was in a Formedon in remainder and it was moved now by Serjeant Harris if the partie against whom it was given may sue in the Exchequer Chamber by Bill or petition to the King in the nature of a writ of false judgement for the Reversal of that judgement Tanfield seemed that it is proper so to do for by 13. Rich. 2. if a false judgement be given in a base Court the partie grieved ought first to sue to the Lord of the Mannor by petition to reverse this judgement and here the King being Lord of the Mannor it is very proper to sue here in the Exchequer Chamber by petition for in regard that it concerneth the Kings Mannor the suit ought not to be in the Chancery as in case a Common person were Lord and for that very cause it was dismissed out of the Chancery as Serjeant Harris said and Tanfield said that he was of Councel in Pettishals case in the time of the Lord Bromley where it was debated at large if such a judgement ought to be reversed by petition in the Chancery in case where a Common person was Lord and at last it was decreed that it should be as in that case of Patshal and for the same reason here the King being Lord and therefore day was given till the next Term to shew their errours and Serjeant Harris said that the errors are in effect no others then were in the case 9. Eliz. Dyer fo 262. and in Godmanchesters case and it was adjourned Scot and his wife against Hilliar SCot and his wife Plantiffs against Hilliar for these words spoken of the wife viz. she would have cut her husbands throat and did attempt to do it Hutton Serjeant in arrest of judgement said that these words are not actionable for the will or attempt is not punishable by our Lawe and he vouched Cockains case Cook lib. 4. cited in Eaten and Allens case but by the Court an Action lies for the attempt is a cause for which the husband may be divorced if it were true and it is a very great slander and Baron Snig said that in the same Term a judgement was given in the Kings Bench and was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error for these words He lay in the high way to rob me and therefore let judgement be entred for the Plan̄tiffe but it was adjudged in the principal case that for the words she would have cut her husbands throat no Action would lie Gooches Case A Coppyholder surrenders into the hands of the Customary Tenants to the use of Anne his Wife and after before any Court the said Coppyholder surrenders the Land into the hands of other Customary Tenants to the use of the said Anne for her life the remainder to Percie in Fee upon condition that he in remainder his Heirs should pay 20. s. per annum at Michaelmas for ever the first payment to commence immediacely after the death of the said Anne viz. at the next feast of St. Michael and this to be paid in the Church Porch or D. to the Church Wardens of D. in the presence of four discreet Parishioners or otherwise that a stranger should re-enter and at the next Court both these surrenders were present and the Steward admitted the said A. according to the second surrender and she dyed and now upon pretence that the rent of 20. s. was not paid by the Heirs of him in remainder the Heir of Gooch who made the surrender had entred and thereupon an Action was brought and upon the evidence the Jury to the County of Bedford now at the Bar These matters were moved by Serjeant Nichols That a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants cannot be Countermanded and therefore the second surrender void and the admittance shall work to such uses as the first surrender was made as in Anne Westwicks Case Cook Lib. 4. And to prove that a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants is not countermandable he said that it is not countermandable by death nor surrender Cooke lib. 4. in his Coppyhold Cases That a presentment in the Court may be after the death of the surrenderer and the admittance thereupon is good and he compared it to the Case of the delivery of a Deed as an Escroll which may be delivered as his Deed after the death of the Maker as it is in Jennings and Braggs case Cook lib. 3. which was not denyed by the Court Serjeant Dodderidge said that when a surrender is made upon condition that he shall pay a summe of money to a stranger these words make an estate conditionall and give power implyedly to the Heirs of the party who did surrender to re-enter for non-payment and the words which give power to a stranger to re-enter are meerely void neverthelesse the precedent words shall stand and make the estate conditionall Tanfield Littleton saies that such a re-entry is void for a re-entry cannot be limited to a Stranger Nichols Serjeant said that if a surrender be made that he shall pay so much money that this makes the estate conditionall and gives a re-entry to the Heirs of him who did surrender But when it goes further and doth not leave the condition to be carried by the Law in such case all the words should be void because it cannot be according to the intent as in the case of a reservation of rent the Law will carry it to the Reversion but if it be particularly reserved then it will go according to the reservation or otherwise will be void and so here Tanfield Admit that here was a conditionall estate by vertue of the Surrender last made and this condition is also to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be taken strictly yet as it is here he who will take advantage thereof ought to prove a voluntary neglect in the party in the not performance of the Condition and inasmuch as there is no certain time appointed when the payment of this Annuall rent should be made but generally at Michaelmas next after the death of the said Anne