lord Windsor in the levying of this Fine so as the intent was to settle the Feesimple in himself by the Fine and not that the first Vses should stand after that And thereupon he put the Case of Putnam and Duncomb which hath much Resemblance to this Case which he argued when he was Serjeant and held the same Opinion as he holdeth now And therefore he said That although the Purchase was but of late time of Vaughan and his Wife yet the Fee was in the Lord Windsor before and this manner of purchase was to no other end but to discharge the Lands of Incumbrances as appeareth by the small sum which was paid the Land being of a great yearly value And as Vaughan confessed he took this sum of Mony because that his Council informed him that the Feesimple was in the Lord Windsor before and that otherwise he would not have sold it at such a price And he said That before that agreement the Lord Windsor told him that he had the Feesimple in himself
shall be taken in Iudgment of Law That the Executors have Assets to the value of the whole 100 l. And although the Executors were compelled by the Award to make the release yet it was their own act to submit themselves to the Arbitrament LXXVIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte It was Ruled by Kellaway and Wilbraham in the Court of Wards That where the Kings Tenant of Lands holden by Knight service in Capite made a Feoffment of the same Land to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died the eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest cometh at full age the younger shall sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate of the value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversion For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor is in truth a Reversion For the Feesimple was never out of him because there was not any Consideration as to that nor any use expressed And also because that Livery shall not be by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession And if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part of the full value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two other parts the moyety of the value of a year as a Reversion And at that time Breers Case was vouched which was Oliver Breers Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and after to the use of A. his Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of A. in tail and after to the use of the second Son of A. c. and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was ruled by the said Council of the said Court of Wards That he should pay for his Primer Seisin a third part of the Land in possession and two parts as a Reversion LXXIX Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 56. THe Case was A Man was seised of a Pasture in which was two great Groves and a Wood known by the name of a Wood And also in the same Pasture were certain Hedge-Rowes and Trees there growing Sparsim Leased the same by Indenture for years And by the same Indenture bargained and sold to the Lessee all Woods and Vnderwoods in and upon the Premisses And further That it should and might be lawful to the Lessee to cut down and carry away the same at all times during the Term. Harper Iustice The Hedge-Rowes did not pass by these words Hedge-Rowes sparsim Dyer The Hedge-Rowes shall pass for the Grant is general All Woods Mounson contrary For the words of the Grant may be supplyed by other words It was moved further If by these words the Lessee may cut them oftner than once And by Harper Manwood and Mounson He can cut them but once Dyer contrary And so it should be if the words had been Growing upon the Premisses And this word Growing although it sounds in the present Tense yet it shall be also taken in the future Tense if the word tunc had not been alledged for it is a word of restraint The Case which was argued in the Chancery 27 H. 8. where I was present was such The Prior of St. John of Jerusalem Leased a Commandry Provided That if the said Prior or any of his Brethren there being Commanders will dwell thereupon then the said Lease to be void It was doubted If that did extend to the Successors for the word Being is in the present Tense And yet it was holden by Fitzherbert That it should be taken in the future Tense and so extend to the Successors Otherwise if the words had been Nunc Being LXXX Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man seised of Lands in Fee devised 1 Len. 101. That his Wife should take the profits of his Lands until Mary his Daughter and Heir came to the age of 16 years And if the said Mary died That J.S. should be her Heir Manwood The Daughter after she hath attained the age of 16 years shall have the Land in tail For Devises ought to be construed according to the intent of the Devisor so far forth as any certainty with reason may be collected but no intent shall be taken against all reason and certainty It is certain That the Daughter shall not have the Land in Fee for that shall descend to her without any Devise And these words If she dieth cannot be intended a Condition for it is certain she shall die But if the words had been That after the death of Mary J.S. should be his Heir in such case Mary had had but an Estate for life for there it is limited what Estate she should have And when it is said J.S. shall be his Heir it shall be meant his Collateral Heir so as the Estate tail remains in the Daughter Mounson and Harper to the contrary and that she shall have but for life And by Mounson If Mary had been a stranger to the Devise she should take nothing And this Case was put by Barham Serjeant A Man deviseth 100 l. to his youngest Daughter 100 l. to his middle Daughter and another 100 l. to his eldest Daughter and that all these sums shall be levied of the profits of his Lands It was holden by the better Opinion of the Court in this Case That the youngest Daughter should be first paid and then the middle and then the eldest Daughter and that was said to be Coniers Case LXXXI Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The King granted to the Bishop of Salisbury That he should have Catalla felonum fugitivor ' and Fines and Amercements of all Tenants and Resiants within the Mannor of D. which Mannor the Bishop Leased for years and that the Lessee should have all profits and hereditaments within the same Mannor Manwood Iustice conceived That the Lessee should have the Post Fines For all things have a being somewhere although they be not visible As Rents Fines have their being in the Lands out of which they are issuing and that is in the Son of a Fine levied of the Land within the Mannor which is due by Land of him who ought to pay the Fine And this Fine is due be reason of the
they had not any Lands in the said Town but the said Mannor And the Ejectione firmae was brought of that Mannor in Kent and from thence the Visne came and all the special matter aforesaid was found by Verdict And Exception was taken to the Verdict because they have found generally That the Master and Scholars had not any thing in the said Town of Laberhurst but the said Mannor Whereas they ought to have said That they had not any thing in the said Town in the County of Kent For they could not take notice what Lands the Master and Scholars had in that part of the Town which was in the County of Sussex And of that Opinion the whole Court seemed to be But Quaere of it for it was adjourned XCVI Hinde and Lyons Case Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 70. Dyer 124. 2 Len. 11. IN Debt by Hinde against one as Son and Heir of Sir John Lyon who pleaded Nothing by descent but the third part of the Mannor of D. the Plaintiff replyed Assets and shewed for Assets That the Defendant had the whole Mannor of D. by descent Vpon which they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence to the Iury That the said Mannor was holden by Knights-Service And that the said Sir John the Ancestor of c. by his Will in writing Devised the whole Mannor 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 Son of 24 years his Wife should have the third part of the said Mannor for her life and his Son should have the residue And if that his said Son do die before he come to his said age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain to J.S. the remainder over The Devisor died The Son came to the age of 24 years The Question was If the Son had an Estate in tail for then for two parts he was not in by descent And it seemed to Dyer and Manwood That here was not any Estate in tail for no tail shall rise if not that the Son die before his said age and therefore the tail shall never take effect and the Fee-simple doth descend and remain in the Son unless that he dieth before the age of 24 years and then the Estate vests with the remainder over but now having attained to the said age he hath the Fee and that by descent of the entier Mannor and then his Plea is false That but the third part descended 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 his Ancestor as his other Lands And a Capias also lieth against him But Manwood Iustice conceived That if a general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such cause a Capias doth not lie although it lieth in case of a false Plea. 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 President where such an Action was maintainable against the Executors of the Heir XCVII Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A. seised of Lands in Fee 2 Len. 154. Hob. 285. Dyer 329. by his Will in writing granted a Rent-Charge of 5 l. per annum out of the same to his younger Son towards his education and bringing up in Learning The Question was If in pleading the Devisee ought to aver That he was brought up in Learning And it was holden by Dyer Manwood and Mounson Iustices That there needs no such Averment 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 the Devisor well knew that 5 l. per annum would not and could not reach to maintain a Scholar in Learning Diet Apparel and Books And this Rent although it be not sufficient to such intent yet the Son shall have it And by Dyer Three years past such Case was in this Court scil Two were bounden to stand to the Award of certain persons Who awarded That the one of them should pay unto the other 20 s. per annum during the Term of 6 years towards the education and bringing up of such an Enfant and within two years of the said Term the Enfant died so as now there needed not any supply towards his Education Yet it was holden That the said yearly sum ought to be paid for the whole Term after For the words Towards his Education are but to shew the intent and consideration of the payment of that sum and are not the words of a Condition XCVIII Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit The Plaintiff declared That the Defendant was seised in Fee of the Mannor of Orchard alias Lydcots-Farm to which the Advowson is appendant and presented such a one c. And afterwards leased to the Plaintiff the said Mannor per nomen of the Mannor of Orchard alias Lydcots-Farm with the appurtenances for 21 years and the Church became void c. And the truth of the Case was That there is the Mannor of Orchard and within the said Mannor the said Farm called Lydcots Farm parcel of the said Mannor and the Lease was of the said Farm and not of the said Mannor and so the Advowson remained to the Lessor as appendant to the Mannor In this Case It was moved What thing the Defendant should traverse Dyer He shall say That the Advowson is appendant to the Mannor of Orchard absque hoc that it is appendant to the Farm of Lydcots But it seemed to Manwood That the Defendant shall say That the Advowson is appendant to the Mannor of Orchard and that the Farm of Lydcots is parcel of the said Mannor and that he Leased to the Plaintiff the said Farm with the appurtenances absque hoc that the Mannor of Orchard and the said Farm are all one For if he traverse the Appendancy to the Farm of Lydcots then he confesseth That the Mannor and Farm are all one c. But Dyer doubted of it XCIX Kirlee and Lees Case Mich. 19 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would marry the Daughter of the Defendant did promise to find to the Plaintiff and his said Wife convenient apparel meat and drink for themselves and two servants and Pasture also for two Geldings by the space of 3 years when the Plaintiff would require it And further shewed That Licet the Plaintiff had married the Defendants Daughter and that he had required the Defendant to find ut supra c. the Defendant refused c. The Defendant
Plaintiff had acquitted and discharged him of the Reparations Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Manwood The same is an Acquittal and Discharge of the Reparations as well for the time past as for the time to come by force of the said Covenant and amounts to as much as if he had Released the Covenant And it was moved If the Covenant being broken for want of Reparations If now that Acquital and Discharge or Release of the Covenant should take away the Action upon the Obligation which was once forfeited before And it was the Opinion of Manwood That it should not For if one be bound in an Obligation for the performance of Covenants and before the breach of any of them the Obligee releaseth the Covenants and afterwards one of the Covenants is broken the Obligation is not forfeited for there is not now any Covenant which may be broken and therefore the Obligation is discharged But if the Release had been after the Covenant broken otherwise all which Dyer and Mounson Concesserunt CVI. Mich. 20. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HVsband and Wife seised in the right of his Wife of certain Customary Lands in Fee he and his Wife by Licence of the Lord make a Lease for years by Indenture rendring Rent have Issue two Daughters The Husband dieth The Wife takes another Husband and they have issue a Son and a Daughter The Husband and Wife die The Son is admitted to the Reversion and dieth without Issue It was holden by Manwood That this Reversion shall descend to all the Daughters notwithstanding the half-blood For the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by Licence of the Lord is a Demise and Lease according to the Order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the Devise the possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder For his possession is Customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be said the possession of the other and therefore there is no possessio fratris in this Case But if he had been Guardian by the Custom or this Lease had been made by surrender There the Sister of the half-blood should not inherit And Meade said That the Case of the Guardian had been so adjudged Mounson to the same intent And if the Copyhold descend to the Son he is not Copyholder before admittance 1 Len. 174 175. but he may take the profits and punish Trepass c. CVII Hinde and Lyons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 11. Dyer 124. Ante 64. DEbt by Hinde against one as Son and Heir of Sir John Lyon who pleaded Nothing by descent but the third part of the Mannor of D. The Plaintiff replyed Assets And shewed for Assets That the Defendant had the entire Mannor of B. by descent Vpon which they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence to the Iury That the Mannor was holden by Knights-Service and that the said Sir John the Ancestor of the Defendant by his Will in writing devised the whole Mannor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years And that at the age of the Son of 24 years his Wife should hold the third part of the said Mannor for the Term of her life and his Son should have the residue And if his Son do die before he come to the age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain over to J.S. the Remainder over to another The Devisor died the Son came to the age of 24 years Dyer and Mounson Iustices conceived That here was not any Estate tail and then for two parts he is not in by descent For no Estate tail shall rise unless that the Son dieth before his said age and therefore the Tayl never took effect and the Feesimple descends and remains in the Son if not that he dieth before the age of 24 years and then the whole vests with the Remainder over but now having attained the said age he hath a Fee and that by descent of the whole Mannor and then his Plea is false that but the third part descended 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 of his other Lands And a Capias lieth also against him But Manwood Iustice conceived That if a general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such case a Capias doth not lie although in case of a false Plea it lieth But Dyer held the 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 President where such an Action was maintainable against the Executor of the Heir CVIII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Seised of Lands in Fee Devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease she to give the same to whom she will Latch 9,39 had issue two Daughters and died The Wife granted the Reversion to a stranger and committed Waste And the two Daughters brought an Action of Waste It was holden by the Iustices That by that Devise the Wife had but an Estate for life but she had gained authority to give the reversion by his Will to whom she pleased And such a Grantee should be in by A. and his Will For A. had given expresly to his Wife for life and therefore by Implication she should not have any further Estate But if an express Estate had not been appointed to the Wife by the other words an Estate in Feesimple had passed CIX Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lessor Covenanted with his Lessee That the Lessee should enjoy the Lands demised without any lawful Eviction And afterwards upon a Suit depending in Chancery by a stranger against the Lessor for the Land demised The Chancellor made a Decree against the Lessor and that the stranger should have the Land. It was moved If that Decree were a lawfull Eviction by which the Covenant was broken It was holden by the Lord Dyer That the same was not any Eviction For although that in Conscience it be aequum that the said stranger have the possession yet the same is not by reason of any right paramount the title of the Lessor which was in the party for whom it was decreed CX The Marquess of Northamptons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. PArre Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bouchier the Heir of the Earl of Essex 1 Roll. 430. who levied a Fine of the Land of the said Lady Sur Conusans de droit c. with a Grant and render to them for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the Lady And afterwards by Act of
Parliament 35 H. 8. it was Enacted That the said Lady should hold part of her Inheritance and dispose of the same as a Feme sole and that the Marquess should have the Residue and that he might Lease the same by himself without his Wife for 21 years or less rendring the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess Leased for 21 years and afterwards durante Termino praedict Leased the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the first Lease It was moved in this Case That this last Lease was void and that for 3 Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but an Estate for life and then it could not be intended that the Statute did enable one who had but such an Estate determinable to make such a Lease which peradventure might not commence in his life-time 2. The Letter of the Statute is 21 years or under and the word Under strongly expounded the meaning of the Statute to be not to extend to such an Estate For here upon the matter is a Lease for 40 years 3. Because the Land demised is the Inheritance of the Wife And in this Case it was said That in the Case of one Heydon such a private Act was strictly construed which was That it was Enacted That all Copies for 3 Lives granted by the Lord Admiral of the Lands of his Wife should be good The Admiral granted Leases in Reversion for 3 Lives And it was holden That that Grant was not warranted by the Statute Dyer said The words are general Omnes dimissiones and therefore not to be restrained unto special Leases scil to Leases in possession Manwood said A Feme Covert by duresse joyns in a Lease with her Husband the same shall bind her CXI The Queen and Sir John Constables Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 5 Co. Constables Case A Quo Warranto was brought by the Queen against Sir John Constable who claimed certain Wreck in the County of York The Defendant pleaded That Edward Duke of Buck. was seised of such a Mannor to which he had Wreck appendant and that he was de alta proditione debito modo attinctus and that found before the Escheator And shewed further That the said Mannor descended to Queen Mary who granted the same to the Earl of Westmerland who granted the same to the Defendant Vpon which It was demurred And Exception was taken to the Plea because the Attainder is not fully and certainly pleaded It was argued by Plowden That the Attainder was certainly pleaded scil debito modo attinctus And it is shewed That the Wreck is appendant to the Mannor and then if the Defendant hath the Mannor he hath the Wreck also and if he hath the Mannor it is not material as to the Queen how he hath it for the Queen doth not claim the same but impeacheth the Defendant for using there such a Liberty But if the Heir of the said Duke had demanded the Mannor there against him the Attainder ought to have been pleaded certainly And it was said by him That the Interest of the Queen in the Sea extends unto the midst of the Sea betwixt England and Spain But the Queen hath the whole Iurisdiction of the Sea between England and France because she is Queen of England France c. And so it is of Ireland CXII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life made a Feoffment of White-Acre of which he was seised for life and made a Letter of Attorny to deliver Livery and Seisin secundum formam Chartae before Livery the Tenant purchased the Fee and afterwards Livery was made It was resolved by the Court in this Case That all passed But if the Feoffment had been of all his Lands in D. and the Letter of Attorny accordingly and before Livery made the Feoffee had many Lands there If he purchased one Acre after the Livery should not extend to that Acre because the Authority was satisfied by the other Acre CXIII Banks and Thwaits Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Case was That A. had pawned an Indenture of Lease for years of a Messuage and Lands to Banks Thwaits intending to purchase the same required Banks to deliver him the said Lease and he would give Banks 10 l. whether he bought it or no at what time he would request the 10 l. Post 200. And Banks delivered the same to Thwaits accordingly Post 200. And afterwards brought an Action upon the Case and declared upon the whole matter and concluded Licet saepius requisitus c. without alledging a request express in certain and the day and place of it It was said by Cook That here the monies did not grow due before Request nor is payable before Request and therefore a Request ought to be made in facto And so he said It was ruled in this Court in an Action upon the Case betwixt Palmer and Burroughs and he said that the Mony was not due by the Promise but by the Request And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That although it be a duty Yet it is not a duty payable before Request And the Request makes a Title to the Action But if A. selleth to B. a Horse for 10 l. there is a Contract and a Request in facto need not be layed And the Opinion of the Court was also That upon this matter the Plaintiff could not have an Action of Debt for there is not any Contract for the thing is not sold but it is a Collateral promise grounded upon the delivery And by Clench Here the Request is traversable And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And it was said It was so ruled in Alderman Pullisons Case in the Exchequer Post 201. CXIV Segar and Boyntons Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 156. IN Trespass the Case was this King Henry the 8th Anno 27 of his Reign gave the Mannor of D. to Sir Edward Boynton Knight and to the Heirs Males of his body Sir Edward Boynton had Issue Andrew his eldest Son and C. the Defendant his younger Son and died Andrew Boynton Covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore that the said Andrew Boynton would assure the said Mannor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said Lord and his Heirs The said Lord Seymore in recompence thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Boynton in tail who 37 H. 8. levyed a Fine of the said Mannor without proclamations to two strangers to the uses according to the said Agreement and before any Assurance made by the said Lord The said Lord was Attainted of Treason and all his Lands were forfeited to the King And afterwards the said Andrew Boynton made a Suggestion to Queen Mary of the whole matter and upon his humble Petition the said
he conceived That this Clause ex uberiori gratia did extend to pass more than passed before For he conceived That the Queen intended more liberally viz. the Reversion For this is not any matter of Prerogative but the same is a matter of Interest which might also in the Kings Case pass out of the King by general words See 3 H. 7. 6 7 Br. Patents 48. A Grant of the King ex insinuatione doth not hinder the force of the words ex mero motu And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Reversion which was in the King did not pass by that Grant For the whole scope of the Patent was as he conceived to grant only that which the King had then ratione attincturae Anderson conceived the Patent insufficient because the Petition was not full and certain Also he said That ex speciali gratia c. would not help this Case For the Estate tail is not recited but only that he was seised de Statu haereditario c. so the Queen was deceived c. Periam contrary The Queen was advised of the Mischief and granted such Estate with which he parted by the Fine And as to the other Point Walmesley conceived That the Fine with proclamations should bind the tail And as to the Objection which hath been made That the Conusor at the time of the Fine levied was not seised by force of the entail The same had been a good matter to have alledged to avoid a Common Recovery in the Tenant to the Praecipe but not to this purpose For if there be Tenant in tail and he levieth a Fine although he was not seised at the time of the Fine levied by force of the entail yet such a Fine shall bind the issue So if Tenant in tail discontinueth and disseiseth the Discontinuee and so levies a Fine And he conceived That the issue in tail is bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. even of the Gift of the King. See 19 H. 8. 6 7. Where it is holden That the Issue in tail is bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. And where it hath been Objected That it doth not extend but to such Fines which make Discontinuance at the Common Law The same is not so For if Tenant in tail of a Rent or Common levieth a Fine with proclamations it is clear that the issues shall be barred by it And he much relyed upon 29 H. 8. Dyer 32. Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King levieth a Fine or suffereth a Common Recovery although it be not a Discontinuance because that the Reversion is in the King yet it is a bar unto the Issue But Note That that was before the Statute of 34 H. 8. See Wisemans Case 27 Eliz. Cook 2 Part. And see the Lord Staffords Case 7 Jac. Cook 8 Part 78. CXV Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man seised of Lands called Hayes 3 Cro. 674. 2 Cro. 21 22 which extended into two Towns A and B. Devised Hayes-Land in A. to his Wife for life and after to his Son and if the Son die without issue then hayes-Hayes-Land shall remain to his 3 Daughters c. The Son died without issue It was the Opinion of Anderson and Periam Iustices That all hayes-Hayes-Land should not pass by the said Devise but only that which was in A. CXVI Henry and Brode's Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant simul cum J. S. and another Clausum suum fregit 1 Len. 41. And Exception was taken to it because here it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing That the Trespass whereof c. was made by the Defendant and another and therefore the Writ brought against Brode only was not good But if it had been simul cum aliis ignotis personis It had been good enough But here the Plaintiff hath confessed another person trespassor with the Defendant See 2 H. 7. 15. 8 H. 5 5. 14 H. 4. 22. Yet afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXVII Barker and Taylers Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Co. Sir George Browns Case THe Case was A Woman Tenant in tail within the Statute of 11 H. 7. accepted a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine rendred the Land to the Conusor for 1000 years It was moved If this Conveyance and Disposition was within the penalty of the Statute For the Statute speaks of Discontinuances c. And it was the clear Opinion of the Court That the same is within the Statute for by such practice the meaning of the Statute might be defeated And if such Render for a 100 years should be good by the same reason for 1000 years which is as great a mischief and as dangerous to those in Reversion as Discontinuances And by Rhodes Iustice It hath been adjudged That if a Woman who hath title of Dower if before she be endowed she will enter and levy a Fine the same is within the said Statute and yet she is not Tenant in Dower See 5 Mar. Dyer 148. Penicocks Case And 36 Eliz. Cook 5 Part. Sir George Brown's Case CXVIII Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 221. Ante 9. A By his last Will willed That his Lands should descend to his Son but willed That his Wife should take the profits thereof untill the full age of his said Son of 21 years to maintain and bring him up and died The Wife took Husband and died during the nonage of the Son It was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustice That the second Husband should not have the profits until c. For nothing is devised to the Wife but a Confidence and she is as a Guardian or Bailiff to aid the Enfant which by her death is determined and cannot accrue to the Husband But if the Husband had devised the profits of the Land to the Wife until the age of the Enfant for to bring up and educate Ut supra Wray said The same amounted to a devise of the Land and so a Chattel in the Wife which should accrue to the Husband CXIX Stamps Case Mich. 24 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was John Stampe being possessed of a Term for years granted the same to Thomas Stampe his Brother 12 May 20 Eliz. And afterwards 8 Octob. 21 Eliz. he himself being in possession of it Mortgaged the same to one P. who suffered him to continue his possession Thomas Stampe granted his Estate to John Stampe who mortgaged the same to one G. who suffered the said John Stampe to continue in possession until 10 December 22 Eliz. G. entred John Stampe came to the said P. and requested him that he would grant all his Estate to B. and C. to whom the said John Stampe was endebted for security of their Monies To whom the said P. said That if he would find