thereby in this case the Chuch-wardens ought to notifie the death of the said Anne before the first day of payment by reasonable space or otherwise the condition is not broken and also it is appointed here to be paid in the presence of four discreet Parishioners by the party who should perform the condition yet by intendment he hath no notice who are discreet or who are not especially he being an Infant as in our case he is and therefore although the condition is to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be performed strictly according to 12. E. 3. Yet this is to be intended only in such cases where the party had certain notice of all circumstances requisite for payment thereof and therefore he directed the Iury that for want of knowledge of such circumstances they should give a Verdict that the condition was not broken And Dodderidge
they ought to joyn in every action to which the wife is intitled before marriage but otherwise it is here as he thought and as to that which hath been said that the declaration ought to have been special viz. per quod consortium amisit uxoris suae it seems that shall be necessarily intended without shewing of it in the declaration but in the case put by Altham if a man bring an action of false imprisonment of his servant he need not shew whereby he lost his service c. because peradventure he had no imployment for him this is good Law by him but otherwise it is in the case of a wife but yet he would be advised thereof as of a thing not mentioned before Altham Baron it may be intended that the husband was also imprisoned with his wife and so did not lose her company except it be shewed to the contrary aswel as it may be intended the Master had no imployment for his servant and after at the next Term Tanfield and Altham Barons agreed that the Declaration ought to be special as Altham Baron conceived or otherwise the wife ought to have joyned in the action which had been better for they said that in all cases where the action is brought for such a matter for which the wife by possibility might have an action after the death of her husband there they ought to joyn and for this false imprisonment the wife may have an action after the death of her husband and therefore they ought to joyn here Snig and Bromley Barons seemed prima facie that the action lies well enough when they joyn or when the husband alone bringeth it and they vouched and Doillies Councel said that they have heard it to be adjudged in the Kings Benth 28. Eliz. in one Cholmlies case and 35. Eliz. in the Common Pleas that an action lieth for the husband alone for a battery made to his wife and so they conceived it good if they joyn or sever in the action and therefore it was appointed that the next Term the presidents should be shewed and the case to be argued as to this point Note that Doillie perceiving the Law against him for this last point or matter because his wife did not joyn commenced his action of new in this Court and this was in Trespas for the beating and imprisoning his wife and in this case the husband and wife joyned and declared to the damage of the husband and wife and the like Plea was pleaded in Bar as was in the other action and the record thereof was read in Court Termino Pasch 9. Iac. and then adjourned and after it was adjudged for the Plantiff Wikes by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber Trin. 7. Jac. IN the Exchequer Chamber by English Bill this case was depending and argued before all the Barons at Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet viz. the King exhibited an Information against Wikes for entering into divers parcels of land and Wikes prétending that he had good equitie prayed his relief by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber and the case upon the said Bill was this Graunt made a lease for years to one Somerfield and Iohn Wintor in Trust and for the benefit of the wife and Children of the lessor rendring rent and after Wintor one of the Lessees and also Graunt who was the Lessor were attainted of the Gunpowder Treason and Wikes married the wife of the Lessor and entred and upon this information he prayed relief in behalf of his wife and Children by this English Bill and first it was agreed by all the Barons that the King by the course of the Common Law had the moitie of the land and no more by the attainder of Wintor and that Somerfield the other Lessee shall be Tenant in common with the King but what remedy he should have if the King took all the profits they agreed not Secondly they agreed by the admittance of Wikes his Councel that the King as to the moity which came to him shall not be ordered in equity to perform the trust reposed in Wintor for the wife of the Lessor for the King cannot be seised to another mans use no more can his estate be subject to any trust at this day as the Attorney general had said clearly which the Court granted but Brock of Councel with Wikes seemed not to be satisfied but that the King ought to execute such trust by equity but Tanfield chief Baron said that before me at another day you were content to be concluded as to this point that there is no equity against the King Thirdly it was debated if in this case the King should have the other moity which was in Somerfield by equity for clearly if the lease had been made in trust for the benefit of the Lessor himself the King should have it by his attainder and then what difference it being made for the benefit of the wife of the person attainted for her husband might have disposed of it being a trust only of a Chattel as he might have done of a Chattel whereof the wife was possessed and he might have wholly released this trust and by