confirms it is a void Confirmation And 7 E. 6. Br. Grants 154. A Man possessed of a Lease for 40 years grants so many of the said years which shall be to come at the time of his death it is a void Grant for the incertainty Afterwards Shuttleworth moved another point viz. The Plaintiff hath declared of a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. The Defendant shews in Evidence a Lease for years to him made 14 Januarii the same year which is 13 days after the Trespass whereof the Plaintiff hath declared and it shall not be intended that the Plaintiff had another Title than that which he hath alledged and forasmuch as he hath not disclosed in himself any Title Tempore transgressionis the Plaintiff should punish him in respect of his first possession without any other Title And although it may be Objected That where the Defendant hath given in Evidence That Williamson leased to the Defendant that is not sufficient and the words subsequent 14 Januarii are void as a nugation and matter of surplusage Truly the Law is contrary for rather those words ante Transgressionem shall be void because too general and shall give way to the subsequent words after the videlicet because they are special and certain As the Case late adjudged The Archbishop of Canterbury leased three parcels of Land rendring Rent of 8 l. per annum viz. for one parcel 5 l. for another 50 s. and for the third 40 which amounts to 9 l. 10 s. It was adjudged That the videlicet and the words subsequent concerning the special reservation of the Rent was utterly void because contrary to the premisses which were certain viz. 8 l. and that the Fermor should pay but 8 l. according to the general reservation but in our case the words precedent are general i. e. ante Transgressionem and therefore the words subsequent which are special and certain shall be taken and the general words rejected As in Trespass the Defendant pleads That A. was seised of the Land where and held it of the Defendant and that the said A. 1 die Maii 6 Eliz. aliened the said Land in Mortmain for which he within a year after viz. 4 Maii Anno 7 Eliz. entred now the same is no bar for upon the evidence it appeareth that the Lord hath surceased his time and the words within the year shall not help him for they are too general and therefore at the subsequent words viz. c. Cook on the Defendants part took Exception For it appeareth here upon the Evidence of the Defendant which is confessed by the Demurrer of the Plaintiff That upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot punish the Defendant for this Trespass for he was not an immediate Trespassor to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff hath declared upon a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. And it is given in Evidence on the part of the Defendant and confessed by the Plaintiff c. That 22 Eliz. Cordell Savell levied a Fine to Williamson by force of which the said Williamson entred and was seised and so seised 14 Januarii 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant Now upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot have Trespass but the Defendant for Williamson was the immediate Trespassor to him for he entred 22 Eliz. And at length after deliberation had of the premisses by the Court The Court moved the Plaintiff to discontinue his suit and to bring de novo a new Action in which the matter in Law might come into Iudgment without any other Exception But the Plaintiff would not agree to it Wherefore it was said by Wray Chief Iustice with the consent of his Companions Begin again at your peril for we are all agreed That you cannot have Judgment upon this Action CXXVI Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his younger Son in tail and after to the use of the Heirs of his body in posterum procreand and at the time of the Feoffment he had Issue two Sons and after the Feoffment had Issue a third Son The younger Son died without Issue Vpon a Motion at the Bar it was said by Wray Iustice That after the death without Issue of the second Son the Land should go to the third Son born after the Feoffment for this word in posterum is a forcible word to create a special Inheritance without that it had been a general tail CXXVII Smith and Smith's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LAmber Smith Executor of Tho. Smith brought an Action upon the Case against John Smith That whereas the Testator having divers Children Enfants and lying sick of a mortal sickness being careful to provide for his said Children Enfants The Defendant in Consideration the Testator would commit the Education of his Children and the disposition of his Goods after his death during the minority of his said Children for the Education of the said Children to him promised to the Testator to procure the assurance of certain Customary Lands to one of the Children of the said Testator And declared further That the Testator thereupon Constituted the Defendant Overseer of his Will and Ordained and appointed by his Will That his Goods should be in the disposition of the Defendant and that the Testator died and that by reason of that Will the Goods of the Testator to such a value came to the Defendants hands to his great profit and advantage And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff And upon Exception to the Declaration in Arrest of Iudgment for want of sufficient Consideration It was said dy Wray Chief Iustice That here is not any benefit to the Defendant that should be a Consideration in Law to induce him to make this promise For the Consideration is no other but to have the disposition of the Goods of the Testator pro educatione Liberorum For all the disposition is for the profit of the Children and notwithstanding That such Overseers commonly make gain of such disposition yet the same is against the intendment of the Law which presumes every Man to be true and faithful if the contrary be not shewed and therefore the Law shall intend That the Defendant hath not made any private gain to himself but that he hath disposed of the Goods of the Testator to the use and benefit of his Children according to the Trust reposed in him Which Ayliffe Iustice granted Gawdy Iustice was of the contrary Opinion And afterwards by Award of the Court It was That the Plaintiff Nihil Capiat per Billam CXXVIII Amner and Luddington's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. 2 Len. 92. 8 Co. 96. And the Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased to one Peerepoint for 99 years who devised the same by his Will in this manner viz. I Bequeath to my Wife the
Cantarista And it hath always been adjudged That a Chauntry by Reputation is within the Statute of 1 E. 6. CLXV Brian and Cawsen's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen It was found by Special Verdict 2 Len. 68. That W. Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he Devised them in this manner scil I Bequeath to Jo. Th. my House and Lands in M. called Lacks and Stone To Ste. Th. my House and Lands called Stokes and Newmans And to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said Jo. Ste. or Roger live till they be of lawful age and have Issue of their bodies lawfully begotten Then I give the said Houses and Lands 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 Assignee and the Mony to be given to the Poor The Devisor dieth Jo. Ste. and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without Issue John and Ste. are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath Issue J. and surrenders his part of the whole and his estate therein to the use of Ste. and his Heirs who is admitted accordingly Ste. comes of full age John the Father dieth Ste. dieth without Issue J. the Son as Cosen and Heir of Ste. 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 Lands called Lacks and Stone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcel of the place where c. praetextu quorum they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done And it was found that A. the Executor died Intestate And that Cawsen the Defendant is Cosen and Heir to the said 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 3. Devisees had but an Estate for life But Fenner and Walmesley who argued for the Plaintiffs Conceived That by force of the later words scil If the said John Stephen and Roger live till they be of lawful 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. They have Fee and the words In manner aforesaid are to be referred not unto the Estate which was given by the first words which was but for life but to make them hold in severalty as the first Devisor willed and not joyntly as the words of the second Devise purported And Fenner said It hath been Resolved by good Opinions That where a Fine was levied unto the use of the Conusor and his Wife and of the Heirs of the body of the Conusor with divers Remainders over Proviso That it shall be lawful to the Survivor of them to make Leases of the said Lands in such manner as Tenant in tail might do by the Statute of 32 H. 8. although those Lands were never Demised before the Fine yet the 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 refer unto the Estate for life limited unto A. and not unto the Condition nor unto any other Collateral manner The words If they live until 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 them to them and their Heirs to give and sell at their pleasure 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 unto the last words And if it fortune they three to die without Issue c. these words cannot make an estate tail and the express Limitation of the Fee in the first part of the Will shall not be controverted by Implication out of the words subsequent As if Lessee for 40 years Deviseth his Lands to his Wife for 20 years and if she dieth the remnant of the Term unto another although that she survive the 20 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 to the Devisee's after-Issue Snagg and Shuttleworth Serjeants to the contrary And they Conceived That the Defendant hath right to two parts for no express Inheritance vests in the Devisees until full age and issue and because two of the Devisees died without Issue they never had any Inheritance in their two parts and so those two parts descended 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 If John live until c. he shall have the Inheritance in his part and so of the rest As if J. have right unto Land which A. B. and C. hold in Common and J. by a Deed release to them all the same shall enure to them severally 19 H. 6. And here these later words If these three do die without Issue by that they conceived The same to be but an estate in tail And see to that purpose 35 Ass 11. 37 Ass 15. For a Man cannot declare his intent at once but in several parts all which make but one sentence And so it is said by Persay 37 Ass 15. We ought to have regard upon the whole Deed and not upon parcel And see Clark's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 330 331. And it was said If I give Lands to one and his Heirs so long as he hath Heirs of his body it is a Feesimple determinable and not an estate in tail Quaere of that Then here the Feesimple is determined by the death of the Devisees without issue and therefore the Land ought to revert to the Heir of the Devisor especially being no person in rerum natura who can sell for the Executor before sale by him made died Intestate and if he had made an Executor yet the Executor of the Executor could not sell Which see 19 H. 8 9 10. And afterwards Resolved That no estate tail is
created by this Will but the Feesimple setled in them when they came at their lawful age and had Issue so as the residue of the Devise was void and Iudgment was given accordingly CLXVI Griffith and Agard's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Disceit by Griffith against Agard and his Wife 1 Len. 290. For that a Fine was levied of a Messuage being Ancient Demesne by which it became Frank-Fee and the Fine was levied in the life of A. Griffith Grandfather of the Plaintiff Exception was taken to the Writ because it is brought by the Plaintiff as Cosen and Heir of A. G. his Grandfather And in the beginning of the Writ the words are Si Henricus Griffith fecerit te securum without saying Cousen and heir of A. G. fecerit te securum But the Exception was not allowed For afterwards in the Writ these words are Cujus haeres ipse est See the Register 238. that it is sufficient if there be in the body of the Writ these words Cujus haeres ipse est Another Exception was taken to the Declaration in that it is alledged that the Lands were De antiquo Dominico Dominae Reginae Angliae wereas it ought to have been De antiquo Dominico Dominae Coronae suae c. The Opinion of the Court was That it was good both ways See Book Entries 100. antiquo Dominco Coronae 58. de antiquo Dominico Domini Regis CLXVII Bashpool's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 101. Stiles Rep. 148. THe Case was The Father was seised of Lands in Fee and bound himself in an Obligation and devised his Lands unto his Wife until his Son should come to the age of 21 years the Remainder to his Son in Fee and died and no other Land descended or came to the Son from the Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in this case might elect to waive the Devise and to take the Land by Descent See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But it was the Opinion of Gawdy and Shute Iustices That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent and so bounden with the Debt CLXVIII Branthwait's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt brought by J. D. against Branthwait upon an obligation the Condition of which was That whereas J. F. claimed to have a Lease for years of the Mannor of D. made and granted to him by one W. D. If the said Branthwait keep without damage the Plaintiff from all claim and Interest to be challenged by the said J. F. de tempore in tempus during the years c. and also deliver the said Lease to the Plantiff that then c. The Defendant pleaded That the said J. F. had not any such Lease and that after the making of the said Obligation untill the Action brought the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis praedictae Exception was taken to the same because where the words of the Condition are Keep without damage the Plaintiff from all Claim and Interest And he hath pleaded That the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis c. But the Exception was disallowed by the Court For if he were not damnified ratione dimissionis then he was not damnified by reason of any Claim or Interest Another Exception was taken Because he could not now say there was no such Lease For it is recited in the Obligation That J. F. claimed to have a Lease and therefore by this recital he is estopped c. And see where a Recital is an Estoppel 8 R. 2. Fitz. 2 Len. 11. tit Estoppel 283. 39 E. 3. 3. Fitz. Estoppel 112. 46 E. 3. 12. It was holden by the Court That it was a good Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXIX Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt upon an Obligation The words of the Obligation were I am content to give to W. 10 l. at Michaelmas and 10 l. at our Lady day It was holden by the Court That it was a good Obligation And it did amount to as much as I promise to pay c. It was also holden by the Court That an Action of Covenant lay upon it as well as an Action of Debt at the Election of the Plantiff And it was holden That although the Action is for 40 l. and the Declaration is 20 l. and 20 l. at two several days yet it is good enough and the Declaration is well pursuant to it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXX The Queen and Kettell's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii against Kettell and Counted of a Tenure in Chief The Defendant pleaded That pendant the Writ the Queen had granted to one Edmund Kettel Custodiam Maritagium of the said Defendant with whom he had Compounded It was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for the Letters Patents were void because the Queen was deceived in her Grant for it appeareth by the Count that the Defendant before the Grant of the Queen was of full age And by the Letters Patents the Queen intended that he was within age and by the same granted Custodiam c. CLXXI. Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Land by his Will Devised 1 Len. 31. That his Executors should sell the Lands and died the Executors levied a Fine thereof to one F. taking Mony for it of F. The Question was If in title made by the Conusee to the said Lands by the Fine It be a good Plea against the same to say Quod partes Finis nihil habuerunt Anderson conceived That it was But by Windham and Periam upon Not guilty the Conusee may help himself by giving in Evidence the special matter in which Case the Conusee shall be adjudged in not by the Fine but by the Devise And Windham said That if A. Devise That his Executors shall sell a Reversion of certain Lands of â—hich he dieth seised and they sell the same without Deed the same is well enough for the Vendee is in by the Devise 1 Iust 113. a. and not by the Conveyance of the Executors Quod vide 17 H. 6. 23. And by Periam The Conusee may help himself in pleading As he who is in by the Feoffment or Grant of Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3. CLXXII Lee and Loveday's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail leased for 60 years and afterwards levied a Fine to Lee and Loveday sur Conusans de Droit come ceo c. and their Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Lord of the Mannor of whom the Land was holden brought a Writ of Disceit and upon that a Scire facias against the Conusees supposing the Land to be Ancient Demesne The Defendants made default by which the Fine was annulled and now the Issue in tail entred upon the Lessee for years and he brought an Ejectione firme
hic in Curia prolat is but form And afterwards the Iudgment was reversed for default of the said matter Magno sigillo Angliae sigillat And by Anderson Iustice Patents are good without Inrollment and that was adjudged in Hungate's Case CCXLI. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber DEbt brought upon an Obligation Post 266. The Defendant pleaded payment apud Lockington in the Parish of Killmerston And the Venire facias was awarded de Lockington And that was assigned for Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench That the Venire ought to be de Killmerston See 6 H. 7. 3. 11 H. 7. 23 24. 9 E. 4. 3. Trespass for Entry in the Mannor of D. in S. the Visne shall come de Vicineto de S. and not from the Mannor Contrary if it be for the entry into the Mannor of D. only for there it shall be de Vicineto Manerii Cook said There was a Case very late adjudged in the Kings Bench A Lease was pleaded to be made at Ramridge End in Luton and that he himself was of Opinion That the Venire ought to have been of Ramridge End and not of Luton But the Court Over-Ruled the same against him It was said in the principal Case That Lockington shall be intended a Town as this Case is For a Parish may contain many Towns. And afterwards the Iudgment was affirmed CCXLII. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass for breaking his Close The Defendant pleaded That heretofore he himself brought an Ejectione Firmae against the now Plaintiff of the same Land in which the Trespass is supposed to be done and had Iudgment to recover c. and demanded Iudgment if against c. It was moved That the Bar was not good 1 Len. 313. because that the Defendant had not averred his title And the Recovery in one Action of Trespass is no Bar in another c. Quod Curia concessit But as to the matter the Court was clear That the Bar was good And by Periam Who ever pleaded it it was well pleaded For as by Recovery in an Assise the Freehold is bound so by Recovery in an Ejectione firmae the possession is bound And by Anderson A Recovery in one Ejectione Firmae is a Bar in another Especially as Periam said if the party relyeth upon the Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Plaintiff should be barred CCXLIII Peter's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WIlliam Peters being Plaintiff in an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas came to London this Term to prosecute his Action And afterwards he was committed to the Marshalsey by the Lord Hunsdon Chamberlain of the Queens houshold and one of her Privy Council And now an Habeas Corpus issued out to the Keeper of the Marshalsey to have the body of the said Peters in Court And at the day the Keeper retorned the said Writ That the said Peters was committed to the said Prison by the said Lord and shewed the Warrant for it there to remain and to Answer before the Lords of her Majesties Council to such matters c. Causa vero detentionis mihi omnino incognita est The Court examined the said Peters upon his Oath If he came to London to prosecute his said Cause Who answered That he did And the Court also examined the said Keeper If he had acquainted the said Lord with the said Writ Who said That he had so done but he shewed him not any Cause Wherefore by the Award of the Court Peters was discharged of his Imprisonment CCXLIV Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleass SErjeant Fenner demanded the Opinion of the Court in this Case A. Devised Lands to his Wife for life 1 Co. 155. and afterwards to B. his Son and his Heirs when he should come to the age of 24 years and if his Wife died before his said Son should attain his said age of 24 years that then J.S. should have the said Land until the said age of the said Son A. died J.S. died the Wife died the Son being within the age of 24 years If the Executors of J.S. should have the Land after the death of J.S. until the said age of the Son was the Question Anderson and Periam conceived That he should not For this Interest limited to J.S. by the Will was but a possibility which was never vested in him and therefore could not by any means come to his Executor Rhodes and Windham doubted of it Fenner put the Case in 12 E. 2. Fitz. Condition 9. Where Land is mortgaged to J.S. upon payment of Mony to J.S. such a day or his Heirs and before the said day J.S. by his Will deviseth That if the Mortgagor pay the Mony that then A. B. should have them That this Devise of this possibility is good Quod omnes Justiciarii negaverunt And Windham put the Case between Weldon and Elkington Plow Com. 20 Eliz. 519. Where Lessee for years devised his Term to his Wife for so many years of the said Term as she should live And if she died within the Term that then his Son Francis should have the Residue of the Term not encurred Francis died Intestate the Wife died within the Term The Administrator of Francis had the residue of the Term and yet nothing was in Francis the Intestate but a Possibility A Lease was made to one Hayward his Wife and one of his Children Habendum to Hayward for 99 years if he should so long live and if he die within the said Term that then his said Wife should have the said Term for so many years which should be to come at the time of the death of her Husband And if she died also before the said Term That then the Child party to the Devise should have it for so many years of the said Term as should not be expired at the time of the death of the Wife And the Case of Cicill was vouched 8 Eliz. Dyer 253. A Lease was made to William Cicill pro termino 41 annorum si tam diu vixerit Et si obierit infra praedictum terminum extunc Uxor praedicti William Cicill habebit tenebit omnia singula praemissa pro residuo termini praed incompleto si tam diu vixerit Et si the said Eliz. obierit infra praedict terminum tunc William Cicill filius c. And it was holden by Catlyn and Dyer That these remainders were void For the Term is determinable upon the death of William Cicill the Father and the Residue of the said Term cannot remain And by Anderson The remainders of the Term limited ut supra are void For every remainder ought to be certain but here is no certainty for it may be that the first possessor of the Term may live longer or die sooner so as he in the remainder doth not know what thing he shall have And so also conceived Rhodes Iustice And he put the Case between
to prevent all acts and charges made mean by the Vendor yet it shall not relate to vest the Estate from the time of the delivery of the Deed For the Vendee cannot punish a Trespass Mean And if the Vendee hath a Wife and the Vendee dieth before Enrollment and afterwards the Deed is enrolled she shall not be endowed but here shall be some descent to take away an Entry yet the Heir shall have his age But in our Case it is otherwise for by the Waiver the Ioynture was waived ab initio And he cited Carrs Case 29 Eliz. in the Court of Wards The King granted the Mannor of C. to George Owen in Fee tenend in Socage and rendring 94 l. per annum And afterwards granted 54 l. parcel of the said Rent to the Earl of Huntington in Fee to be holden by Knight-service in Capite and afterwards purchased the said Rent in Fee And afterwards of the same Mannor enfeoffed William Carr who devised the same for the payment of his Debts And it was holden That the devise was good against the Heir And the King was not entituled to Livery or Primer Seisin And therefore the Defendant was dismissed But peradventure the Queen shall have benefit of the Act. See Cook 3 Part 30 31. Butler and Baker's Case The King gives Lands unto A. in Fee to hold by Knights-service during his life and afterwards to hold in Socage He may devise the whole For at the time when the devise took effect he was Tenant in Socage Lands holden in Knight-service are given to J.S. in tail scil to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J.S. J.S. deviseth these Lands and afterwards dieth without Issue Male the same is good for two parts yet during his life he had not an Estate in Fee in possession The Father disseiseth his Son and Heir apparent of an Acre of Land holden in Chief by Knight-service in Capite and afterwards purchaseth a Mannor holden in Socage and deviseth the said Mannor and dieth his Heir within age the Devise is good for the whole and the King shall not have Wardship of any part and that in respect of the Remitter and yet it is within the words Having sole Estate in Fee of Lands holden and within the Saving Tenant in tail of an Acre of Land holden of the King in Chief by Knight-service seised of two Acres in Fee holden ut supra makes a Lease for three Lives of the Acre entailed reserving the accustomed Rent and afterwards deviseth the other two Acres in Fee and afterwards dieth seised of the Reversion and Rent The same is a good devise of all the two Acres And here is an immediate descent of the third part for the same is within the words In Possession Reversion or Remainder or any Rent or Service incident to any Reversion or any Remainder See the Statute of 34 H. 8. A Man seised of three Acres of equal value holden by Knight-service in Capite assureth one to his Wife for her Ioynture by Act executed and deviseth another to a stranger And the third to his Wife also The King in this case shall have the third part of every Acre But if the stranger waiveth the devise the King shall have the Acre to him devised and the Wife shall retain the other two Acres and it shall not go in advantage of the Heir So if he deviseth the said three Arces severally to three several persons to each of them one Acre and the one Waives the devise in one Acre The devise of the other two is good Or otherwise the King shall have the third part of every Acre c. CCCLXVII Mich. 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 29. THe Case was An Enfant was made Executor And Admimistration was committed to another viz. A. durante minori aetate who brought an Action of Debt against the Debtor and recovered and had him in Execution and now the Executor came of full age It was moved What should be done in this Case and how the party should be discharged of the Execution for the authority of the Administrator is now determined and he cannot acknowledge satisfaction or make an acquittance Windham Although the authority of the Administrator be determined yet the Record and the Iudgment remain in force But peradventure you may have an Audita Querela But he conceived That an Administrator could not have such Action for that he is rather a Bailiff to the Enfant than an Administrator See Prince's Case 42 Eliz. Cook 5 Part 29. Which Rhodes concessit A. was bounden unto B. in an Obligation of 100 l. upon Condition to pay a lesser sum The Obligee made an Enfant his Executor and died Administration was committed durante minori aetate to C. to whom A. paid the Mony It was doubted If that payment was rightful or If the Mony ought to have been paid to both Windham Doth it appear within the Record That the Enfant was made Executor and that Administration was committed ut supra To which it was answered No. Then Windham said You may upon this matter have an Audita Querela In this Case It was said to be the Case of one Gore 33 Eliz. in the Exchequer in a Scire facias by an Assignee of a Bond against an Enfant Executor He pleaded That the Administration was committed to A. and his Wife during her minority And it was adjudged no Plea. CCCLXVIII Mich. 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was the Opinion of all the Iustices Jones Rep. 243. That if Lessee for 20 years makes a Lease for 10 years that he may grant the Reversion without Deed but in such case if there be a Rent reserved there ought to be a Deed and also an Attornment if the Rent will be had And it was agreed by them all That if there be Lessee for years and the Lessor granteth the Land to the Lessee and a stranger that the Reversion shall pass without Livery or Attornment and that by the Acceptance of the Deed by him who ought to Attorn But whether he shall take joyntly or in Common or whether in a moyety or in the whole the Iustices were of divers Opinions Ideo Quaere for it was not Resolved FINIS A TABLE of the principal Matters contained in the Third Part of LEONARD'S Reports A. ABatement of Writ Page 2 4 77 92 Ex Officio Curiae p. 93 Accompt p. 38 61 63 Damages given in it p. 150 Damages given in it not expresly but the Court shall give Quoddam Incrementum p. 192 Brought by the Grantee of the King against an Executor where maintainable where not p. 197 Generally brought where good p. 230 Acquittance Must be shewed upon payment of Debts by Executors p. 3 Action upon the Case For stopping of a way p. 13 Against one for proceeding to Judgment and awarding of Execution in an inferiour Court after an Habeas Corpus awarded p. 99 Where lieth