consiquence he might forfeit it by his attainder whereunto Snig and Altham Barons agreed and by Bromley his release shall binde but during his life the Attorney general said that he might release all Brock it should be mischievous that his release of this trust should bar the wife of her trust after her husbands death for admit that a man make a lease to A. to the use of his wife for 100. years if she shall so long live and this for a joynture for his wife can her husband prejudice her of this joynture by release of the trust as if he should say no and then à fortiori in the case here for the trust is for the wife and children and the trust for the children cannot be released by the father and consequently not forfeited by him by the Court there is no such Bill depending before us which demands any thing for the King and the Bill which is here exhibited by Wikes prayes nothing but one moity of the term viz. that which in Law belongs to Somerfield which moity by the Common Law we cannot take from him and therefore we will leave you to sue in the office of Pleas according to the course of the Common Law in the name of Somerfield and therefore they gave no resolution if by equity the husband shall forfeit a trust which he had for years in the right of his wife Sir Thomas Overburyes case was opened to be this viz. Robert Wintor was seised in see of six Bullaries at Wich and he covenanted to levy a fine of all his Bullaries and that for 4. of the said Bullaries this should be to the use of John Wintor in tail and for the other to the use of himself in fee with power of revocation and after the said Wintor levied a fine sur connizance de droit
come ceo only of foure Bullaries if this fine and the use of the estate passed thereby shall be directed by the covenant it was the question and it was moved for a doubt what Bullarie that shall be intended whereof the fine is not levied by reason of the incertaintie quaere and it was adjourned Nota that an estreate of divers fines imposed upon several indictments at the Quarter Sessions for several Riots was sent into this Court and the estreat here being mentioned not for what offences the fines were imposed and the records of the indictments were in the Crown office by a Certiorari and the chief Baron Tanfield said that the estreat was insufficient and we ought not to send out Proces upon them because they do not mention the quality of the offence for which the fines were imposed and therefore it may be discharged by Plea yet if the estreat be not warranted by the indictment so that the indictment is discharged for insufficiency in the Kings Bench the Record thereof may be certified into the Chancery and by mittimus transferred hither and we may discharge the estreat and Altham Baron agreed that the partie grieved by such fine upon an insufficient indictment may plead all this matter and spare to remove the Record and if the Kings Attorney will confess the plea to be true it is as good as if the Record had been removed which was not denied An Amercement for a by Law IT was moved for the King upon a lease holden for him that I.S. was amerced 10. l. because he received a poor man to be his Tenant who was chargable to the parish contrary to a pain made by the Township and thereupon Proces issued out of this Court and the Baily distrained and I. S. brought Trespas and it was said by the Barons and ordered that if I. S. will bring an action for the distraining for this amercement be it lawfully imposed or not yet I. S. shall be restrained to sue in any other Court but in this and here he shall sue in the office of Pleas if he will for the Bailiff levied it as an officer of this Court and for the matter Snig said that if I. S. received a poor man into his house against a by Law made in the Township there is good cause of amercement but by Tanfield it is nothing to us that they have a custome to make by-Lawes herein against a by Law made by us also a leet of it self hath no authority to make by Lawes or such an order but by custome it is good Snig and Altham Barons it is good policy to make an order with a pain in a Leet that no person shall receive any such Tenant as shall be chargable to the parish but clearly the Steward cannot amerce one for such a cause without an order with a pain made before Sir John Littletons case SIr Iohn Littletons case was that all the lands of a Monastery were granted unto one Dudley reserving 28. l. rent yearly for a Tenth of all the laid land according to the Statute and after Dudley granted the greater part of this land to Littleton and that he had used upon the agreement made between Dudley and him to pay 20. l. yearly for the Tenth of his part and Dudley had used to pay 8. l. yearly for that which he retained and after Dudley was attainted whereupon his part of the said land came to the King and now the Auditor would impose the charge for all the Tenth upon Littleton but by the Court although the Tenth was Originally chargable and leviable upon all and every part of the land yet it being apparant to them that part thereof came to the Kings hands it was ordered that the land of Sir Iohn Littleton should be discharged before the Auditor prorata and so it was and Littleton to pay only 20. l. yearly Sweet and Beal NOta that in Michaelmas Term 6. Iac. upon a special verdict this case was depending in the Exchequer viz. Anthony Brown devised a term to his wife until the issue of the body of the Devisor accomplish the age of 18. years bringing up the said child Provided that if the devisor die without issue that then the land shall go to the said wife for term of her life paying to the sister of the Devisor 6. l. 13. s. 4. d. yearly which