Lease cont of Lands proper to the Dean only B. 176. Debt For foreign Mony may be demanded either by Foreign or English Names A. 41. Upon a Recognizance in nature of a Statute A. 52. B. 14. Upon a void Award is good if the Defendant do not shew that part that makes it void A. 72 73. For a nomine poenae A. 110. For a pain set in a Court Leet A. 203 204 217 218. Upon the words Covenant and Grant lieth A. 208. Where it lies before the last day of payment A. 208. For the surplusage of an Account A. 219. Lies by an Administrator against an Executor for Arrearages of an Annuity A. 224 225. Lies upon a Recognizance made before the Mayor of London A. 284. If Debt lies by the Grantee of a Rent reserved by a Lease to which Grant the Lessee attorned A. 315. Under 40 s. in the Kings Bench for Costs in a Hundred Court A. 316. Against an Heir shall be in the Debet Detinet B. 11. Debt lies upon a Judgment or Recognizance although the Plaintiff have Judgment upon a Scire Facias B. 14. For Rent lies although in the Declaration it be alledged that he entred before the commencement of his Lease B. 98. Lies for the Grantee of Post-Fines and for a Nomine poenae by the Heir B. 179. cont A. 249 250. This Action lies not but where a certain sum is agreed on C. 161. Against Baron and Feme for a Debt of the Feme must be in the Debet Detinet C. 206. For Corn in the Detinâ—t and the Plaintiff shall recover the value of the Corn C. 260. Deed. Where the Habend ' may controul the Premisses A. 11 281 318. B. 105. What is a good delivery thereof what not A. 140 152. If a primo deliberat ' or non est factum may be pleaded of a Deed enrolled A. 183 184 C. 175 176. Where in the Premisses of the Deed two things are granted Habend ' the one for years what Estate the Grantee hath A. 281 282. Raisure of a Deed does not avoid it if it be in a part not prejudicial to the party who would avoid it A. 282. Indenture between A. of one part and B. and C. his Wife and their Children A. 287 288. Must be pleaded sealed and delivered or by words tantamount A. 310. In Indentures the intention of the parties may be argued Deeds Poll shall be taken strongest against the Grantor A. 318. B. 47 192. None can take by Indenture but those who are party to it A. 287 288. B. 1. C. 34. The effect and meaning of them regarded where the words are doubtful B. 17 219 151. Where a Deed may have quasi two deliveries B. 192. A Deed once perfectly executed as by enrolment c. cannot pass any thing by Livery C. 16 125. Actual indenting and both parties Seals mentioned to be put makes an Indenture C. 16. Where a Deed in the Premisses leaseth Lands to one Habendum to his Executors and Assigns for 40 years what Estate the Lessee hath C. 32 33 34. The date of a Deed not material C. 100. Demand See Request The King need not demand a Rent to avoid a Lease A. 12. B. 134. C. 125. A Legacy not payable without demand A. 17. Rent payable at Michaelmas or within the space of 12 days prox post aliquod festorum vel dierum when it is demandable A. 142. The difference of demand in a Writ De advocatione duarum partium Ecclesiae duabus partibus Advoc Ecclesiae A. 169. What is demandable in a Writ of Entry A. 169 170. Whether demand at one day for Rent due several days before be good A. 190 191 305. Whether a sum in gross must be demanded as Rent A. 269. The manner to make a demand of a Rent A. 305. He who demands Rent as Attorny need not tell his name nor shew his authority C. 224. Demurrer To Evidence in Ejectione Firme A. 269. All matters well pleaded are confessed by Demurrer C. 200. Upon Demurrer to a Challenge there neeeds no Serjeants hands C. 222. Departure What is what is not A. 32. Count of a Lease without Deed no Departure by Replication to say the Lease was made by Deed A. 156 204. C. 203. Ejec vers 5. One pleads to the Issue the others plead specially no Departure for the Plaintiff to deduce a Title to himself and say that he was seised until by the 4 disseised B. 199. First to make a Title by Common Law and reply a Custom to uphold it is a Departure C. 40. Devastavit What Sheriff may retorn it and what Sheriff is estopped to retorn it B. 67. C. 2. If Executors release a forfeited Bond of 100 l. and receive only 50 l. the whole is Assets C. 53. It is a personal Tort and the Executors of the Executors shall not be chargeable with the first Executors Devastavit C. 241. Devise See Legacy That Executors shall sell Lands who sell by Fine A. 31. C. 119. If such Executors may â—ell by parcels A. 34 60 260. The construction of an Habendum in a Devise A. 57 58. What shall be a Devise in tail for life or in see A. 57 58. B. 69. C. 55. That his Son and an Executor shall take the profits until another comes of Age gives the Son see A. 101. C. 55. To the discretion of the Devisee A. 156 224 283. B. 69. That Executors shall sell a Reversion who sell by Parol yet good and the Devisee is in by the Will A. 148. C. 119. To three Sons and if any die the Survivor to be his Heir how adjudged A. 166 258 259. C. 262. All my Lands and Tenements if it passeth a Reversion after a Lease for life A. 180 181. If by the Stat. of Wills an Estate pur auter vy may be devised A. 252. A Use may be raised by Devise and the Consideration is presumed by Law A. 254 257. If the Devisee die in the life of the Devisor the Heir of the Devisee shall take nothing A. 254. Of Capite Land and Soccage A 267. B. 41 42. C. 267. Vide the Statutes 32 34 H. 8. To A. if she do not Marry Remainder in tail A. 283. That if my Son A. die without Issue that then my Sons in Law shall sell how adj A. having a Son who dies without Issue A. 285 286. Feoffment to the Uses in his Will which deviseth that his Feoffees shall be seised to Uses a good Devise A. 313. That Lessee for years shall hold after the Devisors death for 30 years accounting the Remainder of the first Term how adj B. 33 34. Devise to A. may be helped by Averment B 35. C. 79. To the Father and his eldest Issue Male B. 35. Things individual cannot be devised within the Statute of Wills If part be Soccage and part Capite B. 41 42. That his Lands shall be sold for payment of his Debts the Executor shall sell 43 220. Devise that his
Mich. 29 El. C.B. p. 168. C. 219 Weshborn and Mordants Case Mich. 29 Eliz. B. R. p. 174. C. 225 Williams and Linkfords Case Trin. 29 Eliz. B.R. p. 177. C. 229 Welcot and Powells Case Pasch 30 El. B.R. p. 206. C. 263 Wigmore and Wells Case Pasch 30 El. B. R. p. 206. C. 264 Willoughbies Case Trin. 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 216. C. 285 Wood and Payns Case Trin. 31 El. B.R. p. 228. C. 306 Sir Walter Wallers Case Trin. 32 Eliz. Exchequer p. 241. C. 333. p. 259 C. 345 Woodward and Baggs Case Hill. 32 El. B. R. p. 257. C. 341 Witherington and Delabars Case Mich. 33 Eliz. B. R p. 268. C. 360 Y. YOung and Ashburnhams Case Hill. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 161. C. 210 Yates Case Trin. 31 Eliz. B.R. p. 231 C. 312 THE THIRD PART OF THE REPORTS OF Several Excellent Cases Argued and Adjudged in the several COURTS of LAW at Westminster In the Time of the Late Queen ELIZ. From the First to the Five and Thirtieth Year of her Reign In the Time of Edw. the Sixth I. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. A Man had a Warrren in Fee extending into three Towns Benlow's Rep. 12. Owen Rep. 10. 1 And. 26. 13 Co. 57. 1 Inst 148. a. 7 Co. 23. b. Goldb 44. and Leased the same by Deed to another rendring Rent And afterwards granted by Deed the Reversion of the whole Warren in one of the said Towns to another and the Lessee attorned It was holden by all the Iustices in the Common Pleas That neither the Grantor nor the Grantee should have any part of the Rent during the same Term Because no such Contract can be apportioned II. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. A Man by Deed Indented 1 And. 27. Bargained and sold Land unto another in Fee and Covenanted by the same Deed to make to him a good and sufficient Estate in the said Land before Christmas next And afterwards before Christmas the Bargainor acknowledged the Deed and the same is enrolled It was the Opinion of all the Iustices of the Common Pleas That by that Act the Covenant aforesaid was not performed For the Bargainor in performance of the same ought to have levied a Fine made a Feoffment or done other such Acts. III. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 32. IN Dower the Tenant made default at the Summons and now at the Grand Cape he came and said That he could not come because he was in great infirmity at the time of the Summons so as he could not appear It was the Opinion of the whole Court That that matter should not save his Default because it cannot be tryed as creit de Eue and Imprisonment may be IV. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 32. DEbt against Executors who pleaded Riens enter Maynes which was found against them The Plaintiff sued forth a Writ of Execution Vpon which the Sheriff retorned Nulla bona Testatoris within the County It was the Opinion of the Court That the same was a good Retorn for it may stand with the Verdict for it may be that they have Assets in another County See 3 H. 6. 11. Where the Retorn is general Quod non habent Executores aliqua bona Testatoris that it was holden insufficient but here in this Case the Retorn is special scil in the same County In the Time of Queen Mary V. 1 and 2 Philip and Mary In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 31. TEnant in tail had Issue two Sons and enfeoffed his younger Son and died The younger Son died without Issue leaving his Wife priviment ensient with a Son the elder Brother entred It was holden in this Case That he was Remitted and although that afterwards the Son was born yet the same should not avoid the Remitter VI. Stapleton and Truelocks Case Mich. 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary More Rep. 11. WIlliam Stapleton Executor of John Scardenyll brought an Action of Debt against John Truelock Administrator of the Goods of William Truelock who died Intestate upon a Bill sealed The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Testament By which it appeared That the said Scardenyll had made the Plaintiff and the said William Truelock his Executors And in the said Will was this Clause I Will That my Friend William Truelock shall pay to my other Executor all such debts as he oweth me before he shall meddle with any thing of this my Will or take any Advantage of this my Will for the discharge of the same debts for that I have made him one of my Executors And upon this matter It was clearly Resolved that the said William Truelock could not Adminster nor be Executor before he had paid the debts And the Defendant said That the said William Truelock in his life had paid unto his Co-Executors all such debts which in vita sua debuit to the said Scardenyll And also that the said William Truelock in his life time had Administred the Goods of Scardenyll with his Co-Executors And in this Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and that for default of pleading For the Defendant ought to have shewed Acquittances of the payment of the debts to his Co-Executors and also ought to have shewed in Certainty what debts they were VII Hecks and Tirrell's Case 3 and 4 Phil. and Mary DEbt by Hecks and Harrison against Tirrell as Heir Who pleaded Nothing by Descent The Plaintiff Replyed 1 And. 28. Assets at such a place within the Cinque-Ports And so it was found by a Iury of the County adjoyning and Iudgment given of the moyety of his Lands aswell those by descent as by purchase And a Writ awarded to the Constable of Dover to extend the Lands within the Cinque-Ports But it was said That first the Plaintiff ought to have a Certiorari to send the Record into the Chancery and from thence by Mittimus to the Constable of Dover VIII The King and Due and Kirleys Case 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary THe King and Queen brought a Writ of Disceit against Due and Kirley and declared More Rep. 13 That one Colley was seised of certain Lands in Fee and held the same of the King and Queen as of their Mannor of Westbury the which Mannor is Ancient Demesne and so seised levies a Fine thereof to the said Due Sur Conusans de Droit come ceo c. Due rendred the Land to Colley for life the Remainder over to Kirley in Fee Colley died Kirley entred as in his Remainder Kirley pleaded That the Land whereof c. is Frank Fee c. Vpon which they are at Issue Which Issue depending and not tryed Due died It was moved in this Case That the Writ might abate But that was denyed by the Court. For this Action is but Trespass in its nature for to punish this Disceit and no Land is to be recovered but only the Fine Reversed IX Eliot and Nutcombs Case Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary
Pawnage of the Park of H. grants all his Goods and Chattels moveables and immoveables within the said Park It was holden by Weston and Dyer Iustices That the Lease of the Pawnage passeth by these words And it was said by Dyer If a Man hath a Lease for years of a House and grants all his Goods and Chattels being in the same House that as well the Lease of the House as the Goods within it pass by such a Grant. XLVII Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was said by Weston and Bendloes That a Retraxit cannot be before a Declaration which Leonard and Filmer Prothonotaries granted And Dyer said That it being before a Declaration it is but a Nonsuit and Wheatley and Filmer affirmed the same and therefore it was adjudged That such a Retraxit in the Court of Hustings before the Sheriff is no Plea in Bar. XLVIII Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt brought against Christmas who shewed forth a Protection Quia Profecturus with the Lord Hunsdon to Barwick Dyer doubted If the Protection did lie But said It should be rather Moraturus then Profecturus For a Protection Quia Profecturus to Calleis was never good but super victitation Calicii Harper contrary For Barwick is out of the Realm And he said That he was once of Counsel Where a Bill was exhibited in Parliament to make Hexham part of England and he said That in the time of the Queen that now is One Carre struck a Man who thereof died at Barwick and in an Appeal thereof brought here by the Wife Carre was dismissed XLIX Cranmers Case Hill. 14 Eliz. Rott 938. In the Common Pleas. Dyer 309 310. 2 Len. 5. 1 Len. 196. 1 And. 19. More Rep. 100. Office of Executors 118. 119. TThomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury having a Reversion in Fee of certain Lands upon a Lease for years granted the Reversion to the use of the Grantor himself for his life and after his decease to the use of the Executors and Assignees of the Grantor for 20 years next after the death of the Grantor and after to the use of Thomas his Son in tail and afterwards to the use of the Grantor in Fee The Grantor is attainted of Treason and the Queen gave the said Term of 20 years to the Wife of the Grantor who took to Husband Ed. White-Church who let the Land to A. Thomas the Son entred and leased the same Land to one Kirk who upon an Ouster brought Ejectione Firmae This Case was Argued by the Iustices Manwood the puisne Iustice conceived That the Plaintiff ought to be barred and that the Lessee of White-Church who claimed by the grant of the Queen the said Term of 20 years ought to hold the Land against the Son of the Grantor For the remainder limited to the Son is not yet begun in possession And he insisted much in his Argument upon this point That Vses limited upon any Conveyance are governed and directed according to the Rules of the Common Law As if a Feoffment in Fee be made unto the use of another for life the remainder to the use of the Lessee for life and the Heirs of his body c. now the party hath an estate tail executed in possession and that is according to the Rule of the Common Law. And he cited the Case of 40 E. 3. 20. Where Land was given by Fine to A.B. and C. and to the Heirs of the body of C. and for default of such Issue the remainder to the right Heirs of A. C. died without Issue B. dyed and afterwards A. died his Heir brought a Scire facias out of the said Fine And by Iudgment of the Court the Scire facias did not lie for the Fee was vested in the Father of the Demandant although that ex vi verbi the remainder was limited not to the Father but to his Heirs But where Vses are limited in other manner than according to the Rules of the Common Law there they shall not be ruled and governed by the Rules of the Common Law As if Lands be given to the use of one for life and to the use of such Lessees to whom the Tenant for life shall demise the same for years or life rendring Rent the remainder over to a stranger in tail and afterwards the Tenant for life makes a Lease for years or life and dieth such a Lease shall bind him in the remainder although that the Lessor had not but for life and be now dead for the Vse limited here to the Lessees which would be was limited contrary to the Rules of the Common Law. For by the Common Law such Leases made by Tenant for life are determined by his death And in this Case This Lease for 20 years after the death of the Grantor was limited according to the Rules of the Common Law and therefore it shall take effect accordingly as if it had passed in possession and not in use as if the Conveyance had been of the Land it self and that Land had been granted to the Grantor for 20 years after his death that Interest had been vested in him to sell forfeit or otherwise to dispose at his pleasure and shall not accrue to the Executors as a purchase 19 E. 2. Fitz. Covenant 25. Land was Leased to one for life and after his decease to his Executors and Assigns for 10 years the Lessee assigned the Term And by Herle it is a good Assignment For it is in the Election of the Lessee to Devise that Interest or to assign it in his life-time And see 39 E. 3. 25. A Lease was made to one for life and a year over 17 E. 3. 29. Lessee for life so as after his death the Land remain to his Executors for 8 years Lessee for life died He who had the Freehold of the Land was impleaded who rendred the Land and the Executors of the Lessee for life prayed to be received scil where as Executors do hold the Term which proves that they had the Term as Executors to the use of the Testator and so Assets therefore the same was before in the Lessee for life But by Dyer in his Argument That Case doth not prove it and certainâ—y it is not Assets For although the Executor have the same Term by purchase yet they have it as Executors for that is a good name of purchase which Harper concessit And Manwood argued further and he Cited 19 E. 3. Fitz. Covenant 24. Land was let for life and if the Lessee died within 12 years that his Executors should hold the same until the end of the 12 years The Lessee for life died and the Executors entred and the Executors of the Lessee for life brought Actions of Covenant which proved that the Executors had the Term as a Chatel vested in the Testator and not in their own Rights as Purchasors by the name of Executors See 22 Ass 37. Land demised to A. ad totam vitam suam
Et ulterius concessiâ— that if the Lessee obierit infra 20 annos proxime sequent the said Lessee potuit legare dare praedict tenementa alicui personae usque ad terminum praedict 20 annorum c. and Dyer cited the Case 16 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 22. Land was leased to one for life and if the Lessee died within the Term of 20 years that his Executors or Assigns should have it until the end of the said 20 years and a Quid juris clamat was brought against the Lessee for life without any mention of any other Estate To which the Defendant pleaded the special matter and demanded Iudgment upon that Fine if he should be driven to Attorn where he is supposed Tenant for life only And it is there said That that special matter is but a Protestation to save the Term to his Executors And upon such a Fine such Tenant hath been driven to Attorn And by Dyer If the Lessee doth not make such protestation yet his special interest is not impaired by it yet it is but reason that it be entred for the more manifestation of it 32 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 5. A Lease to W. for life and 20 years over he may grant the same Term or any part of it And he cited the Case between Parker and Gravenor 3. 4 Mar. Dyer 150. Where a Lease for life was made and by the Indenture of Lease Provisum fuit That if the Lessee died within the Term of 60 years that then his Executors and Assigns should have and enjoy the said Lands pro termino totidem annorum which did amount to the number of 60 years to be accompted from the date of the Indenture And it was the Opinion of the Court That that was not any Lease But they all agreed That a Lease for years in remainder might be upon a Lease for life in the same person See 40 E. 3. A Lease was made for life and half a year after the Lessee died and Waste is brought against the Executors supposing that the Testator held for years and the Writ was holden good And there it is said by Kirton That the Executors could not have that Term unless it were in the Testator and there the Term is not limited to any person And see 11 H. 4. 187. Annuity granted to one for life and 20 years after And 50 E. Ass 1. A Lease for life and 3 years over to his Executors And then here in our Case This Vse being limited in Order according to the Rules of the Common Law shall vest in the Grantor to give or forfeit and then by the Attainder it was forfeited to Queen Mary and if so then the Plaintiff shall be barred Harper Iustice to the contrary And that the Interest in the Remainder for years limited to the Executors and Assigns of the Grantor is in abeyance and not in the Grantor and then it cannot be forfeited But if this Vse had been limited to the Grantor himself then all had been in him to give c. But here in our Case the Remainder for years is limited and appointed to the Executors c. Also Vses shall not be ruled in such manner as Lands but the Law shall rule the possession obtained by use in another manner than the possession obtained by the Order of the Common Law As in the Case of Amy Townsend Plow Com. 111 112. Where the Husband seised in the right of his Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife for life with divers remainders over Now is not the Wife remitted as she should be by Conveyance at Common La as if the Husband discontinueth the Land in the right of his Wife and the Discontinuee giveth the Lands to the Husband and Wife and to a third person she is remitted to the whole and the third person hath not any thing Dyer to the same intent And here we ought to intend and consider That it was the purpose of Cranmer to advance his Executors with this Term unto their own use and benefit and not to leave the same in himself And I do conceive That the use is in abeyance until the Executors are made or an Assignee appointed for he may make an Assignee who shall have the Term For Assignee may be made two ways 1 By grant of an Estate which is in the Grantor before 2 A person nominated and appointed by another to take any thing c. And it shall be also intended That Cranmer was purposed to make other Provision to leave to his Executors Assets to perform his Will and not that that Term should be applyed to that purpose for then he would have shewed it in the Conveyance by words scil as to pay his Legacies and perform his last Will And the Cases put by my Brother Manwood do not go to the Point For I agree Where Lands are given to one for life the remainder for years and doth not say to whom it cannot be intended to any other but to the Lessee for life or otherwise it shall be void And also where Land is given to one for life and for two years after to his Executors or Assigns or Heirs all is in the Lessee for all is as one gift But where it is given to one for life and after his death the remainder to his Executors I do not see any reason that that remainder should be any Assets in the hands of the Executors Or that if the Lessee dieth Intestate that his Administrator should have it and therefore the Executors shall have the same as a purchase But Cranmer might have given the same or appointed one in the mean time to receive it and in the mean time it shall be in abeyance Also if Lands be Leased to B. for life the remainder for years to his Heirs the same remainder for years is in abeyance until the death of the Lessee and then it shall vest in the Heir as a Purchasor and as a Chattel and shall go to the Executor of the Heir c. and the Tenant for life cannot meddle with it for it is not in him Also Vses shall not be raised as Lands i. e at the Common Law but shall be raised by the Statute and as Vses were raised in the Chancery before the Statute And therefore if this Conveyance had been before the Statute he could not have compelled the Feoffees to dispose of that Interest at his pleasure c. And then Cranmer the Son shall have the Land by force of the entail limited unto him For the Estate for years is gone because no assignment of it is made nor any Executors who can take it and the Estate for life is determined by the death of Cranmer and the Feoffee to an Vse cannot have it for there is not any Consideration whereof he should have any Vse for by the Limitation nothing was left in the Feoffee And so I conceive that the Plaintiff shall recover
35. that he shall enjoy it against all persons but only against all persons who have Title and not against those who have not any Title because against them he may have his remedy And if a Man makes a Feoffment of his Lands with Warranty and covenants that it is discharged of all Rents 1 Roll. 434. 1 Inst 389. a. 1 Len. 29. there it shall not extend to Rent Services which are incident to the Lands of Common Right In 3 H. 7. 4. the Case was The Condition of an Obligation was That the Obligor should make Appropriation of the Church of Dale such a day to such a House at his Costs and Charges discharged of Incumbrances Roll. Tit. Conditions there although there was a Pension granted thereout to another it was holden That the Obligee was not bounden to discharge it of that Pension No more than if a Man be bounden to make a Feoffment of his Land there although that he charge the Land yet he shall not forfeit his Bond But if it were that he should make a Feoffment of his Land discharged c. it is otherwise but yet he shall not be bounden to discharge it of such things with which it is charged by the Law. Barham The words are precisely That he shall enjoy it without interruption of any person so as be he interrupted by one that hath Title or no Title the Plaintiff hath cause of Action Manwood What if the words were That he should enjoy it without Suit in Law Meade That shall be intended of a lawful Suit And in the principal case although the Contract be by words yet it is upon a good Consideration that is to say Of a Fine and Income and upon the payment of the Rent And therefore as Dyer said When Catesby the Son leased the Lands to Mountford the now Plaintiff and it appeared that his Father or a stranger made claim to it and thereupon he made the promise as before shall it be intended that he should hold and enjoy the Lands peaceably without interruption of them only who had Title And that he should not have his Remedy against the Defendant upon his promise if a stranger who had not Title did interrupt him Truly he shall have his remedy against him As if the Son had promised that he should enjoy it against his Father or else that in truth if it were the Land of the Father shall it not be intended that the Son did presume that his Father should not interrupt his Lessee And that he would so deal with his Father that he should not interrupt him and it may be that upon the presumption of the good will of his Father or that he had treated with him or compounded with him that for these or the like causes the Son made the promise aforesaid And if the Father had not any Right or Title to the Land should not the Lessee have his Action against the Defendant if the Father did interrupt him for this unlawful Interruption Truly Yes For by the words it is to be supposed That the Son would so deal with his Father that the Lessee should enjoy and hold the Lands without any manner of interruption Mounson You have well tasted the Opinion of the Court upon this matter before and now you hear our Opinions again Manwood As I said the other day Cannot an Hostler take upon him that the Goods of his Guests which are within his Inn shall be safe and charge himself further therewith than he is chargeable by the Custom of the Realm and to be chargeable against every one that taketh them away Truly I conceive he may Harper The common making of Assurance is That he shall enjoy them without any lawful Interruption 1 Roll. 429. And if the Law upon the general words of Enjoying without Interruption should be intended but of lawful Interruptions It were in vain to have this word Lawful in the Deed c. LXV Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Debt was brought against one upon an Obligation It was upon an Apprentice Bond The Condition of which was That if such a one did become the Apprentice of the Obligee and transport his Merchandises beyond the Seas and make a Retorn of them and maketh an Accompt unto the Obligee and payeth the Monies upon his Accompt within a certain time that then c. And afterwards the Obligee doth release by Deed to the Servant the Apprentice and not to the Obligor And in Debt brought against the Obligor he pleaded the Release And it was said by the Lord Dyer and by the whole Court That by the Release to the Servant the Obligation was saved if the Release were made before any forfeiture or that the Servant or Apprentice had broken any of the Conditions or any point according to the Covenants but if it was made after any of them was broken then such a Release to the Servant did not dispence with the Obligation which was made by the stranger because an Obligation once forfeited cannot be saved by any Act or Release made or done to a stranger LXVI Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit brought by the Patron against the Archbishop of York and the Incumbent Dyer 327. who was in by the Collation of the Archbishop after the death of the Incumbent of the Patron It was said by the Lord Dyer That of an Avoydance by Resignation or Deprivation the Patron shall have 6 months time after notice thereof given unto him to present his Clerk because it may be done secretly in the Chamber of the Ordinary and therefore in such case the Law is That the Bishop is to give notice of it to the Patron before he be bound to that knowledge of such a Presentment as it appeareth by the Case in 1 H. 7. 4. And Lowe the Prothonotary said That so is the Roll of the same year where the Issue was Whether the Patron had 6 months after the notice And then the Lord Dyer said to the Prothonotary Shew me the Roll at another day that I may compare it with my Book But if the Church become void by death of the Incumbent there the Patron is to take notice of it at his peril without any other notice thereof to be given him by the Ordinary And he said That if the Patron doth present his Clerk a Week before the 6 months be ended and the Ordinary doth refuse the Clerk for Inability because he is unlearned and then the six months pass before he presenteth another after the six months after the death of the Incumbent in such case the Bishop shall have the Collation of the Clerk because it was the folly of the Patron that he did not present his Clerk before so as the Ordinary might examine him and that thereupon if he be found to be unable that he might present another Clerk to the Ordinary within convenient time and for that cause is the 6