he willed to be paid at two feasts half yearly and that if it be arrear then it shall be lawful for the sister to distrain and to detain the distress until it be paid and the Iury found that the devisor had issue at the time of his death but that the said issue died before he accomplished the age of 18. years and they found also that the rent of 6. l. 13. s. 4. d. payable to the sister was not paid at one day in which it was payable and that no demand was made for it and that Moil Beal who was the right heir entred for the condition broken and made a lease to the Plantiff who being outed by the wife brought an Ejectione firme and Chibborn of Lincolns Inne argued that the entrie of the heir is lawful first he said when he devised to his wife until his heir come to the age of 18. years bringing up the said heir if in this case the heir die within the said age the state of the wife is determined by reason that the education was the cause the land should continue to the wife and the cause being determined by the death of the heir before the said age therefore the estate is also determined and upon that he bouched a case in Mich. 3. Iac. one Collins devised that one Carpenter should have the over-sight and managing of his land until his son should attain the age of 5. years and the son died before he attained the said age and it was agreed admitting that Carpenter had by that devise an interest that it is now determined by the death of the heir to the second matter viz. when it is limited that if the devisor die without issue that then the wife shall have it by that it seems to me that the wife shall not have an estate for life by these words as our case for at the time of the death of the devisor he had issue so that it cannot be said that he died without issue although now we may say that he is dead without issue but in regard that the words of the will are not performed according to the proper intendment of them the Iudges ought not to make another construction then according to the litteral sence the litteral construction being properly the words to bear such a meaning and this as he said may be proved by Wildes case in Cook lib. 6. but more strong is our case because in a case which carrieth the land from the heir there ought to be a strong and strickt and not a favourable construction made to the prejudice of the heir
and therefore he vouched a case between Scockwood and Sear where a man devised part of his land to his wife for life and another part of his land until Michaelmas next ensuing his death and further by the said will he devised to his younger son all his lands not devised to his wife and adjudged that by the said words the younger son shall have only that parcel which was devised to the wife for life and not that which was devised unto her till Michaelmas and yet by Popham it appeareth that his intent was otherwise viz. that all that should go to his younger son so there ought not to be a strained construction made against the heir and so in our case the words being that if he die without issue c. that then it shall go to his wife herein as much as he had issue at the time of his death it cannot be said that he died without issue but that he is dead without issue and this appeareth by the pleading in the Lord Bartleys case in Plowden and he vouched also a case in the Kings Bench 4. Jac. between Miller and Robinson where a man devised to Thomas his son and if he die without issue having no son there it was holden that if the devisee had issue a son yet if he had none at the time of his death the devisee in the remainder shall have it yet he was once a person having a son and so in our case there was a person who did not die without issue and he vouched also the case of Bold and Mollineux in 28. H. 8. Dyer fo 15.3 when a man deviseth to his wife for life paying a yearly rent to his sister and that if the rent be not paid that the sister may distrain it seems to me that this is a conditional estate in the wife notwithstanding the limitation of the distress and he vouched 18. Eliz. in Dyer 348. which as he said proved the case expresly for there in such a case it is adjudged that the devisee of the rent may after demand thereof distrain and yet the heir may enter for the not payment of the rent although it were never demanded so that the subsequent words of distraining do not qualifie the force of the condition although there be there an express condition and in our case but a condition implyed and he said that it seemed reasonable that such a construction for the distress and condition also shall stand as appeareth by divers cases that upon such words the Law will allow a double remedy and therefore he vouched Gravenors case in the Common Pleas Hill 36. Eliz. Rot. 1322. where a lease was made by Magdalen Colledge to husband and wife so that if the husband alien that the lease shall be void and provided that they do not make any under-tenants and to this purpose he vouched the case of the Earl of Pembrook cited in the Lord Cromwels case Cook lib. 2. where the words amounted to a covenant and a coudition and if this word paying should not be construed to be a condition then it were altogether void and idle and such a construction ought not to be made in a will and he conceived that this rent ought to be paid by the wife without any demand upon the pain of the condition and therefore he vouched 22. H. 6. fo 57.14 E. 4 21. E. 4. by Hussey and 18. Eliz. Dyer 348. vouched before and so it was resolved as he said in the Court of Wards in Somings case where a man made a devise paying a rent to a stranger this ought to be paid without demand and he said that the Common case is proved when a feofment is made upon condition that the feoffee shall do an act to a stranger this ought to be done in convenient time without request by the stranger and so here it seemeth although a demand ought to be made by the sister yet the wife ought to give notice to the sister of the Legacy so that she may make a demand and therefore he vouched Warder and Downings case where a man devised that his eldest son upon entry should pay to the younger son such a summe of money here the eldes brother ought to give notice at what time he will enter to the intent that the younger brother may be provided to make a demand Edwards of the Inner Temple contrary First it seemeth that by this limitation the wife ought to retain the land until the issue of the devisor should have come to the age of 18. years for this a time certain and as it is construed upon such words in Borastons case Cook lib. 3. that the Executors there have an interest certain so it should be construed here to refer to a certainty which is until the time by computation that the issue should have attained to 18. years and the rather in this case in respect the devisor had otherwise disposed of the land until the son should have accomplished the said age Secondly it seemeth that the wife hath an estate for life not conditional in so much as the words are not joyned in the case the 18. Eliz. Dyer hath been vouched but that was upon an express condition but here it is by implication and then the clause of distress taketh away the force of the implication which otherwise might be thereupon inferred and therefore in 5. Eliz. Dyer it appeareth that the word Proviso annexed to other words makes it no condition in judgement of Law and so in 14. Eliz. Dyer 311. and he vouched also 18. Eliz. Dyer Greens case that if a man deviseth lands to his friends paying to his wife with a clause of distress this is no condition as it is adjudged Thirdly it seemeth that this summe to be paid to the sister is a rent and therefore ought to be demanded or otherwise in judgement of Law the condition shall not be broken and the 21. E. 4. the case of an obligation to perform covenants c. and a case between Wentworth and Wentworth 37. Eliz. that a demand ought to be made for a rent which is granted in liew of Dower for the wife brought a writ of Dower for the land of her husband the Tenant pleaded that she accepted a rent out of the land in liew of her Dower and the wife replied that the said rent was granted upon condition that if it were not paid at certain dayes that it should be void and that she should have Dower of the land and she said that the rent was not paid at the dayes c. but shewed not in her pleading any demand to be made and therefore it was holden evil pleading for such a rent ought to be demanded or otherwise the condition is not broken and so here Nota that this case was appointed to be argued again but after as I heard the Barons amongst themselves resolved to give judgement for the Defendant upon one point only which was that the estate
of 99. years is agreed to be given Secondly if there be such an imployment of this land as the Statute requireth admitting the lease was not given Thirdly if the livery upon the Queens Lessee for years be good and I hold that the Fee is not given to the Queen Secondly the land is not imployed c. admitting that it was given Thirdly that the Feofment here is not good and as to the case at Bar the Feoffees may enter I doubt not of that because there is not any thing found but that it was imployed to the uses intended for 99. years Secondly if it were not imployed according to the condition after 1. Ed. 6. yet they cannot enter for themselves were parties to the Art which did prohibit it as 34. H. 8. Dyer 52. the Queen gives licence that Belmelt shall be transported notwithstanding any Statute made or to be made if after it be prohibited the licence is determined because the Patentee himself was a partie to such Statutes Secondly it is said in Addams and Lamberts case that a superstitious devise or other estate upon condition is within the Statute because the Patentee was partie thereunto Thirdly it is said in the said case that a superstitious devise or other estate upon condition is within the Statute because it is penal and compulsorie for the maintenance of a thing prohibited by the Law and also there it is said that there is a proviso towards the end of that Act that it shall not be Lawful by reason of any remainder or condition for any man to claim any lands c. for the not doing or finding of any such Priest as to the other point which was moved at Bar I hold that the use doth not arise upon the words subsequent and if they do not re-re-enter that then the land shall go to the use of the four Feoffees to the intent aforesaid is not a mis-ordering nor an imployment Secondly these words to the intent do not raise any use but only a confidence and trust reposed in the Feoffees Doctor and Student 94. for the first point therefore he held that there is no superstitious gift of the Fee-simple and if there were it is not imployed c. and therefore it is not given by the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. to the Queen and touching that we are to consider the Statute Indenture and the Schedule and there is not a word that after 99. years the land shall finde a Priest but the money and the land is not given but the money as in the Dean of Pauls case 22. Eliz. Dyer 368. if land be given to finde a Priest with part of the profits thereof those profits are only given to the King by this Statute and not the land but that belongs to the Dean and Chapter also the Schedule is if then it may be lawful and therefore if it were not