Wife the Executrix should be charged for the not Reparations as well in the time of her Husband as in her own time And if she do make the Reparation depending the Suit yet thereby the Suit shall not abate but it shall be a good cause to qualifie the damages according to that which may be supposed that the party is damnified for the not repairing from the time of the purchase of the Reversion unto the time of the bringing of the Action And it was said by Manwood That by the Recovery of the damages that the Lessee should be excused for ever after for making of Reparations so as if he suffer the Houses for want of Reparations to decay that no Action shall thereupon after be brought for the same but that the Covenant is extinct LXXIII Easter Term. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace moved the Court that in the Kings Bench this case was argued upon a Demurrer there A Feoffment was made by one Coxley who took back an Estate for life the remainder to him who should be his Heir at the time of his death and to the Heirs males of his body begotten And afterwards the Tenant for life after the Statute of 32 H. 8. suffered a Recovery to be had against him that that Recovery was good as it was at the Common Law Because the Statute doth not speak but that it shall not be a bar to him who hath the Reversion at the time of the Recovery but this remainder was in Abeyance until the death of the Tenant for life and that in the same Court it was adjudged accordingly in an Ejectione firmae and because the same was a discontinuance the Plaintiff had here brought his Formedon in the Remainder and therefore Lovelace prayed That they might proceed without delays because the Plaintiffs Title appeareth without Essoigns and feigned delays Which Dyer Iustice conceived to be a reasonable request and that it should be well so to do because as he said This Court is debased and lessened and the Kings Bench doth encrease with such Actions which should be sued here for the speed which is there And he said That the delays here were a discredit to the Court so as all Actions almost which do concern the Realty are determined in the Kings Bench in Writs of Ejectione firmae where the Iudgment is Quod recuperet terminum and by that they are put into possession and by such means no Action is in effect brought here but such Actions as cannot be brought there as Formedons Writs of Dower c. to the Slander of the Court and to the Detriment and Loss of the Serjeants at the Bar. And Lovelace shewed That divers mean Feoffments were made c. LXXIV Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte This Case was in Court An Heir Female was in Ward of a common person who tendred to her a marriage viz. his younger Son and she agreed to the Tender and the Guardian died The Heir married the younger Son according to the Tender The Executors of the Guardian brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii supposing the Tender by the Lord to be void by his death But the Court was of a contrary Opinion because the Tender of their Testator was executed LXXV Riches Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ELizabeth Rich brought a Writ of Dower against J.S. who pleaded and Iudgment given for the Defendant and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed And she brought a new Writ of Dower and the Tenant pleaded That he always was ready and yet is c. Against which the Demandant pleaded the first Record to estop the Tenant To which the Tenant pleaded Nul tiel Record It was the Opinion of the Court That here the Demandant cannot conclude the Tenant by that Replication to plead Nul tiel Record For the Iudgment is reversed and so no Record and it cannot be certified a Record But if the Tenant had taken Issue upon the plea of the Tenant absque hoc that he was ready the same might well have been given in Evidence against the Tenant Note That the Case was That the Demandant after the death of her Husband entred into the Land in Demand and continued the possession of it 5 years and afterwards the Heir entred upon which she brought Dower It was agreed in that Case That the Tenant needed not to plead Tout temps prist after his re-entry for the time the Demandant had occupied the same is a sufficient recompence for the Damages LXXVI Vavasors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NIcholas Ellis seised in Fee of the Mannor of Woodhall Leased the same to William Vavasor and E. 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 the Land and did Waste in a Park parcel of the Mannor It was moved to the Court If the Writ of Waste should suppose that the Wife held ex dimissione Nicholai Ellis or ex dimissione of her Husband It was the Opinion of the Court That upon this matter the Writ should be general viz. that she held de haereditate J.S. haeredis c. without saying any more either ex dimissione hujus vel illius For she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Vses and therefore the Writ shall be ex haereditate It was also the Opinion of the Iustices That the Wife here is not remitted but that she should be in according to the Term of the Feoffment Note in this Case The Waste was assigned in destroying the Deer in the Park And Meade Serjeant conceived That Waste could not be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant had destroyed all the Deer And of that Opinion also was Dyer Manwood said If the Lessee of a Dove-house destroyed all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is Waste And if a Keeper destroy so many of the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is Waste although he doth not destroy them all See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Waste 97. If there be sufficient left in a Park Pond c. it is enough LXXVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought against Executors They were at Issue Vpon nothing in their hands It was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That a stranger was bound to the Testator in 100 l. for performance of covenants which were broken For which the Executors brought Debt upon the Obligation depending which Suit both parties submitted themselves to the Arbitrament of A. and B. who awarded That the Obligor should pay to the Executors 70 l. in full satisfaction c. and that the Executors should release c. which was done accordingly And it was agreed by the Court That by the Release it
the Mannor descended to Sir John Clifton who granted a Copy-hold to Hempston The Executors of Sir William Cordell distrain for the Rent And it was agreed by the whole Court That the Copyholder should hold his Copy-hold charged Vide inde 10 Eliz. Dyer 270. Windham It hath been adjudged That the Wife of the Lord shall not be endowed against the Copyholder which Periam granted and shewed a reason thereof For the Title of Dower is not consummated before the death of the Husband so as the Title of the Copyholder was compleated before the Title of Dower 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. For by the Preface of the said Statute he conceived That the Statute extended 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 had an Action of Debt Ergo. But Periam and Windham held the contrary For this Statute intends a further remedy for that mischief viz. not only an Action of Debt but also Dissress and Avowry See the words of the Statute viz. distrain for the Arrearages c. Vpon the Lands c. which were charged with the payment of such Rents and chargeable to the distress of the Testator so long as the said Lands continue remain and be in the seisin or possession of the said Tenant in Demesne who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent so being behind to the said Testator or in the seisin or possession of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by purchase gift or descent in like manner and form as their Testator might or ought to have done in his life time It was moved by Fenner That here the Land charged doth not continue in the seisin or possession of the Tenant And here Sir J. Clifton was issue in tail and therefore he doth not claim only by the Father but per formam Doni and therefore he is not lyable Ergo nor his Heir Shuttleworth contrary Sir J. Clifton was chargeable and he claims only from them who immediately ought to have paid the Rent And the Copyholder claims by purchase from Sir J. Clifton so he claims from Sir William Clifton the Tenant although he doth not claim immediately For if the Tenant ought to have paid it and he dieth and the Land descendeth to his Heir and the Heir maketh a Feoffment the Feoffee shall be charged within this Statute although he doth not claim immediately So where Land discharged descends from the Tenant who ought to have paid it and so from Heir to Heir The Statute of 1 R. 2. is That all Grants c. shall be good against the Donor c. his Heirs c. claiming the same only as Heirs to Cestuy que Use Yet if Cestuy que Use grants a Rent-charge and his Feoffees are disseised the Grant shall be good against the Disseisor and yet he doth not claim only by Cestuy que Use And although Sir J. Clifton be Tenant in tail and so claims per formam Doni yet forasmuch as the Estate tail comes under the Estate of him who grants the Rent he shall be subject to the charge And this Statute extends not only to him who claims by the Tenant but also to the Heir of him c. And by Windham and Rhodes The Copyholder doth not claim only by the Lord but he claims in also by the Custom but the Custom is not any part of his Title but only appoints the manner how he shall hold The possession here is continued in Sir J. Clifton for the possession of his Copyholder is his possession so as if the Copyholder be ousted Sir J. Clifton shall have an Assise And so the strict words of the Statute are observed for the seisin and possession continue in Sir J. Clifton who claims only by Sir William Clifton who was the Tenant in Demesne who ought to pay the Rent But Fenner said to that That the seisin and possession intended in the Statute was the very actual possession i. e. pedis dispositio and such a possession in which a distress might be taken and that could not be taken in a Freehold without actual possession LXXXVIII Owen and Sadlers Case Hill. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 10 Co. 96. A Lease was made to A. for life the remainder to B. in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of B. who bargains and sells all his Estate or levies a Fine with Proclamations of it to D. A. commits Waste It was holden by the Court That D. shall not punish him in an Action of Waste for nothing passeth to him but during the life of the Grantor scil as to the remainder in tail in respect of which Estate the Action of Waste is only maintainable for although that the Feesimple passeth to the Grantee or Conusee yet in respect of that an Action of Waste is not maintainable until the Estate tail be spent LXXXIX Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe King seised of a Mannor 2 Cro. 53 123. Yel 90 91. 1 Cro. 240. 2 Roll. 371. Hob. Rep. 242. to which an Advowson is appendant A stranger presents and his Clerk is in by 6 months The King grants the Mannor with all Advowsons appendant to it to B. The Incumbent dieth In this case It was holden by the Court That the Grantee might present For the Advowson was always appendant and the Inheritance of the same passed to the Grantee for it was not made disappendant by the Vsurpation But the Patentee shall not have a Quare Impedit of the first disturbance for that presentment did not pass unto him being a thing in Action without mention of it in his Grant And if the Plaintiff brings a Quare Impedit of the second Avoydance he shall make his Title by the presentment of the King not making mention of the Vsurpation Yet if the Bishop present by Lapse in the case of a common person he ought to make mention of it XC Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae upon an Evidence the Case was this The Bishop of Rochester 4 E. 6. Leased to B. for years rendring Rent and afterwards granted the Reversion to C. for 99 years rendring the ancient Rent Habendum from the day of the Lease without impeachment of Waste which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter but B. did not attorn And in default of Attornment It was holden by the whole Court That the Lease was void For it was made by way of grant of the Reversion and to pass as a Reversion But by Catline If the Bishop had granted the Reversion and also demised the Land for 99 years It should pass as a Lease to begin first after the
devise Lands of which she was seised of an Estate of Inheritance in Fee simple according to the Custom to her Husband And also Surrender the same in the presence of the Steward and 6 other of the Tenants And it was further found That one J.S. was seised of the Copy-hold Lands wherein the Trespass was And that he had Issue 2 Daughters and died seised of the said Lands And that after his Decease his two Daughters entred into the said Lands and afterwards they both took Husbands And that afterwards one of the said Daughters made a Will in writing and by her said Will in the presence of the Steward and six of the Tenants she Devised her part of the said Copy-hold Lands to her Husband and his Heirs and at the next Court surrendred the said Copy-hold Lands in the presence of the Steward and six other of the Tenants to the uses in her Will expressed and shortly after she died and that after her death her Husband was admitted to the said part of her Lands who continued the possession thereof And the Husband of the other Daughter and his Wife entred upon him Vpon whom he re-entred And the Husband brought Trespass This Case was argued at the Bar by Rhodes And he said That the Custom was not good neither for the Devise nor for the Surrender First for the incertainty of the Estate what Estate she might Devise for that is not expressed in the Custom but generally that she might Devise her Copyhold Lands of Inheritance without expressing for what Estate And secondly the Custom is not good for that it is against reason that the Wife should surrender to the use of her Husband And that a Custom to devise is not good where it is incertain he vouched many Cases As 13 E. 3. tit Dum fuit infra aetatem 3. The Tenant said That the Lands lay in the County of Dorset where the Custom is That an Enfant might make a Grant or a Feoffment when he could number 12 d. and because it is incertain when he could do it It was holden to be a void Custom So 19 E. 2. tit Gard. 127. In a Ravishment of Ward It was alledged that the Custom was That when an Enfant could measure an Ell of Cloath or number 12 d. that he should be out of Ward And it was holden to be a void Custom for the incertainty Also he said That in the principal Case the Custom was void for that it was against reason that the Wife should surrender to her Husband for every Surrender is a Gift and a Woman cannot give unto her Husband for the Wife hath not any disposing Will but the Will of her Husband only And therefore the Case is in 21 E. 3. That if the Husband be seised of Lands in the right of his Wife and he maketh a Feoffment in Fee of the Lands and the Wife being upon the Lands doth disagree and saith She will not depart with the Land during her life yet the Feoffment is a good Feoffment and shall bind the Wife during the life of the Husband And see 3 E. 3. Br. tit Devise 43. That a Feme Covert cannot Devise to her Husband for that should be the Act of the Husband to convey the Lands to himself And whereas the Case in 29 E. 3. was Objected against him where the Case was That a Woman being seised of Land deviseable took a Husband and had Issue by him and the Wife Devised her Lands to her Husband for his life and died and a Writ of Waste was afterwards brought against him And it was there holden That the Writ did lie He said That that Case did make rather for him than against him for that Case proves that the Husband did not take the Land by vertue of the Devise in his own right but that he held the Lands having Issue by the Wife as Tenant by the Courtesie and so under another Title and therefore it appeareth that the Writ of Waste was there brought against him as Tenant by the Courtesie Also he said That the Devise was void by the Statute of 34 H. 8. Cap. 5. where it is Enacted That Wills and Testaments made of any Lands Tenements c. by Women Coverts shall not be good or effectual in the Law and he said That that Statute did extend to Copyhold Lands But as to that all the Iustices did agree That Copyhold Lands were not within the words of that Statute But Anderson said That the Equity of that Act did extend to Copyholds And further Anderson said That the Prescription or Custom in the principal Case was not good for it is layed to be That Quaelibet Foemina Viro Co-operta poterit and it ought to be potest and by the Custom have used to Devise to the Husband And a Prescription must be in a thing done and not in posse Also he said That the Custom if it were good is not well pursued For the Custom is that she may Devise and Surrender in the presence of the Steward and six Tenants and that must be intended to be done all at one time for the words of a Custom are to be performed if it may be but in the principal case the Devise is laid to be at one time and the Surrender at another time and so it is not in pursuance of the Custom But to that it was not answered But then it was said Admit that the Custom to devise and the Devise were not good yet the Action did not lie against the Defendant because that the Husband was admitted and his Entry into the Land was countenanced by a lawful Ceremony and also he was Tenant in Common with the other Husband by such Entry It was adjourned CXXIII Rosse's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass brought by Rosse for breaking of his Close and beating of his Servant and carrying away of his Goods Post 94. Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That Sir Thomas Bromley Chancellor of England was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff and one A. which A. assigned his moyety to Cavendish by whose Commandment the Defendant entred It was moved That that Tenancy in Common betwixt the Plaintiff and him in whose right the Defendant justified could not be given in Evidence and so it could not be found by Verdict but it ought to have been pleaded at the beginning But the whole Court were clear of another Opinion and that the same might be given in Evidence well enough It was further moved against the Verdict That the same did not extend to all the points in the Declaration but only to the breaking of the Close without enquiry of the battery c. And for that cause it was clearly holden by the Court That the Verdict was void And a Venire facias de novo was awarded CXXIV Absolon and Andertons Case Mich. 25 26 Eliz. Rot. 479. In the Kings
Bench. WIlliam Absolon Master of the Savoy and the Chaplains there brought Debt against Anderton The Case was That the said Master and Chaplains leased Lands to the Defendant for certain years and afterwards he accepted of them an Indenture of Bargain and Sale to him and his Heirs by express words of Bargain and Sale without other words And one of the Masters of the Chancery within the 6 months came unto them into their Chapter-house and before him they acknowledged the said Indenture to be their Deed and prayed that it be enrolled which was done accordingly It was moved If that acknowledgment and Enrollment were good or not or if the Master and the Chaplains ought to have appointed one by their Warrant to be their Attorny to acknowledge the said Deed And it was also moved 1 Len. 184. If there needed any Enrollment at all of it because Anderton had then an Interest in the Land for years in which case it is to be considered If the words Barganizavi Vendidi shall be of such effect as the words Dedi Concessi And it was said by the Court That a Warrant of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed were a strange thing And it was agreed That the Indenture being once Inrolled it was not material by what means it was Inrolled but was good being done CXXV Savell and Badcocks Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SAvell brought an Action of Trespass against Badcock and declared That Edw. Savell was seised of the Mannor of D. and leased the same for years to Henry Savell who died having made the Plaintiff his Executor who entred and was possessed until the first day of January at which time the Trespass was done The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And it was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That the said Ed. Savell was seised and leased to the said Henry Savell for years who so possessed reciting the said Lease Demised the said Mannor to Sir William Cordell Master of the Rolls to have to him immediately after the decease of the said Henry for so many years of the said Term which at the time of his death should be unexpired if Dorothy the Wife of the said Henry should so long live Henry died Sir William Cordell entred Dorothy died within the Term the Plaintiff the Executor of Henry entred and was possessed until the first day of Januarii 23 Eliz. at which day the Trespass was done On the Defendants part it was given in Evidence That after the Grant to Sir William Cordell the said Henry and Edward joyned in a fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to a stranger who granted and rendred the Land to the said Henry and his Heirs who devised the same to the said Dorothy his Wife for life the remainder to Cordell Savell in tail the remainder over and died Dorothy entred and died Cordell Savell 22 Eliz. conveyed the Mannor by Fine to one Williamson who entred and afterwards and before the Trespass aforesaid viz. 14 January 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant for years by force of which the Defendant entred And upon this Evidence there was a Demurrer in Law. And it was argued by Shuttleworth who was made Serjeant the last Term. And he said That the Demise made by Henry Savell is not in the inconveniency of the maxim that Henry by the said Grant should reserve a lesser Estate to himself than he had before For here by this Grant no present interest passeth by Sir William Cordell but the effect of the Grant rests upon a Contingency scil if he himself dieth within the Term c. until which time the whole interest of the Term doth remain in the said Henry Savell subject to the Contingency aforesaid and amounts to so much as if the said Henry had granted the same to Sir William Cordell if he himself should die within the Term in which Case it is a limitation when the said Grant shall take effect As if I grant unto you my Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name the same is a good Grant to take effect upon the naming of J.S. Then the Case being so When Henry Savell the Lessee and Edward Savell the Lessor joyn in a Fine ut supra now the possibility of the remnant of the Term which upon the death of Henry Savell and Dorothy his Wife within the Term might accrue to the Executors of the said Henry Savell is not extinct by the Fine but doth remain Quodam modo in Henry Savell to vest in his Executors if it should happen And here is not any conclusion by the Fine in this Case for Henry at the time of the Fine had not in him any Interest which is now claimed and so cannot be bound by the Fine For the Interest in respect of which the Plaintiff hath cause of Action begineth after the death of Henry who levied the Fine and first accrueth to his Executors and so shall not be touched by the Fine and therefore if such a Lessee for years granteth his Term to J.S. Proviso That if J.S. dieth within the Term that he himself shall have it again and afterwards the Grantor joyns with his Lessor in a Fine and afterwards within the Term J.S. dieth now the Grantor notwithstanding the Fine shall have the residue of the Term Then when the Conusee by the Fine regrants the Land to Henry in Fee that possibility to have after the death of the Donor cannot be drowned in the Fee simple for the reason aforesaid And then when Henry deviseth the same to his Wife that possibility doth pass to Dorothy because it was never in the Devisor and then when Dorothy dieth within the Term the Residue of the said Term shall accrue to the Plaintiff as Executor of Henry Cook contrary And he held The Grant to Sir William Cordell is utterly void And he agreed That Grants although in themselves they be uncertain yet if they may be reduced to certain they are good but here is no expectance of any certainty in the life of Henry for the Term limited to Sir William Cordell is not to begin till the death of Henry and is to end upon the death of Dorothy so as here is not any certain beginning nor certain end and here this Grant cannot be reduced to any Certainty during the life of the Grantor and so for that cause is void See Plow Com. 6 Eliz. Say and Fullers Case 273. by Weston Iustice If A. makes a Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name if J.S. in the life of A. name a certain number of years then the Lease is good but if the Lease had been for so many years as my Executors shall name that can never be made good in my life And upon that reason it is That an Attornment ought to be made in the life of the Grantor or else no Reversion shall pass So 33 E. 3. Entry 79. A Bishop aliens and after his death the Dean Chapter
he might be disseised But because the words of the Indictment were Expulit disseisivit which could not be true if the party expelled and disseised had not Freehold the Exception was disallowed Another Exception was taken to the Indictment For these words In unum tenementum intravit and this word Tenementum is too general and an uncertain word and therefore as to that the party was discharged But the Indictment was further In unum Tenementum decem acras terrae eidem pertinent And therefore as to the 10 Acres the party was enforced to Answer CL. Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Granted to B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to begin when J.S. died without Issue of his body J.S. died having Issue which Issue died without Issue Dyer said The Grant shall not take effect For J.S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore then the Grant shall not begin and if not then then not at all And by Manwood If the words had been To begin when J.S. is dead without Issue of his body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dieth without Issue c. Dyer If the Donee in tail hath Issue and dieth without Issue The Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself died without Issue For there is an Interest and there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A. and B. for the Term of their lives if any of them dieth the Survivor shall have the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the life of B. and C. now if B. or C. die all the Estate is determined because but a Limitation and B. and C. had not any Interest See Cook 5 Part Bradnell's Case CLI Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Enfeoffed B. upon Condition That if he pay 10. l. to the Feoffee his Executors or Assigns 4 Len. 232. 1 Len. 285 286. Hill. 12. Car. 2 B.R. Goodyer and Clarks Case within 3 yeares next ensuing that then it should be lawful for him and his Heirs to re-enter The Feoffee hath Issue two Sons whom he makes his Executors and dieth before the day of payment The Ordinary commits â—etters of Administration to J.S. during the minority of the Executors Manwood conceived That it is a most sure way for A. to pay the Monies to the Executors for they remain Executors notwithstanding the Administration committed to another For the Administrator in such case is but as Bailiff or Receivor to the Executors and shall be accomptable to them Which Harper and Dyer Concesserunt And Manwood said If in this Case the Monies be paid to one of the Executors it is sufficient and the same well paid but that Conditional Feoffments are as a Sum in gross and not in nature of a Debt Which the rest of the Iustices granted CLII. Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of a Mannor seased the same for years rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry and afterwards levied a Fine Sur Conusans de Droit to the use of himself and his Heirs The Rent being demanded is behind Dyer A. cannot re-enter for although in right the Rent passeth without Attornment yet he is without remedy for it is without Attornment and it would be hard without Attornment to re-enter c. It was moved further If here the Conusor be Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Manwood The Reversion of a Termor is granted by Fine there wants privity for an Action of Debt Waste and Re-entry But if the Conusee dieth without Heir although that in right it was in the Conusee yet the Lord by Escheat shall make Avowry and yet the Conusee by whom he claimeth could not And in the Case at Bar the Conusee himself could not but the Conusor being Cestuy que use who is in by the Act of Law 1 Inst 309. shall avow and shall re-enter without Attornment For the Conusor is in by the Statute of 27 H. 8. Harper The Heir of the Conusee shall avow and re-enter before Attornment Dyer 13 H. 4. The Father leaseth for years rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry the Father demands the Rent which is not paid the Father dieth the Son cannot re-enter For the Rent doth not belong unto him And therefore in the Case at Bar the Conusee cannot avow for the Rent before Attornment therefore not re-enter CLIII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT is Enacted by the Statute of 5 Eliz. Cap. 8. That no person shall cut down any Oak Trees but between the first day of April and the last day of June but Timber imployed and bestowed in or about Buildings or Reparations of Houses c. And upon an Information upon that Statute the Defendant pleaded That he cut down the said Oak Trees and thereof made Laths to be bestowed in building and that he had sold them to J.S. who had imployed part of them in building and is imploying the residue in the same manner Windham The intent of the Defendant in cutting down the Oaks was not to have them imployed in building but to sell them Although it is not necessary for the satisfaction of that Statute that the Oaks presently after the cutting be imployed about building For if the Lessee of a Messuage who is to have House-bote seeing that his Messuage will want reparation cutteth down a Tree for such intent although there be not such urgent occasion at present that it ought to be presently repaired the same shall not be said Trespass for it is good Husbandry to have such Timber to be seasonable which cannot be without some reasonable time between the cutting down and the imployment Periam If at the time of the cutting the Vendor or Vendee had an intent to employ them about building it is good enough And it is a strong Case here because the Defendant imploys the Timber himself in Laths which is not of any use but for building and cannot be made but of Timber CLIV. Eve and Finch's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEter Eve and John Finch brought an Action of Trespass against Nathaniel Tracy and Margaret his Wife and upon the pleading the Case was that John Finch Father of J.F. the Plaintiff seised of the Mannor of St. Katherines held the same of the Queen by Knight service in Chief and was also seised of the Land where the Trespass was done being holden in Socage and so seised 6 Junij 20 Eliz. for the preferment of the said Margaret then his Wife enfeoffed of the said Mannor A. and B. unto the use of himself and the said Margaret and their Heirs And that the said John the Father had not any other Land but that before mentioned and that the said Mannor at the time of the said Feoffment and at the death of the said John the Father attingebat ad duas partes of all the Lands and Tenements of the said
John the Father in three parts to be divided And afterwards the Father by his Will devised the Lands holden in Socage unto his said Wife for life with divers Remainders over It was the Opinion of the Court in this Case that the Devise was utterly void by the Statute CLV Brett and Peagrims Case Pasch 26 Eliz. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas he himself and the Defendant submitted themselves to the Award of A.B. and C.D. and whereas the said Arbitrators upon the hearing of the Causes between them did intend and were resolved amongst other matters of their Award to award that two Obligations by which the Plaintiff was severally bounden to the Defendant for the payment of certain sums of Mony to the Defendant should be delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to be cancelled The Defendant promised in Consideration that that Article of the delivery of the said two Obligations should be left out of the Award that he himself would gratis deliver them to the Plaintiff without any Coertion or direction of the Award and further declared that the said Article ad specialem instantiam ipsius Querentis was left out by the said Arbitrators out of their Award and notwithstanding that that the Defendant had not redelivered ut supra c. but had put the same in suit against the Plaintiff In this Case upon the matter ut supra c. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff CLVI Nich. Lee's Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 26. 1 Len. 285. 1 Inst 113. Dyer 177. 219. a. 2 Len. 220. NIch. Lee by his Will devised his Land to W. his second Son And if he do depart this World not having Issue then I Will my Sons-in-Law shall sell my Land. The Devisor at the time of the Devise having six Sons-in-Law died W. had Issue John and died John died without Issue one of the Sons-in-Law of the Devisor died the five surviving Sons-in-Law sold the Land. 1. It was clearly agreed by the whole Court that although the words of the Will be ut supra If W. my Son depart this World not having Issue c. And that W. hath Issue which dieth without Issue there although it cannot be said Literally that William did depart this World not having Issue yet the intent of the Devisor is not to be restrained to the Letter but Construction shall be made that whensoever W. dieth in Law upon the matter without Issue the same Land shall be subject to sale according to the Authority committed by the Devisor to his Sons-in-Law And now upon the matter W. is dead without Issue As in a Formedon in the Reverter or Remainder although the Donee in tail hath Issue yet if afterwards the Estate tail be spent the Writ shall suppose that the Donee died without Issue a fortiori in the case of a Devise such Construction shall be made As to the other point concerning the sale of the Land Wray demanded if the Sons-in-Law were named in the Will The Clerks answered they were not See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 31 and 39 Ass 17. Fitz. title Executors 117. Such a sale is good in case of Executors See also 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. And see 4 and 5 Mar. Dyer Land devised in tail and if the Devisee shall die without Issue that then the Land shall be sold pro optimo valore by his Executors una cum assensu of A. if A. dieth before sale the power of the Executors is determined And afterwards it was clearly resolved by the whole Court that the sale by the manner aforesaid was good and Iudgment given accordingly CLVII Rag and Bowley's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ERror was brought upon a Fine and the Error was assigned in the Proclamations Whereupon issued a Certiorari to the Custos Brevium who certified the Proclamations by which Certificate it appeared that two of the said Proclamations were made in one day upon which the Defendant prayed another Scire facias to the Chirographer in whose Office it appeared that all the Proclamations were well and duly made It was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice in this Case that the Defendant ought to have his preyer for the Chirographer maketh the Proclamations and he is the principal Officer as to them And the Custos Brevium hath but the abstract of the Proclamations and we may in discretion amend them upon the matter appearing But the other Iustices seemed to be of a contrary Opinion for that the Proclamations being once certified by the Custos Brevium who is the principal Officer we ought not afterwards to resort to the Chirographer who is the inferior Officer And afterwards the Clerks of the Common Pleas were examined of the matter aforesaid by the Iustices of the Kings Bench and they answered according to that which was said by Wray Chief Iustice Wherefore it was awarded by the Court that a new Certiorari be directed to the Chirographer who Certified the Proclamations to be well and duly made And thereupon the Court awarded that the Proclamations in the Office of the Custos Brevium should be amended according to the Proclamations in the Custody and the Office of the Chirographer Note In the same Case before the Writ brought a stranger had brought a Writ of Error against the same Defendant upon the same Fine upon which the transcript of the Fine and Proclamations are removed in Banco and after the Plaintiff is Non-suit Now another who hath Cause may have a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet CLVIII Taverner and Cromwell's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence unto a Iury 3 Cro. 353. containing difficulty and matter in Law it was found viz. that the Bishop of Norwich 10 H. 8. was seised of the Mannor of Northelman in the right of his Bishoprick and at his Court holden within the same Mannor granted parcel of the Demesnes of the said Mannor to one Taverner and his Heirs where of the said Land in truth there was not any Demise by Copy before And so the said Land continued in Copy until 23 H. 8. at which time Taverner committed a forfeiture which being presented the Bishop seised the Land as forfeited and granted the same again by Copy to Taverner in Fee And so from thence it continued in Copy until 8 Eliz. which Interval between 23 H. 8. and 8 Eliz. amounted to 47 years It was the Opinion of the whole Court in this Case that the Continuance for 50 years is requisite to fasten a Customary Condition upon the Land against the Lord. It was also agreed by the Court that although the Original Commencement and that Customary Interest did commence 10 H. 8. ut supra from which time unto 8 Eliz. 60 years passed yet the seisure for a forfeiture which happened 23 H. 8. interrupted utterly the Continuance from the time which might by the Law have perfected the Customary Interest So
been Objected that J. cannot be said to die within the Term because by the descent of the Fee the Term is extinct or suspended and so not in esse at the time of the death of J. therefore nothing did accrue to G. because J. did not die within the Term but that is but a Conceit for the intent of Vincent was that the Heir should not meddle with the Land Devised as Heir until the 31 years be expired and words During or Within the Term extend unto the time of the Term and not unto the Estate And although that the Term as to J. be extinct yet the right or possession of G. shall stand and shall be expectant upon the death of J. before the expiration of the said 31 years As A. leaseth for life to B. and afterwards granteth the Reversion with Warranty to C. who releaseth to B. in Fee who is impleaded in a Praecipe although now B. hath a Feesimple yet during his life he shall not recover in value And in the principal Case This further Interest limited to G. cannot be extinct or prevented See Plow Com. Welden and Elkingtons Case Beaumont contrary And that the Term is extinct because he hath the said Term in his own right and not as Executor but as a Man trusted with payment of Debts and Legacies But the same Term which J. had G. cannot have for some of the years are expired and the words of the Will are He shall have such Term but here the Term is utterly extinct As where a Rent Common or Way c. descendeth upon the Ter-Tenant 2 H. 4. A Prior had an Annuity out of a Parsonage and afterwards he purchaseth the Advowson which is afterwards appropriated to his House now the Annuity is extinct and although the Prior afterwards presenteth to the Advowson yet it is-not revived Br. Extinguishment 54. A Man hath a Lease for years as Executor and purchaseth the Inheritance his Term is extinct yet it is Assets c. And it is said in Bracebridges Case Plow Com. 419. 14 Eliz. that Parson Patron and Ordinary Lease for years the Glebe Lands of the Parsonage the Parson dieth the Lessee for years becomes Parson and dieth his Executors shall not have the residue of the said Term for the Term is extinct 1 Inst 338. b. 2 Roll. 472. although he had the Term in his own right and the Freehold in the right of his Church and so in several Capacities And it was holden by some that if the Term for years comes to the Lessor as Executor who dieth the Term is revived Manwood Chief Baron asked this Case of those who Argued A Lease is made for 21 years Proviso That the Lessee shall suffer the Lessor to enjoy the same or to take the profits thereof during the life of the Lessor or so long as the Lessor shall live if the same were a good Proviso or not Pigot Conceived that the Devise to G. was a new Devise and not dependant upon the first Devise to J. nor any parcel of it but this second Devise to G. did take away the absolute Devise to J. before and qualified it so as it determined with his death The words Such Estate shall be intended an Estate to G. to be granted from the death of the Testator Land is Devised to A. and his Heirs and he if dieth without Heir that it shall remain to another the same is no good Devise But a Devise to one and his Heirs and if J.S. dieth living the Devisee B. shall have it the same is good for it is a new Devise and an Estate created de Novo and doth not depend as a Remainder upon the first Devise or upon the first Estate devised as the Case is 29 Ass 17. Br. Condition 111. and Devise 16. So here are several Estates limited one to J. and another to G. which Estate of G. cannot be extinct by unity of possession in J. These words If he die within the Term shall be construed for Effluxion of the time of 31 years and not for the Termination of the Term. Cooper Serjeant to the contrary J. took this Term as purchasor and not as Executor for that no Term was in the Testator See 14 Eliz. Dyer 309. Granmer's Case G. shall have such Term and Interest as before I have willed unto J. Manwood Such Term that is to say The Residue of the Term. Now at another day the Barons delivered their Opinions that the Plaintiff should recover and that was now G. to whom the second Term was devised And by Manwood in Construction of Wills all the words of the Will are to be compared together so as there by not any repugnancy between all the parts of the Will or between any of them so that all may stand And the Intent of the Testator was That his Son J. should have the Lands for 31 years if he so long lived and if he died within the Term That G. his Son should have such Term. And he held That the same was in J. an Estate by Limitation and he could not sell it nor could it be extinct by Act in Law or of the Law. It was a Lease determinable by his death and so shall be the Lease of G. determinable upon his own death and G. upon the death of J. within the Term shall have the residue of the number of the years limited by the former Devise scil so many in number as were not expired in the life of J. who was first Executor to that special purpose Gent Baron to the same intent here he hath the same Term as Executor and it is not like a-Term devised which the party hath as Legatee but in our Case he hath only authority in this Lease as Executor and the Land was tied to the time and the Authority and when the same determines in his person then the Land departs from him to G. who was a special Executor to that purpose as J. was before And G. had not the same Term which J. had but such a Term. Clerk Baron acc And he said that the Will was further that if G. died before his Debts paid and his Will performed and the Iury finding all the special matter concluded that if the Term limited to J. be extinct then they find for the Defendant And he held clearly that J. had this Term of 21 years as Executor and that by the discent of the Inheritance to J. the Term as to himself was gone But as to Creditors and to the Legatees it shall be said in esse and be Assets in his hands And because that the Term as to that purpose shall be said in esse he died within the Term within the intent of the said Will. And this word Term is Vox polysema Terminus status Terminus temporis Terminus loci And in our Case the word Term hath reference to time and not to estate for the Testator did respect the time in which his Will might be performed
and that was 31 years as if I make a Lease during the Term that J. S. hath in the Mannor of D. and J. S. hath 40 years in it now although that J S. surrendreth or forfeiteth it yet he shall hold over but he shall have it for 40 years for my Lease refers to the time and not to the estate In the like manner here G. cannot have the same Term which J. had nor for 31 years after the death of J. but so much of the said 31 years shall be cut off in the interrest of it as J. had enjoyed it and G. shall have as many years as J. hath left and G. shall perform so much of my Will as J. at his death within the Term aforesaid shall not have performed As if I Lease my Land to one until he hath levied 100 l. and if he dieth before that he hath levied it then J. S. shall have such Term for the levying of it the first Lessee levieth 50 l. and dieth J. S. may levy the residue but not the whole And although that the Iury saith that if the Term be extinct then they find for the Defendant although that it be extinct yet they are not to take Conusance what the Law is thereupon but that is the Office of the Iudges As 13 E. 3. the Iury found that the Son was born during the Elopement and so Bastard that Conclusion of the Verdict is not to the purpose but the Court ought to judge upon the premises of the Verdict If upon the birth during the Elopement the party be Bastard or not And afterwards Manwood with the assent of his Companions the Barons Commanded That Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff Which was done accordingly CLX The Bishop of Bristow's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by Manwood Chief Baron in this Case That if a Lease be made for years rendring Rent 1 Cro. 398. More Rep. 891. with Clause of Distress And afterwards the Rent and Reversion are extended upon a Statute or seised into the Kings hands for Debt if the Lessee payeth the Rent according to the Extent the same is not in any danger of the Condition for that now the Lessee is compellable to pay it according to the Extent CLXI Hill. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Queen by her Letters Patents granted to J. S. catalla Utlagatorum Felonum de se within such a Precinct More Rep. 126 127. One who was endebted unto the Queen is felo de se within the Precinct It was the Opinion of all the Barons and so Ruled That notwithstanding the Grant by the said Letters Patents That the Queen should have the Goods for to satisfie her Debt CLXII Tuker and Norton's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was An Infant being in Execution upon a Condemnation in Debt brought a Writ of Error His Father and his Brother was his Bail It was the Opinion of the Iustices That they two only should enter into the Recognizance That the Enfant shall appear and that if the Iudgment be affirmed that they shall pay the Mony and not that they shall render the Body of the Enfant again to Prison for that when once he is discharged of the Execution he shall never be in Execution again CLXIII Marsh and Jones's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 117. IN a Replevin the Case upon the Evidence was That before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to hold of him by the services Solvend post quamlibet vacationem sive alienationem the value of the annual profits of the Lands c. It was holden by the Court That value shall be intended which at the time of the Feoffment was the value and not as it is now improved by success of time CLXIV Annesley and Johnsons's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione Firme upon Evidence the Case was That Roger Wake was seised c. and before 27 H. 8. enfeoffed certain persons to his use c. and they being so seised to the use aforesaid The said Roger by his Will willed That his Feoffees and Executors should found a Chauntry in perpetuity and a Priest there to say Mass pro anim ' c. and that they procure a Licence to alien in Mortmain and also an Incorporation for such Chauntry Priory And that the said Lands should be conveyed to such a Priest c. And also that every such Priest should be School-Master there And that post dictam Cantariam sic fundatam stabilitam the said Priest should say Mass c. Roger Wake died The Feoffees and Executors did not procure any Corporation or Licence to alien in Mortmain nor make any estate to the Chauntry Priest But the appointing a Priest who said Mass according to the Will of the said Roger and was also a School-Master and took the profits of the said Lands as owner of them and died After which one Vere was appointed to be School-Master there but he was meerly a Lay-person and so continued until his death and took the profits of the Land And upon part of the Land he built a House and there dwelt and kept a School And after his death one Curtis was appointed by the Executors to teach there and he was a Lay-man and there taught many years and afterwards he took Orders and became a Priest and said Mass and other Divine Service and continued School-Master also And 26 H. 8. the same was presented for a Chauntry for First-Fruits and first-fruits were paid for it as appeared by a Particular which was shewed in Evidence And also 2 E. 6. it was presented for a Chauntry and the possessions of it seised into the Kings hands And it was much insisted upon That Vere being a meer Lay-man that the same was a forcible Interruption of the Reputation of the Chauntry But it was the Opinion of the whole Court to the contrary And that notwithstanding That no Corporation was obtained yet because that the Priest was appointed by colour of the Will and he said Mass according to the Will although Vere who succeeded him was a meer Lay-man and not a Priest yet afterwards when Curtis came being appointed but a School-Master being also a meer Lay-man yet afterwards when he took upon him Orders and demeaned himself as a Chauntry Priest there ratione institutionis by the Will of Wake which is confirmed by the Certificate and also by the Presentment The first Reputation is revived and the Law shall not construe That Curtis took the profits in the Quality of a School-Master but as a Priest for the Law hath respect to the Will of the said Wake which was the ground of all these proceedings and that although he did not say Mass within 5 years before the Statute of 1 E. 6. And Note That the Certificate of 26 H. 8. was That Rich. Curtis was
now the Grant to Fortescue be good or not Vide inde Dyer 2 Eliz. 17. Vpon a Writ of Mandamus The Escheator charged the Enquest who were agreed of their Verdict and delivered the same in Paper to the Escheator And before the engrossing sealing and delivery of it came a Supersedeas And it was Resolved by all the Iustices That before the engrossing indenting and sealing it was no Verdict See this Case Reported in Cook 5. Part 54. CLXXIX Nelson's Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass brought by Nelson chief Preignothory of the Court of Common Pleas the Case was That the Abbot of D. was seised of a Common out of the Lands of the Abby of S. as appendant unto certain Lands of the said Abby of D. And afterwards the said Houses were dissolved and the possessions of them given to the King by Act of Parliament to have and hold in as large and ample manner and form as the late Abbots c. After which the King so being seised granted the said possessions of the said Abby of D. to A. and the possessions of the said Abby of S. to B. It was argued That the Common notwithstanding the unity of possession did continue For unity of possession is so qualified and restrained by the Statute by the words aforesaid and also by the words in the state and condition as they now be And the Abbot of D. was seised in the right of his House of the said Common Therefore so also shall be the King and his Patentees and so a special seisin is given to the King. Rhodes Windham and Anderson Iustices to the contrary And the said words in the said Statute are to be construed according to the Law and no further And by the Law the said Common cannot stand against the Vnity of possession CLXXX Leonard's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 192. 2 Roll. 787. LEonard Custos Brevium brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close The Defendant pleaded That William Heydon was seised and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeffa pas they were at Issue And it was found by Special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased to the Defendant for years and afterwards made a Charter of Feoffment to him by these words Dedi Concessi with a Warrant of Attorny in it and delivered the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same to him who was made Attorny in the said Deed who made Livery accordingly It was moved by the Plaintiff's Counsel That here is not any Feoffment found but only a Confirmation For as soon as the Charter was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave it its operation to that effect to vest the Fee in the Lessee by way of Confirmation See Litt. 532. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here the Lessee hath liberty how and by what Conveyance he shall be adjudged seised of the Land either by Feoffment or by Confirmation And it appeareth here That when the Lessee delivered the Charter to the Attorny And also when the Lessee accepted Livery from the Attorny he declared his meaning to be That he would take by the Livery And the Lord Anderson said That if Tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter-Feoffment with a Warranty of Attorny and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorny who makes Livery accordingly the same is a good Feoffment and so a Discontinuance And after many Motions the Court awarded That the Plaintiff should be barred CLXXXI Palmer and Waddington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Palmer brought an Action upon the Case against Anthony Waddington And Declared That Henry Waddington Brother of the Defendant was endebted to the said Plaintiff in 20 l. Et jacens in extremis mortem indies expectans vocavit ad se dict Anthonium quem executorem Testamenti ultimae voluntatis Constituisset eum rogans ut dictas 20 Libras praefato Richardo infra spacium duorum Mensium mortem suam proxime sequend numeraret solveret Et dictus Anthonius in Consideratione inde super se assumpsit c. And all the matter aforesaid was found by Verdict upon Non Assumpsit pleaded And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Declaration was insufficient because there is not any good Consideration set forth in it for it is not said That in Consideration that the said Henry made the Defendant his Executor c. CLXXXII Stransham and Collington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Plaintiff sued in the Spiritual Court for Tythes against the Defendant within the Parish of C. The Defendant said 1 Cro. 128. That the Tythes are within the Parish of A. and the Parson of A. came in pro interesse suo and thereupon they proceeded to sentence and that was given against Stransham who now sued a Prohibition And the Question was If within such a Parish or such a Parish be tryable by the Law of the Land or by the Law of the Church Wray Chief Iustice said It hath been taken That it is tryable by our Law. Fenner The Pope hath not distinguished Parishes but hath Ordained That Tythes shall be paid within the Parish CLXXXIII Higham's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 226. More Rep. 221. 1 Cro. 15. 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 Leased the said House and 40 Acres 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 J.S. to his Wife for life and that after the decease of his Wife the Remainder thereof and of all his other Lands appertaining to Jacks to Richard his second Son c. It was said by Meade That the Wife should not have by Implication the Residue of Jacks for that she hath an express estate in the House and 40 Acres of the Land and her Husband having expressed his Will as to that his Will shall not be construed by Implication to pass other Lands to the Wife And it was said by him That it had been adjudged in the Case between Tracy and Glover That if Lands be devised to one and to his Heirs and if he dieth without Heir of his body 1 Roll. 839. that then the Land shall remain over that in such case the Donee hath but an Estate in tail to him and the Heirs males of his body And it was then also said by Anderson Chief Iustice That in the time of Sir Anthony Brown it was holden That if a Man be seised of two Acres of Land and devised 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
the now Plaintiff To which Endictment the now Plaintiff peaded Not guilty and upon that he was acquitted The Defendant pleaded That the now Plaintiff was endicted of the said death in the County of S. scil of the stroak and of the death of the dead in the same County To which the Plaintiff by Replication said That the said J.S. was struck in the said County of S. but died in the County of D. so as this Indictment found in the County of S. is void by the Common Law and by the Statute of 2 E. 6. the party ought to be Indicted in the County where the party died and not where the stroke was given And upon that Replication the Defendant demurred in Law. Broughton The Plaintiff ought to be barred 1. The Plaintiff was not lawfully accquitted for the proceedings are not by due process For upon the Writ of Appeal no Pledges are retorned Which see 11 H. 4. 160. Then if the Appeal was not duly sued the Plaintiff was not duly acquitted and then Conspiracy or Action upon the Case doth not lie For such suit doth not lie but where if the Plaintiff had been found guilty he should have Iudgment of life and member Which shall not be upon an insufficient Appeal 9 H. 5. 2. 2. Because it is not shewed in the Declaration If the Defendant did flie or not 3. The Declaration wants these words Falso Malitiose as they are in the Writ of Conspiracy And also it is not shewed If the Plaintiff in the Appeal be sufficient or not For if he be sufficient the Abettors shall not be enquired See Westm 2. And as to the Action it self he conceived That it doth not lie by Bill but by Originial Writ against those who are found Abettors See 2 E. 2. Fitz. Action upon the Statute 28. such suit by Writ But see 25 Eliz. It was holden Such suit doth not lie by Writ And see Book of Entries 43 44. Flemming to the contrary It needs not to be shewed That the Plaintiff found Pledges ad prosequendum For without that the Writ is good enough and although that the Writ be not well executed yet it is good For our Action is not grounded upon the Record of Appeal but at the Common Law and the Record is but Conveyance to our Action And also there needs not in the Declaration falso malitiose for they are implyed in the words Abettavit procuravit And he conceived That this Action is at the Common Law and not only upon the Statute of Westm 2. Which see Stamford 172. And see 3 E. 3. Fitz. Conspiracy 13. Conspiracy lieth upon an Endictment of Trespass as well as upon an Endictment of Felony for the Law hath provided remedy in every Case where a Man is damnified As 43 E. 3. 20. A Writ of Disceit was brought for that the Defendant by Fraud and Collusion had procured J.S. to brign a Formedon against the Plaintiff of such a Mannor by reason whereof the Plaintiff was put to great charges and holden maintainable And the Statute of West 2. is in the affirmative and therefore it doth not abridge the Common Law but the subject may take the advantage of the Common Law if he pleaseth For it may be that the Course according to the Common-Law will more avail him than that upon the Statute For upon the Statute Law If the Abettors have not any thing the party is without remedy but by the Common Law the party grieved shall have excution upon the body 13 E. 2. Conspiracy holden maintainable against one who procured one to sue an Appeal against the Plaintiff See Fitz. Conspiracy 25. Fitzh Na. Br. 98. If A. procures B. to sue an Action against me to vex and molest me an Action of Disceit lieth And as to the matter of the Endictment I conceive that it is not any bar For the Endictment is meerly void because it was found in the County where the stroke was and not in the County where the party strucken died where of right it ought to be and that by the Statute of 2 E. 6. Then if the Endictment be insufficient it is as no Endictment and then the Plea cannot excuse the Defendant Which see 20 E. 4. 6. If the Endictment be not sufficient the Appellee shall wage Battail and the Abettors shall be acquitted Vide inde 19 E. 3. Coron 444. 26 H. 8. 2. And by the Common Law the Plaintiff might at his pleasure bring an Appeal where the Plaintiff was strucken or where he died but in such case the tryal shall be by both Counties And 3 H. 7. 12. Appeal was brought in the County where the party was stricken And 44 H. 7. 18. the Appeal was brought in the County where the party died and there it is said That in an Appeal the Plaintiff may declare as if the thing were done in both Counties but the Endictment ought to be in one County only And 43 E. 3. 18. A Man strucken in one County and dieth in another County the Appeal shall be brought in the County where he died In an Action upon the Case brought in the County of Essex the Plaintiff Declared That the Defendant held certain Lands by reason of which he ought to repair a Wall in the County of Essex juxta le Thames and that the Plaintiff had Land in the County of Middlesex adjoyning to the said Wall and for want of repairing the said Wall his Land in the County of Middlesex was drowned and the Writ was allowed being brought in the County of Essex See 6 H 7. 10. Clench I conceive this Action doth not lie by the Common Law For no Writ of Conspiracy was at the Common Law before the Statute And vide F. N. B. 114. F. If the Plaintiff in an Appeal be Nonsuit Conspiracy lieth but contrary if he be acquitted for he shall have his remedy against the Abettors c. Plowden This Action lieth at the Common Law and an Endictment is no Plea in this Action and it is not grounded upon the Statute as a Conspiracy is and so it well lieth although the Abettors be not Enquired Gawdy Serjeant This is an Action by the Common Law For in all cases where one procures damages to another so as the party is put to charges an Action lieth a fortiori where the procurement extends to the danger of life And see F. N. B. 116. F. Men conspire to have a false Office found of my Lands which Office is found by such procurement Conspiracy lieth And the Statute of 2 E. 6. doth not alter the Law before for it is in the affirmative See the Statute Cap. 24. Gawdy Iustice Conceived That the Endictment did not excuse the Defendants in this Action but against those who are sworn to give Evidence for the King and not others For they may well procure an Appeal malitiously notwithstanding the Endictment Walmesley Serjeant conceived That the Action doth not lie at the Common Law For in
here it is found That she clearly departed out of London but they have not found that she dwelt in the Country c. but only that she went to Melton but she ought to do doth before her Estate shall cease It was argued by Towse for the Plaintiff That the Defendant ought to be found guilty of the Ejectment For it is found That the Defendant entred before the Commandment of Anne but they have not found that Anne was alive Fenner Iustice the same is well enough and so it was holden 18 Eliz. in this Court for although her life be not found yet it shall be intended that she was alive For the Iury did not doubt of it and the Conclusion of the Verdict is That if it shall seem to the Court that his Entry is lawful Then the Defendant is not guilty So as the doubt of the Iury is only upon that point Which Wray concessit Gawdy Iustice If one Deviseth Land to one for life upon Condition That his Estate shall cease which is all one with the Case at Bar and after the breach of the Condition he continueth in possessions he is not Tenant for life but Tenant at sufferance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant for the life of another continues in possession after the death of Cestuy que vie he hath not any Freehold remaining in him for if he dieth nothing descends And so it was lately adjudged by all the Iustices of England upon a Conference had between them And the Book of 18 E. 4. is not Law. Which Gawdy Iustice concessit See 35 H. 8. 57. acc And he said That the same shall be as a Limitation by which the Estate shall cease without an Entry And here in this Case because they have not found That Anne had dwelt in the Country here is no breach of the Condition in the Case And afterwards by the Advice of the whole Court Iudgment was given for the Defendant Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCV Cadee and Oliver's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione Firmae by Cadee against Oliver 1 Cro. 152. Roll. Tit. Grant. 48. of a House in Holborn c. The Case was The Lord Mountjoy and the Lady Katherine his Wife seised of the said House and of other Lands in Fee in the right of the Wife 6 Eliz. acknowledged a Statute-Staple of 1200 l. to Sir Lyonel Ducket Afterwards 9 Eliz. the said Lord Mountjoy and his said Wife Leased the said House to Hoskins for 21 years And afterwards by Indenture 11 Eliz. they Leased the same to Sir Tho. Cotton for 99 years to begin at Michaelmas last past 12 Eliz. Sir Lyonel Ducket extended his Statute and the Land extended was delivered to him at 53 l. 7 s. per annum who held the same until 22 Eliz. Anno 23 Eliz. the Lord Mountjoy and his Wife levied a Fine to Perry to the use of Perry and his Heirs 27 Eliz. Sir Thomas Cotton not being upon the Land granted omnia tunc bona catalla sua to Robert Cotton his Son 28 Eliz. the Lady Mountjoy died Mich. 29 Eliz. the Lease to Hoskins expired Perry entred and Leased the House to Oliver the Defendant for 21 years And afterwards Robert Cotton entred and Leased the House c. to the Plaintiff It was first moved by Brantingham and argued by him If this Lease for 99 years which was made to begin after the Lease made to Hoskins should pass to Robert Cotton by the words aforesaid But the Court eased him from arguing of that point for it was holden That it passed notwithstanding the word tunc 1 Cro. 386. Another matter argued by him was because at the time of the Grant the Lands were in extent and so the said Sir Thomas Cotton had but a possibility If therefore the said Grant made during the Extent was good And he argued That it was for it is more than a bare possibility for it is an Interest vested And in some Cases a possibility may be granted As 19 H. 6. 2. The King granted to a Prior That when any Tenth is granted to the King by the Clergy his House shall be discharged of it c. And 19 E. 2. Avowry 224. The Lord grants to his Tenant That if he dieth his Heir within age that such Heir shall not be in Ward So 21 E. 4. 44. A Grant unto an Abbot to be discharged of the Collectorship of Tenths when it shall be granted by the Clergy It hath been Objected That the Term for 99 years is suspended therefore it cannot be granted during the suspension But the same is not so for a thing suspended may be granted As 15 Eliz. Dyer 319. Husband and Wife Ioynt-Tenants of Lands in Fee The Queen having a Rent out of it in Fee giveth the Rent to the Husband and his Heirs now the Husband Deviseth the said Rent and dieth the same is good a Devise notwithstanding the suspension And he cited the Cases 16 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 22. And 20 E. 3. ibid. 31. A Lease is made to one for life and if he dieth within 20 years that his Executors and Assigns shall hold the Land until the expiration of the 20 years the said Interest may be granted Which Wray Chief Iustice denyed See Gravenors Case 3 4 Ma. Dyer 150. such Interest is void It was further moved by him and argued If the Conusee of the Fine might avoid the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotten And he said He could not for he is in under the Lessors So is 34 E. 1. Recovery in value 36. see the Case there And here although the Wife after the death of her Husband may affirm or disaffirm the Lease at her Election yet this Election is not transferred to the Conusee by the Fine but the Conusee shall be bound by the Fine See 33 H. 8. Dyer 51. As Tenant in tail makes a Lease for years not warranted by the Statute and dieth the Issue alieneth the Land by Fine before affirmation or disaffirmation of the Lease by acceptance or Entry the Conusee cannot avoid this Lease for the Liberty is not transferred Which Gawdy Iustice concessit And Election cannot be transferred over to the prejudice of another person As if a Rent de novo be granted to the Father in Fee who dieth before Election the Heir cannot make it an Annuity to defeat the Dower of the Wife quod Curia concessit It was also moved by Brantingham If the Lessee might enter upon the Conusee of the Statute after his Extent expired without suing forth a Scire facias But the Court discharged him from arguing that Point for that by the Death of the Lady Mountjoy the Extent was void and therefore the Feoffee or Conusee might avoid it by Entry And so Wray Chief Iustice said it had been adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas. At another day the Case was argued by Stephens on the part of
the Plaintiff who said That the Extent by computation of time according to the value to which it was extended is not yet satisfied The Verdict hath found that the Extent continued until 22 Eliz. hut doth not say that it was then expired and ended And I conceive also that this Extent doth not evict the Interest of Sir Thomas Cotton or turn it into a possibility The extent is Quousque leventur denarii but yet a Limitation of time is in Law understood although by a Casualty such time may be abridged or extended Which see 15 H. 7. 16. by Fairfax Where a Man is bounden by Statute to pay 40 l. and the Conusee sueth Execution upon it and the Land extended is rated at 10 l. per annum now it shall be intended by a common intent that in 4 years the party may be satisfied and therefore after the 4 years the Conusor shall have a Scire facias so upon the matter it is a Lease for 4 years So 7 H. 7. 12. by Keble to the same purpose And 15 E. 4. 5. by Brian for the Law shall not intend a casualty without alledging of it for the same shall not be by imagination And therefore If the Conusor will have the Land within the Term he ought to alledge That the Conusee hath levied the duty by an extraordinary Casualty and shew it specially And so where the Conusor sueth a Scire facias and the Conusee will hold the Land over he ought expresly to surmise some extraordinary occasion wherefore he could not levy the duty upon the Land within the Term Which see by Brian 15 E. 4. 5. and 44 E. 3. The Conusee of a Statute after extent maketh a Lease for 3 years yet it may be that the duty shall be levied within one year but if it be so then a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Conusee and not against the Lessee for the Law intends that the whole estate of the Conusee is not granted but that he hath a Reversion in him but if he hath granted his whole estate then a Scire facias shall issue forth the Grantee So here although that this extent in our Case would continue by computation of time for some of the years of the Term granted to Sir Thomas Cotton yet it is intended that the extent did run out and was determined before the expiration of Sir Thomas Cotton's Term so as notwithstanding that Sir Thomas Cotton hath an Interest left in him which he may grant It will be Objected How can it be said an Estate for years when as he might hold over the years As to that such an Interest may be put off in divers Cases As 15 H. 7. A Man grants to another the third Avoidance of such a Church and dieth seised his Wife is endowed of the Church she shall have the third Avoidance and the Grantee shall have the 4th Avoidance and so per talem intervenientem occasionem the benefit shall be delayed and so here in our case And then the estate by Extent being prima facie certain so as it cannot by intendment surmount the Term of Sir Tho. Cotton as it appeareth upon the Extent the estate shall be taken to continue according to the extent of the years and then a certain Interest doth remain in Sir Thomas Cotton which he may grant over which is not a possibility but rather a Reversion So and to such purpose is the Case of 7 H. 5. 3 4. If the eldest Son entreth after the death of his Father and afterwards his Mother recovereth Dower that shall take away the possessio fratris but if the Son maketh a Lease for life and the Wife recovereth Dower against the Lessee there shall be possessio fratris for the Reversion doth remain in the Lessor notwithstanding the eviction of the estate for life And 7 H. 6. 2. there it is holden by Goddard and Strange That where the Term of the Wife was extended upon the Statute of the Husband who died the Wife shall have the residue of the Term and avoid the extent as to her Term which proves that all the Term is not drawn to the Conusee by the Extent but that an Interest doth remain in the Lessee notwithstanding that And see by Seton 29 Ass 64. If Lessee for life Leaseth to him in the Reversion for life yet he hath a Reversion in him And 31 Ass 6. A. is bound by Statute to B. and his Land extended by force of it C. recovers against B. in Debt and the Land extended by him upon the Statute 1 Roll. 887. is now extented by Elegit A. grants his Estate to the Conusee it is no surrender which proves that B. hath an Interest And so in our Case an Interest doth remain in Sir Thomas Cotton notwithstanding the Extent A. makes a Lease for years to begin at a day to come and before the day A. is disseised The Lessee notwithstanding this Disseisin may grant his Interest for he never was in possession and therefore it cannot be turned into a Right As to the second point If Robert Cotton may enter within the time of the Extent without a Scire facias and that rests upon this point If this Lease shall be subject to the Extent I conceive clearly that it shall not It hath been said That our Lease is not good But I conceive it without question that our Lease is good enough For it is made by the Husband and Wife and the Wife after the death of her Husband by Acceptance of the Rent might affirm the Lease But the Statute is the act of the Husband alone therefore the Conusee of the Fine shall not avoid the Lease for it is but voidable So the King grants Lands durante beneplacito and afterwards grants the Reversion over the Patentee shall not avoid the Estate But if this Lease had been made by the Husband only it had been void and then the Conusee of the Fine should avoid it as it was lately adjudged in Harvy and Thomas 's Case And I conceive That if Tenant in tail acknowledgeth a Statute and afterwards makes a Lease according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. and dieth the Lessee shall not hold the Land subject to the Statute for then the Rent should not be paid to the Issue in tail during the Statute which is against the Stat. of 32 H. 8. And see also 8 Eliz. Dyer 252. The Chaplain of a Donative Chappel Leased for 99 years which was confirmed by the Patron who was Tenant in tail of the Patronage which was appendant to a Mannor whereof he was seised in tail and afterwards he had Issue and died The Statute of Chauntries cometh after the death of the Incumbent the King shall avoid this Lease And in our Case after the Coverture the Conusee is in by the Wife and then he shall avoid the Statute extended upon it And if so then there needeth not any Scire facias as the
Issue in tail may enter upon the Conusee of a Statute acknowledged by his Father For if Execution had been sued against the Issue in tail it had been a Disseisin And see 2 R. 3. 7. That in such case the Wife or her Heirs may enter upon the Conusee And by Consequence the Conusee who is in by her c. Cook contrary I conceive that this Grant of this Lease by Sir Thomas Cotton to his Son is not good 2 Roll. 48 1 Cro. 15. 1 Inst 22. b. for it is but a possibility and no Interest I agree all the Cases which have been put before for Law but they cannot be applyed to this Case The Book in 7 H. 6. 2. is That if the Term of the Wife be extended upon the Statute of the Husband that the Wife shall have the residue after the death of the Husband but it doth not say that the Wife or her Husband may grant it during the Extent which is the matter now in Question And I conceive That Sir Thomas Cotton hath but a possibility For the Conusee upon the Extent hath but an incertain Interest And although it may be by some means reduced to a certainty in the Chancery where the Costs and Damages shall be assessed yet until it be reduced to a certainty it cannot be granted And therefore it is clear That if I have a Term for 8 years in Land and grant it unto another until he hath levied 100 l. and all his Costs of suit for it by this Grant all the Interest of the Term is in the Grantee and nothing is in me but a possibility 8 Co. Mannings Case And so it was holden in the Common Pleas by the Lord Anderson the day when he was made Chief Iustice there At which time this Case was put Lands of the yearly value of 20 l. are Leased to one until he hath levied 100 l. And the matter was What estate the Grantee hath And it was holden That if Livery be not made that he hath but an estate at Will for the profits of the Lands are incertain the one year more and the other year less And Bromley Lord Chancellor was then of the same Opinion Then if in case of a Lease it be so it shall also be so in case of an Extent and in both the Cases the whole Interest is out of the parties And 19 Eliz. the Case was in this Court That the Lessee for years devised his Term to his Executors for the payment of his Debts and Legacies and after the payment of them the residue of the years he devised to his Son The Executors enter which is an assent to the remainder he in the remainder grants his Interest And it was holden void because it was but a possibility and so incertain and although it might be reduced to a Certainty afterwards yet the same is not sufficient for it ought to be reduced to a certainty at the time of the grant And 17 Eliz. in this Court the Case was That Land was given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Husband the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth the Wife enters and entermarrieth with the Lessee And it was moved If the Interest of the Lessee by the entermarriage was extinct And it was holden That it was not for it was but a possibility and not an Interest quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam And if a possibility cannot be extinct then it cannot be granted And he denyed the Case put by Stephens Where a Man seised of Lands Leaseth the same for years to begin at a day to come and afterwards before the day the Lessor is disseised now during that Dissesin the Grantee cannot enter for his future Interest For the Feesimple being turned into a Right so also shall be the Interest And that is proved by Delamere's Case A Feoffment in Fee was made to the use of A. for life and afterwards to the use of C. for life and afterwards to the use of D. in Fee and afterwards A. enfeoffed a stranger who had notice of the use The same doth take away all the other uses and said Feoffee although he had notice of the use yet he shall not be seised to the first use for the estate out of which the first uses do arise is taken away and then also the uses And he said also That the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotton is not good for it was made 11 Eliz. And it is found by Verdict That 10 Eliz. a Writ of Extent issued forth upon the Statute then was the Lands in the hands of c. during which time the Lord Mount joy and his Wife could not make the Lease aforesaid to the said Sir Thomas Cotton And as to that see 5 E. 3. Retorn of the Sheriff 99. See the Case of 3 E. 6. Dyer 67. Stringfellow's Case Then admitting the Lease to Sir Thomas Cotton yet the Lessee cannot put out the Conusee without a Scire facias for the Conusee is in by matter of Record Also here this Lease made by the Husband and Wife without any Rent reserved is utterly void and then the Conusee shall take advantage of it 9 H. 7. 24 18 E. 4. 2. And so was it ruled in the Case of Seniori puero in the case of an Enfant And see 7 Eliz. Dyer 239. Where the Provost of Wells being Parson impersonee of the Patronage of W. Leased the Tythe for 50 years rendring Rent which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter but not by the Patron and Ordinary And afterwards by Act of Parliament the Provostry was united to the Deanery cum primo vacare contigerit The Provost died the Dean accepteth the Rent The same shall not bind the Church for the Lease is void as it is of a Parson or Prebend c. And so the Dean shall take advantage of it although not privy to it See 16 Eliz. Dyer 337. Lands given to a Parson and his Successors for to find Lights and he Leaseth the same for life The Rent is so imployed accordingly The Incumbent dieth The Successor accepteth the Rent the King grants it over The Patentee shall avoid the Lease as the Successor might have done before the Statute if he had not accepted the Rent but the acceptance before the Statute shall bind the Successor for that it was but a voidable Lease And the Case between Harvy and Thomas which hath been put on the other side serves to our purpose for there the Conusee shall avoid a Lease in Law which is void and here in the Principal Case the Lease is void for that no Rent is reserved upon it Wherefore c. It was adjourned CCVI. Beadle's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was That A. Leased to B. certain Lands for 40 l. per annum 2 Len. 115. And a stranger Covenanted with A. That B. should pay him 40 l. for the Farm and Occupation
and his diet for himself his servants and horses Vpon which the Debt in demand grew but the said Young was not at any price in certain with the Defendant nor was there ever any agreement made betwixt them for the same It was said by Anderson Chief Iustice That upon that matter an Action of Debt did not lie And therefore afterwards the Iury gave a Verdict for the Defendant CCXI. Heidon and Ibgrave's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 148. A Writ of Right was brought by Heidon against Ibgrave and he demanded the third part of 40 Acres of Land in the County of Hertford and they were at Issue upon the meer Right Vpon which the Grand Assise appeared And first the 4 Knights were specially sworn to say upon their Oath Whether the Tenant hath better right to hold the Land than the Demandant to demand it And afterwards the rest of the Iurors were sworn generally as in other Actions And there was some doubt made Whether the Demandant or the Tenant should first begin to give Evidence And at the last it was Ruled by the Court That the Tenant should begin because he is in the affirmative And it was said by Periam Iustice That so it was late adjudged in the Case betwixt Noell and Watts And upon the Evidence the Case was That King Hen. the 8th by his Letters Patents gave to the Demandant the Mannor of New-Hall and all the Lands in the Tenure and Occupation of John Whitton before demised to Johnson and in the Parish of Watford And the truth was That the said 40 Acres whereof now the third part was in demand were in the Occupation of the said John Whitton but were never demised to Johnson nor in the Parish of Watford And by the clear Opinion of the Court the said 40 Acres did not pass for the circumstances of the Deed are not true scil the Demise to Johnson and the being in the Parish of Watford but both were false But if the said Land had had an especial name in the Letters Patents then it had been well enough notwithstanding the misprision in the rest And by Anderson If upon the particular it had appeared that the Demandant had paid his Mony for the said 40 Acres peradventure they had passed CCXII. The Dean of Gloucester's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Dean and Chapter of Gloucester brough a Writ of Partition against the Bishop of Gloucester upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Partition And it was moved That upon the words of the Statute that the Action did not lie in this Case for the Statute doth not extend but to Estates in Ioynt-Tenancy or in Common of Lands whereof such Ioynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common are seised in their own right And also it is further said That every such Ioynt-Tenant or Tenant in Common and their Heirs shall have Aid to deraign the warranty without speaking of the word Successors And by Periam and Windham Iustices The Writ doth not lie But Anderson seemed to be of a contrary Opinion CCXIII. Hare and Meller's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Philip Meller and declared Ante 138. That the said Defendant had exhibited to the Queen a scandalous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the said Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Forswearing and Cosenage And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. It was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any cause of Action for the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort to her to make their complaints But if a Subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter comprised in it to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is a good cause of Action And so was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter did recover And as to the words themselves It seemeth to the Court That they are not Actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff had used Perjury Forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means the Plaintiff not knowing it and in such case the Plaintiff hath recovered by Forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he could not recover for he could not be sworn in his own Cause And Stanhops Case was remembred by the Court which was That Edward Stanhop of Grays-Inn brought an Action upon the Case against one who had Reported That the said Edward Stanhop had gained his Living by swearing and forswearing And by the Opinion of the Court The Action did not lie for those words do not set forth any actual forswearing in the person of the Plaintiff but it might be in an Action depending between the Plaintiff and a stranger that another stranger produced as a Witness had made a false Oath without any procurement or practice of the Plaintiff in which Case it might be that the Plaintiff had gained by such swearing CCXIV. Cheverton's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Cheverton brought a Quare Impedit and Counted That he was seised of the moyety of the Church of D. that is to say To present qualibet prima vice and that J.S. is seised of the other moyety that is to say To present qualibet secunda vice c. And Exception was taken to the Count Because it was not shewed how the special Interest did begin scil by Prescription Composition or otherwise for it is clearly against common Right and therefore that ought to be shewed See Dyer 13 Eliz. 229. CCXV Edmond's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case against Edmonds the Case was That the Defendant being within age requested the Plaintiff to be bounden for him to another for the payment of 30 l. which he was to borrow for his own use to which the Plaintiff agreed and was bounden ut supra Afterwards the Plaintiff was sued for the said Debt and paid it And afterwards when the Defendant came of full age the Plaintiff put him in mind of the matter aforesaid and prayed him that he might not be damnified so to pay 30 l. it being the Defendant's Debt Whereupon the Defendant promised to pay the Debt again to the Plaintiff Vpon which promise the Action was brought And it was holden by the Court That although here was no present consideration upon which the Assumpsit could arise yet the Court was clear That upon the whole matter the Action did lie and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXVI Farrington and Fleetwood.'s Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer BEtween Farrington and Fleetwood the Case was upon the Stat. of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries 2
was not so for it became void by matter of later time scil by the descent of the Feesimple For if one of the Daughters had died without Issue before the death of Robert so as the House of such Daughter had come to Robert and the other Sister there had been no Coparcener for the Son had all the Fee and the moyety of it is executed and the moyety expectant and the Sister hath the moyety for life and then the Devise is not good Also here are two survivors so as nothing is to be divided and therefore the Law shall say That the House of Robert is descended scil the Fee of it to the Daughter of Christien and Joan. And so Iudgment was given against the Husband who claimed to be Tenant by the Curtesie of the whole Land and Messuage CCXXXIII Large's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 82. IN an Action upon the Case the Case was this A. seised of Lands in Fee Devised the same to his Wife till William his younger Son should come to the age of 22 years the remainder when the said William should come to such age of his Lands in D. to his two Sons Alexander and John the remainder of his Lands in C. to two other of his Sons upon Condition Quod si aliquis dictorum filiorum suorum circumibit vendere terram suam before his said Son William should attain his said age of 22 years imperpetuum perderet eam And before such age two of his Sons Leased their parts which accrued to them by the Will of their Father for 60 years and so from 60 years to 60 years till 240 years were expired It was Argued by Bois That Alexander and John are Ioynt-Tenants and not Tenants in Common notwithstanding the Opinion of Audley 30 H. 8. Br. Devises 29. And he argued also That the said Leases from 60 years to 60 years is not within the Condition of the Devise for it is not a sale from which they only are restrained and so is it of a Ioynture made by any of the Sons to their Wives On the contrary It was argued because this remainder doth not vest presently for it is incertain if it shall vest or not For if William should die before he came to the age aforesaid it was conceived that the remainder was void 34. E. 3. Fitz. Formedon 68. A Man deviseth Land to his Wife for life so that if the said Wife be disturbed that the Land shall remain over in Fee scil to D. here is not any remainder until the Wife be disturbed So a Devise unto a Woman so long as she shall remain sole and that then it shall remain to B. here this remainder shall not begin till the marriage And this Condition of restraint of Alienation is good for he is not altogether restrained but for a time scil until his Son shall come to the age of 22 years As a Feoffment upon Condition That he shall not alien to J.S. See 29 H. 8. Br. Mortmain 39. A Lease made for 100 years and so from 100 years to 100 years until 800 years be expired is Mortmain And see the Statute de Religiosis The words are emere praesumat vendere A Lease for years is within such words emere vendere Also by this Lease the Will is defrauded and where the Statute of Gloucester Cap. 3. Wills That if a Man aliens Tenements which he holdeth by the Law of England with warranty the Son shall not be barred and yet if Tenant by the Curtesie be disseised to whom he releaseth with warranty the same is within the said Statute and yet a Release and an Alienation are not the same because they are in the like mischief and if the Sons might make a Lease for 240 years they might make a Lease for 2000 years So if the Sons had acknowledged a Statute of such a sum as amounted to the value of the Land it had been within the Condition It was holden That where the words are Circumibit vendere terram imperpetuum perdert this word imperpetuum should be referred to perdere and not to vendere Fenner This Lease is not within the word Sell For if the Custom be That an Enfant of the age of 15 years may sell his Land yet by that he cannot devise it Note That afterwards the words of the Condition set down in the Will in English were read viz. Shall go about to sell his part shall for ever lose the same And then it is clear that this word imperpetuum shall be referred in Construction to perdere and not to vendere for this word Shall is inserted betwixt both CCXXXIV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon The Tenant pleaded a Fine with proclamations The Demandant replyed Nul tiel Record And the truth of the Case was That the Record of the Fine which remained with the Chirographer did warrant the Plea but that which remained with the Custos Brevium did not warrant it and both these Records were shewed to the Court. And Rhodes Iustice cited a President 26 Eliz. Where by the advice of all the Iustices of England where such Records differ the Record remaining with the Custos Brevium was amended and made according to the Record remaining with the Chirographer Which Windham concessit And afterwards the said President was shewed in which was set down all the proceedings in the amending of it and the names of all the Iustices by whose direction the Record was amended were set down in it And that the said President was written and the amendment of the said Record recorded by the Commandment and appointment of the said Iustices in perpetuam rei memoriam And the reason which induced the said Iustices to make such Order is here written because they took it That the Note remaining with the Chirographer est principale Recordum CCXXXV Sir Gervase Clifton's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 4 Len. 199. IN a Quo Warranto against Sir Gervase Clifton It was shewed That the said Sir Gervase was seised of a Mannor and of a House in which he claimed to have a Court with View of Frank-Pledge and that he without any Grant or other authority usurpavit Libertates praedictas The Defendant pleaded Quod non usurpavit Libertates praedictas infra Messuagium praedict modo forma And upon that there was a Demurrer in Law For the Defendant ought to have said Non usurpavit Libertates praedictas nec eorum aliquam for he ought to answer singulatim And also he ought to have pleaded as well to the Mannor as to the House For if the Defendant hath holden Court within any place within the Mannor it is sufficient See 33 H. 8. Br. Franc. sans ceo 364. An Information was in the Exchequer That the Defendant had bought Wooll of A.B. contra Statutum The Defendant pleaded That he had not bought of A. and B. The Plea was not allowed but he
of Estate of Freehold c. But in our Case the Office is confessed by the Traverse to be true although that the conveyance be not truly found And also Harris at the time of the Office found had not just title but his Interest came to him long time after the Office found Also the traverse is not good for he traverseth the matter of the Conveyance which is not traversable For if the Queen hath title non refert quo modo or by what Conveyance she hath it As to the matter in Law Tenant in tail in remainder is Attainted of Felony If the King during the life of the Tenant in tail shall have the Freehold And he conceived she 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 the Tenant for life is alive and also he in the remainder in Fee c. The Donor shall not have it for the Tenant 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 could vest then the King should not have the Freehold but only the profits So if the Tenant be attainted the Lord shall have the Land 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 because that the Freehold rests 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 during his life See Old N.B. 99. If Tenant in tail for Life Dower or by the Curtesie be attaint of Felony the King shall have the Land during their lives and after their decease he in the Reversion shall sue to the King by Petition and shall have the Lands out of the Kings hands And there it is further said That the Lord by Escheat cannot have it for the party attainted was not his very Tenant but he in the Reversion for the term yet endures But now is to see If the Freehold be in the King without Office And I conceive that it is 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. 12. Where entry in the Case of a Common person is necessary there behoves to be an Office for the King. As where the Kings Villain purchaseth Lands or an Alien born c. so is it for a Condition broken Mortmain c. In some Cases an Office is only necessary to instruct the King how he shall charge the Officer for the profits which may be supplyed as well by Survey as by Office As if the King be to take by descent or as the Case is here And it is true That a person attainted of Felony may during his Attainder purchase Lands and yet he cannot keep 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 that But now that defect is supplyed by the Statute of 33 H. 8. So as now the King may grant without Office. See 26 Eliz. Cook 3 Part Dowty's Case And in our Case Office is not necessary to entitle the King but to explain his Title See 9 H 7. 2. The Lands of a Man attainted of High Treason are in the King without Office so where the Kings Tenant dieth without Heir or Tenant in tail of the gift of the King dieth without Issue See Br. Office before the Escheator 34. See 13 H. 4. 278. A Man Attainted of Treason the King before Office grants his Lands and Goods Things which lie in Grant as Advowsons Rents c. such things upon Attainder are in the King without Office. As to the General Pardon of 23 Eliz. He conceived That the same did not extend to this Case and that this Interest of the Queen by this Attainder did not pass by the Pardon out of the Queen So if the Queen had but a Right and title only Popham Attorny General By this Attainder the Estate of him in the Remainder in tail accrued to 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 example of others therefore nothing is left in him Tenant for life is attainted of Felony The King pardons to him his life yet he shall have his Lands during his life for he himself cannot dispose of them for his life And so it is of Tenant in tail c. for he may forfeit all that which he hath and that is an Estate for his life which is the Freehold If Lands be given to one and his Heirs for 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 blood is corrupt and there is not any Occupancy in the Case For 17 E. 3. the Iustices would not accept a Fine of Lands for the life of another because an Occupant might be in the Case But for a Fine of Lands to one and his He is for the life of another they accepted 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 A. dieth now the King hath a Fee executed And here in our Case If this Tenant for life had been dead no Praecipe would lie against him in the remainder being in possession but the party who had right was to sue to the King by Petition 4 E. 3. If one seised in the right of his Wife of Lands for life be attainted the King shall have exitus proficua But I conceive that Case is not Law For see F.N.B. 254. D. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife in Fee is Outlawed of Felony the King seiseth the Husband dieth Now shall issue forth a Diem Clausit extremum the words of which Writ are in such case Quia A. cujus terra Tenement quae ipse tenuit de jure haereditate N. uxoris suae adhuc superstites occasione cujusdam utlagariae in ipsum pro quadam felonia inde indictatus fuit c. in manu Domini H. Patris nostri extiterunt c. therefore the King hath not exitus tantum but also the Land it self See to the same purpose the Register 292. b. And see also now in the Book of Pleas of the Crown 186 187. which affirmeth That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall forfeit the
Land during his life And he conceived That this Estate of Tho. Venables was in the King without Office not to grant for he is restrained by the Statute of 18 H. 8. but it is in him so before Office that he who hath right ought to sue to the King by Petition if he will have the same Yet he conceived That before the said Statute of 18 H. 6. the King might grant it before Office as it appeareth by Thirning 13 H. 4. 278. which was before the Statute So if the Kings Tenant makes a Lease for years the remainder over to another in Fee who dyeth without Heir the said remainder is in the King without Office because a common person in such case cannot enter but a Claim is sufficient and therefore it shall be in the King without Office. As to the Pardon He conceived That it did not extend to this Estate For the same is a Freehold therefore not within the Pardon As if the Kings Tenant be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Offences and all which he may pardon these words will not go or extend to Freehold but only to personal matters and such punishments and pains which do concern Chattels But it may be Objected That in this Pardon title of Quare Impedit and Re-entries for Conditions are excepted and therefore if they had not been excepted they had been released by the Pardon And therefore this Pardon doth extend to Inheritances and Freeholds As to that I say That such Exceptions were not in use in the time of King Ed. 4. and such Inheritances and Freeholds were not taken to be within such Pardons And such Exceptions began 5 Eliz. And he said he had been of Counsel in such Cases where it had been taken That such Pardons did not extend to Freeholds As an Abbot was disseised and during the Disseisin the Abby was dissolved the King made such a Pardon the same did not transfer the Kings right And in this Case there are divers Exceptions of Goods and Chattels in many cases and therefore it cannot be intended that this Pardon doth extend to Freeholds And see the said Act of Pardon There the Queen gave and granted all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amercements Forfeitures and Sums of Mony which word Forfeiture shall be intended personal forfeiture and not otherwise for it is coupled with things of such nature And as to the Traverse he conceived That it did not lie in this Case For the Office is not untrue in substance although it be void in Circumstances And also the King here is entituled by double matter of Record i. e. the Attainder and the Office. And he said That the Statutes of 34 36 E. 3. which gave Traverse are to be meant of Offices found virtute Officii and not virtute Brevis for then Escheators were very troublesome And 2 E. 6. doth not give traverse but where the Office is untruly found As if the Kings Tenant be disseised and the Disseisor be Attainted The Queen seiseth the Land Now the Disseisee hath no remedy by traverse upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. but is put to his Monstrans de Droit for that the Office is true But if I be the Kings Tenant and seised of Lands accordingly and it is found that J.S. was seised of my Land and attainted c. whereas in truth he had not any thing in my Land there Traverse lieth For the Office is false And so our Case for the Traverse is at the Common Law. And it is true that Venables was seised c. Cook to the contrary And he conceived That by the Attainder the Queen had gained but a Chattel And that notwithstanding this Forfeiture If Venables had been in possession a Praecipe should be brought against him And whereas it hath been said by Mr. Attorny That the Writs set down in the Register are the best Expositors of our Law the same is not so For the Register saith That Waste lieth notwithstanding a mean Remainder which is not now Law but it hath been clearly ruled to the contrary See acc 50 E. 3. The Register therefore and the Writs are subject to the Iudgments of our Law. And the Writ of Diem clausit extremum is not to the contrary For I confess that in such case Hob. Rep. 342. the Land shall be seised into the Kings hands but the King shall have but a Chattel in it It hath been argued He may grant therefore he may forfeit Nego Consequentiam For a Man seised in the right of his Wife may grant but not forfeit Gardian in Socage may grant but not forfeit The Husband may grant a Term for years which he hath in the right of his Wife but he cannot forfeit it A Woman enheritrix taketh Husband and afterwards is attainted of Felony the King pardons him they have Issue the Woman dieth the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie which proveth that the King hath no Freehold by this Attainder Before the Statute of West 2. Tenant in tail post prolem suscitatam might forfeit the Land but now the Statute hath so incorporated the Estate tail to the Tenant in tail that it cannot be devested yea a Fine levied ipso jure est nullus although as to the possession it be a discontinuance And that is the reason wherefore Tenant in tail shall not be seised to another's use See Stamford 190. b. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have the Issues of the Land of the Wife during the life of the Husband c. So if Tenant in tail be Attainted of Felony that is but a Chattel in the Lands of the Wife and also in the Lands of the Tenant in tail and if the possessions of a Bishop be seised into the Kings hands for a Contempt In such case the King hath possession and not only the profits The same Law of Lands of Tenant in tail or for life being attainted of Felony So seisure for alienation without Licence or of the possessions of Poor Aliens See Br. Reseisure 10. So where the seisure is for Idiocy And he conceived That nothing is in the King without Office. And as to the Case of 13 H. 4. 6. I confess it For all that time many and amongst them Lawyers and Iustices were attainted by Parliament And so was Sir John Salisbury whose Case it was and their Lands by Act of Parliament given expresly to the King and therefore I grant that their Lands were in the King without Office. Tenant in Fee of a Common Lord is attainted of Felony his Lands remain in him during his life till the entry of the Lord and where the King is Lord until Office be found but in the case of a Common person after the death of the person attainted it is in the Lord before Entry and in the Case of the King before Office for the Mischief of Abeyance And see the Lord Lovell's
that the Queens Attorny said That it is true that Thomas Robinson was possessed but it is further said That Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides and therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary But the Opinion of Manwood Chief Baron was That if the parties do admit a thing per nient dedire the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed there the Iury shall be bound by it And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant CCLXXIII Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt by A. against B. upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded tender of the Mony according to the Condition upon which the parties were at Issue And after the Defendant pleaded That after the Darrein Continuance the Debt now in demand was Attached in the Defendants hands according to the Custom of London for the debt of C. to whom the Plaintiff was endebted It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was insufficient for it is altogether contrary to the first Plea. And also the Court held That in an Action for the debt depending here in this Court the debt cannot be attached and the Court would not suffer a Demurrer to be joyned upon it but over-ruled the Case without any Argument For it was said by Wray Chief Iustice That it was against the Iurisdiction of the Court and the Priviledge of it CCLXXIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden by the Court That if a Copyholder in Fee dieth seised and the Lord admits a stranger to the Land who entreth that he is but a Tenant at Will and not a Disseisor to the Copyholder who hath the Land by descent because he cometh in by the assent of the Lord c. CCLXXV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought de uno Cubiculo and Exception was taken to it But the Exception was disallowed The Declaration was special viz Leas unius Cubiculi per nomen unius Cubiculi being in such a House in the middle story of the said House And the Declaration was holden good enough and the word Cubiculum is a more apt word than the word Camera And such was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice And it was said That Ejectione firmae brought de una rooma had been adjudged good in this Court. CCLXXVI Johnson and Bellamy's Case Rot. 824. Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae It was holden by Special Verdict 1 Cro. 122. That W. Graunt was seised of certain Lands and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life And further he willed That when Rich. his Brother should come to the age of 25 years that he should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten W. Graunt died having Issue of his body who was his Heir Rich. before he 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 finis nihil habuerunt And If this Fine should bar the Estate in tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the Case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged Mich. 29 Eliz. Where the Case was Tenant in tail discontinued to E. and afterwards levied a Fine to B. That although that partes finis nihil habuerunt yet the said Fine did bind the Estate tail But the Serjeants at the Bar argued That there was a difference between the Case cited and the Case at Bar For in the Case cited the Fine was pleaded in Bar but here it was not pleaded but found by Special Verdict To which it was said by the Court That the same is not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or Conclusion but by the Statute binds and extincts the entail and the right of it And Fines are as sufficient to bind the right of the entail when they are found by Special Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar. And Periam Iustice said A Collateral Warranty found by Special Verdict is of as great force as pleaded in Bar. And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate tail by that Fine was utterly barred and extinct CCLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent at Michaelmas and further Leased the same to the Executors of the Lessee until Michaelmas after the death of the Lessee It was affirmed by Cook That in that Case it was adjudged That the word Until shall be construed to extend to the Term unto the end of the Feast of St. Michael and so the Rent then due payable by the Executors for without such Construction no Rent should be then due because the Term ended before Michaelmas CCLXXVIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was bounden to stand to the Award of two Arbitrators who awarded That the party should pay to a stranger or his Assigns 200 l. before such a day The stranger before the day died B. took Letters of Administration The Question was If the Obligee should pay the Mony to the Administrator or if the Obligation was discharged It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is an Assignee And by Gawdy If the word Assigns had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator Which Cook granted CCLXXIX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Defendant in Debt being ready at the Bar to wage his Law was examined by the Court upon the points of the Declaration and the cause of the Debt upon which it appeared that the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And accompting together they were agreed That each of them should be quit of the other It was the Opinion of Periam and Anderson Iustices That upon that matter the Defendant could not safely wage his Law For it is but an agreement which cannot be executed but by Release or Acquittance CCLXXX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail Covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levied a Fine with proclamations and died It was moved by Fenner If any Estate passed to the Son by that Covenant for it is not any discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the Estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson Iustice The Estate passeth until c. And he cited the Case of one Pitts where it was adjudged That if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee and a Collateral Ancestor releaseth with warranty and dieth
Regem quando potest intelligi duabus viis As if two be joyntly endebted to the King and the King pardons to one of them Omnia debita the same shall not extend to joynt-Debts but to those Debts of which he is only Debtor 40 E. 3. The King granted to a Subject the Fines and Amercements hominum suorum All which hold of him by Homage may be said homines suos and also his Villeins are homines suos but because the general words may be served the said Grant shall be taken to extend to his Villeins only So in our Case the general words may be served with Lands in possession and shall not extend to Lands in Reversion At another day the Case was argued by Popham Attorny General and he conceived That by the Lease made 2 Mar. both the former Leases as well that which was made by Henry the eighth as that which was made in Reversion by the Bishop of Bath and Wells are gone Lessee form term of years to begin at a day to come accepts a new Lease in possession which is to continue until the future Interest shall commence the future Interest is gone and in Barkings Case 2 Eliz. It was holden by Dyer and Brown that where Lessee for two years accepts a new Lease to begin two years after this new Interest of a term determines the present Interest For as the Lessor cannot contract with a Stranger for the Interest of a Term which is to have continuance during a former Term by the same reason when the first Termor will accept an Interest of a Term from his Lessor to begin at any time during his former Estate this new Interest determines the first So if one hath an Interest of a Term to begin at a day to come and he before the beginning of that Interest accepts a Lease for life his first Interest is gone The words of the Patent are All her Interest Lands and Tenements in the Parish of St. Cutbert in Wells and parcel of the possession of the late Priory of R. and if these general words will carry Lands in Reversion where other Lands in possession pass c. was the Question General words shall have a special understanding if the special Construction may agree with the proper signification and sense of the general words as the Case 2 H. 3 4. before cited and yet in the Case of a common person all manner of Debts were released thereby for that it shall be taken strongest against the party Also he conceived That the Lands in Reversion should pass as well as the Lands in possession And he said All former Leases of Record needed not to be recited c. but such Leases only which are made by the King For Subjects may have Leases of Record as by Fine Deed enrolled c. but such Leases need not to be recited For such Leases may determine without matter of Record as Surrender Re-entry c. and then to compel the King or the party to search for such Leases which might be so determined by any Act in pais should be as absurd as to compel him to search by what means and for what matter in pais such Leases are determined And he conceived That this Lease needed not to be recited which was made by King Henry the 8th For after the said Lease made the King granted the Reversion to the Bishop of Bath and Wells and his Successors and during the time that the said Land was to the Bishop It might be that the Lease was determined by matter in suit in pais by Surrender Forfeiture c. and then notwithstanding that the King obtained the Reversion after and will make a new Lease if he should be driven to recite the former Lease whereas perhaps it is determined by an Act in pais it should be very inconvenient Also here if any recital should be in the Case how might the party interested know such former Leases but by search and how long ought the party search for his search ought to have an end Non excrescere in infinitum tempus And in our Case the most equal time for search is the beginning of the last Title of the King and no further that is from the present time till the time of the Title of the King begins and in this Case the Title of the King doth begin from his repurchase from the Bishop and if the Law be such then here nothing is to be recited for no Lease is mean between the re-purchase and the new Lease For no Lease made before the re-purchase need to be recited For admit That King Henry the 3d had made a Lease of a Mannor for 500 years and afterwards granted the Reversion to an Abbot and afterwards the Mannor by suppression came again to the King and he will Grant a new Lease of the same such Lease shall be good without any recital of the Lease made by King Henry the 3d for such Lease might have been determined in the hands of the Abbot by Surrender or other matter in fact So King Edw. the 2d made a Gift in Tail and afterwards granted the Reversion to another the Grantee disseised the Tenant in Tail One who was Heir to the Grantee was attainted of Treason the Grantee died by which the Land came again to the King who made a new Patent of the same without recital of the Gift in Tail and the Patent holden good for the Cause aforesaid And in some Cases there needs no recital of Leases As if the King makes a Lease for years rendring Rent to his Receivor and for default of payment that his Estate shall cease Now if at the day the Lessee tendreth the Rent and the Receivor will not accept of it and afterwards it is found by Office that the Rent was not paid by which the Lease should be void yet he may traverse the Office and afterwards the King Grants this Rent to a Stranger there he needs not to recite the Lease for it appeareth by the Office That the same is void and yet in truth the Lease was in Esse c. and so a Lease of Record in Esse in some Case needs not to be recited So if the King Lease for years to J.S. and he assigns his Interest over and afterwards Surrenders the same to the King Now if the King will make a new Grant of it he need not recite that Lease for the Surrender of it appeareth of Record and the Assignment of it is but matter in fait which cannot be known by any search So on the other side void Leases which are not in Esse shall be cited until it appear as in the Case of Throgmorton cited before by Egerton And in such Case where the Queen granted the same to Sir T.H. the Grant ought to be in possession and not in Reversion because then void for the King had not a Reversion Also this Lease ought not to be recited for the second Patent is granted to
use created before the Statute and a use created afterwards for in the first Case they ought to enter and if they be disabled by any Act as in the Case between Gascoign and the Earl of Kent it shall never rise but in the later Case the whole authority and confidence is by the Statute taken out of the Feoffee and the contingent use shall rise without aid of the Feoffees by the operation of the Law for there the Land is bound to the Vses and charged with them As upon a Iudgment in a Warrantia Chartae the Land of the Defendant is bounden pro loco tempore and according to the Common experience in Conveyances for payment of the Kings Debts as in the Case between Proctor and Dennis The Debtor of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee unto the use of himself and his Heirs until he makes default of such a payment to the Queen at such a day and upon default to the use of the Queen and her Heirs Cowper There needs no Entry of the Feoffees and he put the difference put before by Harris betwixt a Vse created before and a Vse created after the Statute and now the Feoffees have not any power to revive or to stand seised to such Vses but are only as Instruments to convey the Vses For the Vse is created upon the Livery and is transferred by the Statute if the person to whom the Vse is limited be capable of it at the time of the limitation but if not the Law preserves it until and it cannot be by any means prevented and he cited the Case 30 H. 8. Br. Feoffments to Vses 50 and there is a great difference betwixt a Vse limited before and after the Statute For now after the Statute the Feoffees by reason of their seisin cannot be vouched for they have not such a Seisin whereof they may make a Feoffment and he put the Case between Cheny and Oxenbridge Cheny leased to Oxenbridge for 50 years and afterwards enfeoffed Oxenbridge to the use of Cheny himself 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 is not extinct and he put the Case of the Lord Pagett adjudged in the Kings Bench. A Feoffment was made to the use of the Feoffee for life the Remainder to him whom the Feoffor should name at his death in Fee and the Feoffor and Feoffees for good Consideration levy a Fine to a Stranger and afterwards the Feoffor nameth and dieth The party named by the Feoffor shall have the Land notwithstanding the Fine c. Beamount the contingent use is here utterly destroyed by the Feoffment aforesaid and it appeareth by the preamble of the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Vses That the motives of that Act did not favour Vses but it was their meaning utterly to root them out And if contingent Vses which are not nor can be executed by the Statute should stand in force the mischief should be that no Purchasor should be secure of his Purchase but should be in danger of a new born Vse not known before And he grounded his further Argument upon the reason of Manwood and Dyer Where a Man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the Vse of himself and his Wife which shall be and afterwards he and his Feoffees and those in Remainder make a Feoffment to divers other new Feoffees and to new Vses and afterwards he takes another Wife and dieth The said Iustices were of Opinion That by the said Feoffment the contingent Vses were destroyed For when the Estates which the Feoffees take is taken away which was the root and foundation of the Vses and the branch and fruit of the said Tree it necessarily followeth that they also be taken away and also because the Feoffees by their Livery are barred for to enter for to re-continue the Estate would continue these Vses they also are gone and extinguished Yelverton I conceive that notwithstanding the Feoffment that the Vse shall rise in his due time according to the limitation of it c. CCCXXXIX The Serjeant's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail and he in the Remainder in Fee joyn in a Grant of a Rent-charge in Fee to the issue of Tenant in tail a year before the Statute of 27 Eliz. of fraudulent Conveyances and afterwards the Tenant in tail and he in the Remainder sell the Land and afterwards a Praecipe is brought against Tenant in tail who voucheth him in the Remainder who voucheth the Common Vouchee and so a Recovery is had and seisin accordingly The issue in tail dieth without issue Tenant in tail dieth the Vncle distraineth for the Rent Glanvil Serjeant argued That this grant of the Rent is altogether the grant of the Tenant in tail and that nothing passed from him in the Remainder and that it doth enure as one entire Grant and not as several Grants As where Tenant for life and he in the Reversion joyn in a Lease it is one entire Lease and the Lease of them both and they shall both joyn in an Action of Waste But admit that here are several Grants yet the Estate out of which the Rent was granted continuing the Rent shall continue also And now the Recoveror comes in the Post and in the affirmation of the Estate of Tenant in tail and the Remainder is utterly defeated and destroyed by the Recovery and the Rent always issueth out of the particular Estate and he cited Littl. 125. If a Rent-Charge be issuing out of Land and the Tenant of the Land leaseth the same for life and afterwards the Rent is granted over now he who hath the Freehold ought to attorn scil the Tenant for life for a Rent-Charge lieth always upon the possession and if Tenant for life granteth a Rent-Charge and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee the Rent shall continue until the possession be recontinued c. Harris Serjeant contrary This Grant is the Grant of them both scil of the Tenant as long he hath issue of his Body and afterwards it is the grant of him in the Remainder Where a Man derives his Interest from two the one being a particular Tenant the other a Recoveror or a Remainder in Fee the Donee takes of each of them that which he may lawfully give and no more and the particular Estate being then ended the Donee shall be then accompted in by him in the Reversion c. See 2 E. 4. 1. And he vouched the Case of the Lord Mountjoy The Lord Mountjoy took to Wife a Woman Enheretrix she had issue and so he was intituled to be Tenant by the Curtesie and acknowledged a Statute and afterwards he and his Wife levyed a Fine and died Now the Conusee shall hold the Land discharged of the Statute for after the death of the Husband the Conusee is in by the Wife only and so paramount the charge Also he said That this Grant of
Rent 11 H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 24. 14 H. 8. 35. So where the Successor accepts of a Rent upon a Lease made by the Predecessor 37 H. 6. 4. 8 H. 5. 10. 4 E. 4. 14. The same Law in Exchanges and Partitions If the Wife accepteth of Dower of the Land which her Husband hath taken in Exchange she shall be barred of that Land which her Husband gave in Exchange 6 E. 3. 50. 15 E. 3. tit Bar. 125. 12 H. 4. 12. c. And in all these Cases where there is an Agreement and therein an Agreement implyed scil An Agreement to the Lease and a Disagreement to have the Possession c. And so Agreement to the Land received in Exchange and Disagreement to the Land given in Exchange and all that by word and act in pais And so here in these Cases Estates are affirmed and entred and benefit of the possession waived and refused So it is also of a Right and Title of Action 21 H. 6. 25. The Lord entituled to have a Writ of Right upon Disclaimer accepts a Rent of the Tenant Now he is barred of his Action 13 Ass 3. The Disseisee accepts homage of the Disseisor it is a good bar in an Assise 21 Ass 6. Pendant a Cessavit the Tenant aliened the Lord accepted the Services of the Alienee his Action is gone 11 E. 3. tit Dower 63. A Woman entituled to Dower accepteth Homage of the Ter-Tenant the same is a Bar of her Dower And as it hath been said of Entries and Actions of which a Man may refuse the benefit by word and Acceptance in pais So is the Law also in Cases of Estates vested if the party doth not Enter Husband and Wife Tenants in special tail the Husband levyeth a Fine to his own use and afterwards Deviseth the Land to his Wife for life the Remainder over rendring Rent the Husband dieth The Wife Enters and pays the Rent now she hath waived her Remitter 18 Eliz. Dyer 351. 10 E. 4. 12. The Tenant enfeoffed the Lord and a stranger and made Livery to the stranger although the Freehold vested in them both yet if the Lord disagreeth to the Feoffment in futuro he cannot enter and occupy the Land and he may distrain for the services c. If a Disseisin be made to the use of the Husband and Wife and the Husband agreeth to it the Freehold vests in the Husband and Wife but the Wife is not a Disseisor and after the death of the Husband she may disagree unto the Estate by word 12 E. 4. 7. And also an Agreement shall make her a Dissessisor See to the same intent 7 E. 4. 7. and Litt. 129. Although that in such and the like Cases the Estate vests in some manner yet it shall never vest to the prejudice of the party without an express and actual agreement And that disagreement to an Estate in such manner vested may be in pais and by word seems by a Clause in the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 1. Where a Ioynture is made after Marriage there the Wife after the death of her Husband may at her pleasure refuse her Ioynture and have and demand and take her Dower her Writ of Dower or otherwise scil by word and Acceptance in pais And if in a Writ of Dower the Tenant will bar the Demandant by Ioynture made during the Coverture he ought to say Quod intrando agreeavit See Litt. in Dower ad Ostium Ecclesiae If the Wife entreth and agreeth the same is a good Bar in Dower Littl. 8. Now in the principal Case When the Wife agreeth to the Devise of Thoby and the same is executed by entry now the same is a full Disagreement to Hinton It was afterwards Objected That although it be clear That the Wife may waive her Ioynture in Hinton by word and act in pais without matter of Record Yet some conceived That this manner of Devise of Thoby is void by the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. The Statute enables to Devise two parts or so much as amounts to two parts in value at the time of the death of the Devisor for then the Will takes effect which cannot be here in this Case for at the time of his death the Ioynture of Hinton was in force and so continued until the disagreement afterwards Also the words of the Statute are Having a sole Estate in Fee-simple but here the Devisor had but a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate tail c. As to the first Point it was answered That the Disagreement doth relate to the death of the Husband and is now as if no Ioynture had been made ab initio And here the Heir shall have Hinton by descent and he shall be Tenant to every Praecipe and if it be brought against him the same day that the Husband dieth the Writ shall be good by the Disagreement after and the Heir shall have his age c. And if the Father had been a Disseisor and had Conveyed the Land ut supra now by this argeement of the Wife the Heir shall be accounted in by descent and thereby the Entry of the Disseisee taken away And if the Heir in such case taketh a Wife and dieth by this disagreement after the Wife shall have Dower of Hinton and hath such a possession quod faciet sororem esse haeredem And if that the same day that the Husband dieth the Heir levyeth a Fine or acknowledge a Statute or maketh by Indenture enrolled a Bargain and Sale of it by the said agreement Hinton shall be subject to such Acts of the Heir All which Cases prove That the Devisor upon this matter at the time of his death had a sole Estate in Feesimple in the Mannor of Hinton and that the third part in value descended to the Heir and so the Devise of Thoby good It hath been Objected That here is not an immediate descent of which the Statute of 34 H. 8. speaks And here the Mannor of Hinton doth not descend immediatly for there was a mean time between the Death and the Disagreement and so the Will void for Thoby To that it was answered That this word immediatè sumitur dupliciter re tempore and shall be taken here immediatè re statu scil That a Reversion or a Remainder dependant upon a particular Estate in possession which is mean shall not be allowed for the third part descended For a Descent which takes away an Entry ought to be immediate for a mediate descent doth not take away an Entry Litt. 92. as the descent of a Reversion or Remainder And if this word Immediatè had not been in the Statute Then the Statute might have been construed That it should be sufficient to leave the third part to descend in Reversion or Remainder but this word Immediatè makes it clear And therefore the third part which descends ought to descend immediatè in re Statu Yet a Reversion upon a Lease for
awarded not good p. 100 Two Matters are in Issue the Jury find the one and says nothing to the other if a good Verdict p. 149 Where eating and drinking of the Jurors at their own charges doth not make the Verdict void otherwise if at the charges of any of the parties p. 267 Unity Of possession where shall extinct a Common p. 127 Usurpation Where puts the King out of possession where not p. 17 W. WAger of Law Where cannot be upon an Agreement that one Creditor be acquitted against the other for Debt p. 212 258 Warrants Of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed not good p. 84 Warranty Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee a collateral Ancestor releaseth with Warranty a bar to the Issue p. 212 Wasts p. 7 60 What a sufficient Plea in it what not p. 9 Wills General words in a Will where not enlarge special words before in it p. 18 Words in a Will or Testament conditional where construed not to give tail by Implication Upon a Devise for three where the words of the Will shall be taken distributively and not jointly p. 117 Not to be taken by Implication p. 131 In a Will a thing implyed shall not control a thing expressed p. 167 Withernam Upon return of a Withernam if the Plaintiff tendereth the Damages he shall have a special Writ to restore his Chattel p. 236 Writs In a recovery upon a Writ in the Court of a Mannor the party who recovered in it cannot be put in possession with the Posse Comitatus p. 99 In the nature of a Scire Facias out of the Court of Admiralty to repeal Letters Patents of an Office is good p. 192 FINIS An Exact TABLE to the Three Parts of Reports of Mr. William Leonard And a Correction of divers Mistakes in Printing of Cases and other Matters in all the Three BOOKS A Denotes the first B the second and C the third Book A Abatement of Writs IF one of three Executors die pend brevi the Writ abates A. 44. Administrator sued as Executor may abate the Writ if the Administrat was committed before Action brought A. 69. A Feme sole Plaintiff takes Baron the Writ is not abated but abateable A. 168 169. If matter of Abatement appear in any part of the Record the Court after Judgment will reverse the Judgment A. 255. Action does not abate if the Defendant die after the first Judgment in Trespass and before the Return of the Writ of Enquiry A. 263. Death after Issue joyned no cause of Abatement in the Civil-Law A. 278. The Writ shall abate if it appear the Plaintiff cannot recover the thing in demand A. 333 334. In what Real Actions two Tenants may plead several Tenancy B. 8. It an Action shall abate after the Verdict if it appear to be brought before time A. 186 187. B. 20. Writ shall abate if the Feme be put before the Baron B. 59. Where upon pleading Joyntenancy or Villenage the Writ shall abate without any answer to the Pleas B. 161 162. Where a Writ shall abate Ex Officio Curiae B. 162. A Writ of Deceit not abated by the death of one Defendant C. 3. Abeyance In what Cases a Use may be in Abeyance B. 18. C. 21 22 23. The like of a Remainder B. 73. Acceptance Where the Issue of him in Remainder accepts the Rent of Tenant for life it is a good affirmance of his Estate A. 243. What Acceptance of Rent by Lessor shall bar him of his Re-entry for non-payment A. 262. The Acceptance of Rent by the Feme confirms the Lease of the Husband C. 271. The like by Issue in Tail of a Lease not warranted by the Statute C. 271. The like by an Infant at his full Age C. 271. The like of a Lease by a Predecessor and the Successor accepts the Rent C. 271. By the Wives Acceptance of Dower out of Lands exchanged she agrees to the Exchange C. 271. One disclaims and after the Lord accepts the Rent of the Tenant the Lord is barred of his right Sur Disclaimer C. 272. Pending a Cessavit Tenant aliened the Lord accepts Services from the Alienee he is barred C. 272. Accord and Concord No Bar if not executed A. 19. C. 212. Account Duresse a good Bar to it A. 13. Capias ad Comp. after a former executed A. 87. The power of Auditors A. 219. Of what things an Auditor by Deed may make Allowance A. 219. The power of an Auditor deputed by a private person A. 219. The difference of an Auditor deputed by Parol and by Deed A. 219. After Account and the Defendant found in Arrear and then the Defendant dies yet the Plaintiff shall recover A. 263. Lies not for the profits of Lands if the Defendant were in by Title A. 226. C. 24. If the Jury ought to assess Damages A. 302. B. 118 196. C. 150 192 230. What may be pleaded in Ear or must be pleaded in discharge before the Auditors B. 30 31 195. If a Factor account to one of many joynt Traders it is sufficient B. 75 76. If the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff gave him the Goods he must traverse that he was Bailiff to render account B. 195. If it lies against a meer Trespasser or wrongdoer C. 24. Where Account or an Action upon the Case lies against one who receives Mony to buy Cattle and does not buy them C. 38. In some Cases it lies against an Apprentice C. 62. Action upon the Case for Tort See Nusance Trover Slander For Erecting a Fould-course in disturbance of the Lord who had one by Prescription A. 11. By a Father against the Master of his Son for beating and laming his Son whereby he was disparaged in Marriage A. 50. Where it lies for malitiously indicting of Felony A. 107 108. Lies and not Trespass for pulling down Hurdles in a Market A. 108 109. Lies against an Under-Sheriff who took Mony to return but did not return a Summons A. 146. Against a Justice of Peace for Arresting one for Felony without accusation A. 187. Against a Mayor for not taking Bail to an Action A. 189. By Tenant in ancient Demesne for taking Goods for Toll A. 231 232. B. 190. By a Sheriff against a Prisoner who escaped out of Execution satisfaction being acknowledged A. 237. If it lies for retaining anothers hired Servant A. 240. Lies for a Tenant in Fee for a Nusance though he may have an Assise A. 247 273. Con. C. 13. If it lies for diverting a Mill-stream without Prescription A. 273. If it lies against a Justice of Peace for refusing to examine one who is Robbed A. 323 324. For conspiring with a Factor to cheat the Plaintiff who was a Joynt Trader with the Defendants in Account B. 75 76. For laying too much weight on a Floor which fell into the Plaintiffs Wares B. 93. An over-loading a borrowed Horse B. 104. By a Commoner for over-charging the Common with Conies B. 203. Against
Executor shall sell who dies his Executor cannot sell B. 69. To the Heirs of the Body of his Eldest Son is void B. 70. I give my Lease to my Wife for life and then to my Children unpreferred B. 90. To the Heir in see is void and he is in by descent B. 101. C. 18. That his Executor shall pay a Debt this is no Legacy B. 119 120. Devise shall be taken according to the Common not Legal construction B. 120. C. 18 19. Devise of three Closes to three and if any die that the other shall have all his part to be divided between them B. 129. That A. shall pay yearly 10 l. out of a Mannor is a good Devise of the Mannor to A. B. 165. They shall be construed favourably but not against Law B. 165. If the Devisor be distrained and dies before re-entry nothing passeth B. 165. All his Lands called Jacks in the occupation of J S. what passes if not in the occupation of J.S. B. 226. Like Case C. 18 19 132. Of a Mannor to B. and of a third part thereof to C. they are joynt Tenants C. 11. Words in a Devise shall never be judged repugnant if by any rational Construction they may consist C. 11 28 29 Devise of Lands to his Wife for life and after that she may give them to whom she will C. 71. Lands called H. in two Vills A. and B. Devise of H. in A. for life remainder of Hayes Land to L. No Land passes in remainder but Lands in A. C. 77. To J. for thirty one years to pay Debts remainder after the Term expired to his Heirs Males and if he die within the Term that G. shall have it and be Executor J. dies his Issue enters G. evicts him C. 110. Devise that the eldest Son shall take the profits until the younger be of Age and the remainder to the younger Son the elder hath see conditional C. 216. Devise that his Feoffees to Uses shall be seised to other Uses who are accounted Feoffees C. 262. Diminution The manner of alledging it A. 22. With what time it must be alledged B. 3. Disceit Fine reversed by such a Writ because the Land is Ancient Demesne A. 290. C. 3 12 117 120. Not abated by death of one Defendant C. 3. Upon a Recovery in a Quare Impedit A. 293. The manner of proceeding therein A. 294. For an Infant against his Guardian who lost the Land by default in Dower B. 59. Where Estate of the Conusee remains after the Fine reversed C. 12 120. Whom it shall bind without summons C. 120. Discent Takes not away the entry of him who claims by Devise condition broken c. A. 210. B. 192. cont B. 147. Disclaimer He who hath disclaimed shall not have a Writ of Error C. 176. Discontinuance de Process c. Vide Continuance Discontinuance de Terre Remainder in fee after a Lease for life where not discontinued by Fine by the Tenant for life A. 40. B. 18 19. None of Copyholds A. 95. Nor upon a Covenant to stand seised made by Tenant in tail A. 110 111. By Feoffment of Tenant in tail A. 127. B. 18 19. Quid operatur if the Feoffees joyn in the Discontinuance B. 18 19. Lease for years by Cestuy que use pur vy is no Discontinuance but warranted by the Stat. of 32 H. 8. B. 46. None if the Reversion be in the King B. 157. C. 57. Nor by Bargain and Sale by Deed enrolled without Livery C. 16. Disseisin and Disseisor Where a Man shall be a Disseisor at the election of another A. 121. B. 9. If Tenant per auter vy hold over after the death of Custuy que vie if he be a Disseisor B. 45 46. The like if Tenant for years holds over B. 45 46. If the younger Brother enter if he be a Disseisor or Tenant at sufferance B. 48. If Disseisee may give licence to put in Cattle before Entry C. 144. He who Disseiseth a Copyholder gains no Estate C. 221. Disseisin to the use of Baron and Feme he only agrees the Estate vests in both but the Feme is no Disseisor C. 272. Distress Cannot distrain upon the Kings Lands A. 191. Where and who may distrein the Cattle of a Stranger though not Levant and Couchant where and who not B. 7. If one as Bailiff may say he takes a Distress for one cause and carry it away for another B. 196. Dower The Wife not Dowable if the Husband be attaint of Treason although pardoned A. 3. Of what age the Feme must be A. 53. Inquiry of Damages where the Baron died seised A. 56 92. In such an Inquiry the Jury may find above the value of the Dower A. 56. By Custom of Gavel-kind whether demandable as by Common Law A. 62 133. How a Grand-Cape in D. must be executed A. 92. Wife Dowable of a Seisin in Fee defeasible by a Condition A. 168. The Wife shall be endowed at Common Law where the King is to have Primer Seisin A. 285. If a conditional Estate be a good Joynture to bar Dower A. 311. Bar that the Heir granted to the Wife a Rent in satisfaction c. he ought to shew what Estate he had in the Land B. 10. An Infant cannot lose by default in Dower unless per Gardian B. 59 189. Notwithstanding what divorces the Wife shall be endowed B. 169 170. If the Wife shall be endowed where the Husband takes a Fine and renders back presently C 11. If she be barred by Fine and Non-claim if she brings her Writ within five years and desists prosecution six years after C. 50. Touts temps prist a render Dower where necessary to plead it or to give Judgment by default C. 50 52. If the Wise of the Lord shall be endowed of Demeine Lands grantable and granted by Copy by the Lord B. 153. C. 59. Of a Presentation to a Church C. 155. It is a good Bar in Dower that the Feme accepted Homage from the Tenant C. 272. Pleading of agreement to a Joynture made during Coverture C. 272. Divorce If it be causa frigiditatis in the Man who hath Issue by another if the first Marriage be good or the Divorce good until avoided by Sentence B. 169 170 171 172. The several kinds of Divorce B. 169. In pleading of Divorce the Judges name Coram quo must be precisely pleaded B. 170 171. Droit The form of a Writ of Right and what is demandable therein A. 169. B. 36. Whether it lies of an Office Stat. W. 2 cap. 25. A. 169. B. 36. The manner of arrayment of the twelve Recognitors by four Knights A. 303. Droit of an Advowson where it lies A. 316. No challenge to the Polls after the Array made A. 303. Where a Man hath no remedy but by this Writ B. 62 63 65. A Writ of Droit Close directed to the Bailiff and procceeded coram Sectatoribus good C. 63 64. In such Writ twelve Recognitors retorned suffice in an Inferior Court
Debt against the Debtors Executor A. 320. They may have Error of an Utlary in Felony against their Testator A. 325. Good resolutions for their pleading of Statutes Judgments c. A. 328. 329. What Debts must be first paid 328 329. Are liable to account to the King. B. 34. The manner of prosecuting a Devastavit in a forein County against an Executor B. 67. If they plead plene administravit specially by paying Debts upon Bonds they must shew how the Bonds are discharged B. 155. What intermeddling with the deceaseds Estate makes one Executor of his own wrong B. 224. Conditional if he pay all Debts owing to the Testator to the other Executor C. 3. If Executors enter or claim generally it shall be taken to be as Executors and not in any other capacity C. 36. It is said that a promise cannot be good to bind an Executor if he hath not Assets C. 67. Sale of Goods by an Infant Executor is good and binds him C. 143. One Obligor makes the Surety his Executor who pays the Mony generally Quaere C. 197. How he must be sued who being Executor of his own wrong takes Administration C. 197 198. One Executor cannot give the Goods of the Testator to the other for nothing passes by such Gift C. 209. Release of one Executor binds both C. 209. Executor of Executor not chargeable with a Devastavit made by the first Testator C. 241. Exemption A Juror sworn at the Bar notwithstanding he produced his Charter A. 207. Ex gravi querela In London in what case A. 267. Ex parte talis In what case it lieth B. 93. Exposition of Words Dedi Concessi in a Deed A. 29. Where the word Or in a Deed shall be copulative e converso A. 74 244. Of the word eundem in a Grant A. 15. Divisus dividend in an original Writ A. 169. Of Adtunc A. 172. I agree to surrender my Lands spoken by Tenant at will A. 178. Of the word Tenement in Grants A. 188. Of the word Covenant in a Bill of Debt A. 208. Uterque in Indictments A. 241. Quousque A. 244. Suus A. 271. Right A. 271. Factum implies sealing and delivering A. 310. Exponere ad culturam gives no Estate in the Land A. 315. In portum ad portum all one A. 335. Covenant with two quo ibet eorum B 47. In manner aforesaid is a Devise B. 69. By the word Licet may be made a good allegation B. 108. C. 67. A mile is accounted in Law 1000 paces and every pace 5 foot B. 113. Assurance to what Conveyances it doth relâ—te B. 130. Selion of Land is uncertain B. 162. Puer if it relates to both Sexes B. 217 218. Firma C. 12 13. Whether the word Mille may be joyned to a Genitive or Accusative Case C. 94. Tenementum is of an incertain signification C. 102. Of the word until as a Lease until Michaelmas includes the Feast day C. 211 Curtillage quid C. 214. Where a word in the singular number includes the plural C. 262. Immediate C. 273 274. Term of years C. 112. Extent If it be well executed though not retorned A. 280. Executed though not retorned in what case it is a good Execution B. 12 13. Lessee for years may pay the Rent to the Extendor C. 113. Scire facias to remove the Conusee C. 155. If the Conusee can in any case be removed without a Scire facias C. 155 to 158. What kâ—nd of Interest is left in the Conusor during the Extent C. 156 157. If an Extent be avoided by a Prior Statute the puisne Conusee may enter when the other is satisfied C. 239. If a Debt be assigned to the King he shall have all the Conusors Land C. 240. By the Statute of Acton Burnel the Extendors are to take the Lands if they appraise too high and must pay the Debt statim But when that statim means vi C. 274. Extinguishment Of Rent by Entry what act amounts thereto A. 110. Estate for life extinct by a Fee coming to the same person A. 174. A Prescription of non decimand in a spiritual Person is not extinguished by the Lands coming to lay hands A. 248. If a Remainder depending upon an Estate for life escheat the Seigniory is extinct presently A. 255. Where an Action once suspended is extinguished A. 172 320 330 331. Of a Use A. 257 259. A Rent granted in Fee and that it shall be suspended during the nonage of every Heir A. 266. Executor of the Debtee takes to Wife the Debtor how adjudged A. 320. Where personal things once suspended shall be revived B. 84. Lessor mortgages his Reversion to the Lessee in Fee the Term is utterly extinct C. 6. Where a Warrant is suspended and may be revived C. 10 11. A Term for years comes to the Lessor as Executor and he dies the Term is revived C. 210 111. If Unity of possession in the King of Abbey Lands extinguish a Common C. 128. If Devisee of a Term remainder over purchase the Fee the Term is not merged C. 92 93. Condition of re-entry is not suspended by assigning part of the Land for part of the Term C. 221. By destroying a Reversion a Rent depending thereon is extinct C. 261. A Mesnalty extinct by the Lords purchasing the Tenancy C. 261. Extortion Against whom it lies and the several Statutes against it A. 295. C. 268. It must be set sorth in the Judgment whether any Fee or no Fee was due C. 268. F. Faux Imprisonment See Iustification FFaux Imprisonment lies if a Capias be made out of the Courts at Westminster to a County Palatine B. 89. Faux Iudgment Lies upon a Justicies not Error B. 34. Upon a Writ of Right Close prosecuted in nature of an Assise C. 63. Fee-simple Where it may be created without the word B. 27. C. 216. Devise that the elder Son shall take the Profits until the younger come of Age is a Fee conditional in the eldest C. 216. Feoffment Vide Vses Good by the words Bargain and Sell with Livery A. 25. Fine and Amerciament Upon alienation without Licence A. 8. B. 55 56. In what case a Vill shall be amerced for the escape of a Felon A. 107. C. 207. If a Pain upon a Presentment must be afferred A. 203 204 217 242. In what case a Steward may Fine in a Court-Leer A. 217 242. Grantee of Post-Fines if he may distrain for them and sell the distress A. 249 250. The manner of pleading in Trespass where the Defendant-justifies for such Fine A. 249 250. By what words such Fines pass A. 249 250. If a Defendant make several defaults in one Suit he shall be several times amerced B. 4 5. Fine set in a Court for a contempt in not retorning of Cattle in a Replevin B. 174. Debt lies for a Post-Fine by the Kings Grantee B. 179. cont C. 56 234. A Defendant may be several times amerced for several defaults in one Suit B.
the acknowledgment of a Deed to himself A. 184. No Action or Indictment lies against one for an offence done as Judge A. 295 323 324. Upon a Justicies the Sheriff in person is Judge else all is coram non Judice B. 34. If Justices of Assise and Gaol-Delivery can take an Indictment of Trespass B. 117. A Justice of Peace cannot commit one for making a Contract against Law B. 210. What Indictment cannot be taken before Judges of Assise and Gaol-Delivery C. 216. Iusticies None but the Sheriff himself can hold Plea thereby B. 34. No Capias in Execution thereupon B. 86. Iustification By a Constable in false Imprisonment for that the Plaintiff would leave her Child to the Parish A. 327. By Prescription for a Way the Defendant must shew a quo ad quem locum certain the Way leads B. 10. By the Bailiffs of a Corporation to imprison any Subject at their pleasure for a misbehavior not good B. 34 35. If the Constable plead that he set one in the Stocks for not Watching he must aver that the party dwells in his Parish C. 208 209. K. King. See Prerogative WHat is given to the King by a Statute of Attainder which gives all rights c. A. 272. Not necessary to summon the King for matter in the Kings Bench for he is there always present A. 325. Quid operatur by assignment of a Debt to the King B. 31 55 67. C. 234. A Bond for performance of Covenants may be assigned to the King but no Execution before the party be warned B. 55. The Kings Widow cannot Marry without the Kings consent B. 141. If he may alter the Tenure notwithstanding the Stat. Quia emptores terrarum B. 151 163. C. 58. Takes nothing but by Record B. 206 207. No usurpation puts the King out of possession of an Advowson C. 17 18. What Debts may be assigned to the King B. 55. C. 234. L. Law. LEX Idumaea quid C. 264. Lex mercatoria is a publick Law and the Judges take notice so of it C. 264. Lex non praecipit inutilia If it appear the Plaintiff cannot have the thing demanded the Writ shall abate A. 330 331. Leases Power to make Leases by Stat. not pursued C. 72. Made be vertue of a power reserved to make Leases for 21 years shall not be to commence post â—xpirationem c. A. 35. Of Sheep and a Farm A. 42. What kind of property the Lessee hath in the Trees A. 49. Without Impeachment of Wast how construed Ibid. Excepting Woods Timber-Trees c. if the Soil it self is excepted A. 116 117 247. Where a Licence to occupy amounts to and shall be pleaded as a Lease A. 129. Covenant that the Covenantee shall enjoy c. is a good Lease Contra that a Stranger shall c. A. 136. For years may commence in futuro A. 171. Upon a Lease for years in remainder there must be Attornment Ibid. What words amount to a Lease A. 178. By Baron and Feme not good without Deed A. 204. For years if the Lessee so long live and if he die within the Term the remainder to J. S. The remainder is void A. 218. C. 154. Where an uncertain commencement may be ascertained by the entry or election of the Lessee A. 227. B. 1. Must have an end and beginning certain A. 245. C. 86. Lease for life cannot commence in futuro unless by way of remainder A. 275 276. None can take by it but those who are party to the Deed A. 287 288. What are void what only voidable A. 307. One Man exposuit ad culturam his Land to two the two have no Estate A. 315. To commence after a former if the former were void ab initio or since the first shall begin presently B. 11. What is a Lease for years or at will B. 78. By a several Habendum to commence after the expiration of several former Leases whether the new Lease begin till all the other be expired B. 106. Lease for so many years as J. S. shall name is good if he name in the life of both parties C. 86. Lease out of a Lease for so many years as shall be to come at the Lessors death Ibid. Lease of Lands by Lessee for years worth 8 l. per annum until the Lessee levy 100 l. what interest is left in the Lessee C. 157. Lease for 60 years and if the Lessee die within the Term that then his Executors shall have until the end of the Term C. 196 197. Leet Who is Judge there and what things are incident to a Leet A. 217 218. When to be holden by the Common Law and by the Statute B. 74. Legacy What is a good assent by an Executor to a Legacy A. 129 130. C. 6. Not payable without demand A. 17. Where and what election shall make one who is Executor and Legatee to be in by the Devise or as Executor A. 216. Payable to an Infant at his full age his Executor may sue for it before the time of his age A. 278. What Devise is a Legacy what not B. 119 120. Lieu and County Where Plea shall be ill after Verdict for want of alledging a place B. 22 76 77 146 147. C. 10. Where necessary in an Indictment B. 183. No place necessary where a Feoffment or Lease for life was made B. 31 32. Where the taking of the profits of Lands is alledged it must be said to be done at the Vill where the Lands lie N. 238. Limitation of Estates To A. and B. his Wife for years if they or any of their Child or Children live so long A. 74. What words make a Condition what a Limitation A. 167 168 244 245 298 299. B. 38 114. To the Feoffor for life and after his death to his Executors for 20 years in whom the Term is vested B. 5 6. C. 21 22. To A. for life and if A. die within 20 years to his Executors for so many years B. 6 7. C. 21 22. One having Issue a Son and a Daughter by several venters Devised to his Son and the Heirs of the Body of the Father how adjudged B. 24 25 26. Mannor of O. in S. use limited of all Lands in O yet the Mannor passeth not B. 47. The moiety of Lands to his Wife for years and his eldest Daughter to enter into the other moiety and the Daughter married and died without Issue having another Sister C. 25 26. To J.S. and his Issue imposterum procreand the present Issue take nothing C. 87. Lands given to A. for the Life of C. and B. the death of either determines the Estate C. 103. Grant to two habend moiety to one and moiety to the other good But grant of two Acres habend to two habend one to one and the other to the other is void C. 126. Limitation of Time. If a Corporation must alledge Seisin within the time limited by the Statute in real Actions A. 153. Livery of Seisin Made before enrolment