then lawful the money is not given and it is like to the case where I make a lease for 21. years if I do allow of it before Michaelmas and before Michaelmas do not allow of it this is a void lease and so if I give land to the use of Westminster School if the Dean will enter into a Recognizance c. and if he will not enter into a Recognizance it is no gift like to the case 15 H. 7. a grant of Annuitie if such a thing be done c. secondly as to the imployment the lease is only found to be imployed and the imployment of the lease is no imployment of the Fee which was not given until the Term was expired and if the gift be not superstitious the imployment ought not to be superstitious and yet as it is said in Adams case there ought to be an imployment to intitle the Queen as the case there is if one gives the Mannor of D. and S. to superstitious uses the Queen shall have the lands out of the hands of the Feoffee and if land be given to finde a Priest in the Church of D. for 20 years and after to finde one in S. for 21. years and before the expiration of the first Term the Statute is made it seems the Queen shall have only the first Term because there is no imployment of the second Term within the Statute 5. Ed. 4.20.15 Ed. 3. Execu 63. I agree those cases for land or rent issue from a seisin 30. Ed. 3.12 in a quare impedit 5. Ed. 6. Benlowes a devise to 8. to the uses and intent that the Feoffees with the profits shall finde a Priest whilst the Law of this Realm will suffer it and if the Law will not suffer it then to the use of three of the poorest of the Parishes adjoyning by all the Iudges this is not within the Statute and as to the last point it seems that the Feofment is good and the interest of the Queen is no impediment which if it be not then there is no question as Dyer 20. Eliz. 363. Tenant in tail makes a feofment the servants of the Lessee for years being upon the land and livery is made and after the Lessee for years agrees saving his Term this is a discontinuance 14. Ed. 4.2 3. and 4. Ph. et M. Dyer 139. possession shall not be gained from the Queen but by matter of Record 4. Assises 5.21 Assises 2.8 H. 4.16.1 H. 7. no livery upon the Kings possession it may be devised by the heir or conveyed by bargain and sale or by fine from him and the Kings estate in reversion doth not priviledge the estate in possession as it is 23. Ed. 3.7 a disseisor conveys land to the Queen who grants for life and the disseisee shall have a writ of entrie against the Queens Lessee for life by the opinion of Thorp Cook lib. 4.55 a disseisor makes a lease for life the remainder to the King a recovery of the land against Tenant for life will defeat the Kings remainder 7. Rich. 2. aide of the King 61. Tenant in tail grants the land to the King with warranty and the King makes a lease for life if the issue recover in a Formedon the Kings estate is defeated and I was of Councel in the Court of wards in a case which was Pasch 43. Eliz. betwixt Chackston and Starkey for the Wardship of the heir of Clifford and it was this the Ward at full age tendred his livery and had six moneths to sue it and within the six moneths made a Feofment and after died before livery sued in this case the livery and seisin was void and it is all one as if no tender had been made for the Queens possession was priviledged the second point was that one being in Ward to the King had a reversion in Fee expectant upon an estate for life and before livery sued made a Feofment in Fee this makes a discontinuance of the reversion notwithstanding the Kings interest which he had in reversion for the Wardship which case is like to the case
this be confessed that the King there should take nothing without inrolment yet this is not like to our case for here this is but to merge a particular estate which differs much from the case of conveying of an inheritance also this is confessed if there had been a Memorandum made in the Margent then the surrender had been good and the want thereof is the laches of the Clark and then if it should not be a surrender before the Memorandum made the Clark should make the surrender and not the partie and as to the Book of 37. H. 6. it is not answered for to say that the King hath no right to the thing granted before inrolment but that he hath the propertie that cannot be and to that which hath been objected that there doth not appear any intention of the surrender because that although the Patents are surrendred the estate remained the Book of 32. E. 3. Monstrance of faith 178. proveth nothing for there it is said that a man may plead that a Dean and Chapter did not lease modo et forma without shewing any Deed for there this pleading is not to devest any thing out of c. and also it appears in the principal case that his intent was to surrender for the Iury do finde that the Letters Patents were restored by the command of the Lord Seymor to be cancelled and to that which hath been objected if the second Patent should be good that the Queen might lose her Rent or condition because the first lease hath his continuance to that I give answer that the first lease hath not his continuance and therefore no loss can grow to the Queen and to that which hath been objected that the Queen is deceived it appears by these words modo habens c. restituit c. that the intention of the Queen was that the Lord Seymor had surrendred his estate before and that he now had nothing because that the word modo being joyned with the word reddidit signifieth the time past but as to that it seems to me that although modo poetica licentia in the strict construction of Grammer may signifie the time past yet the signification thereof shall not be so taken in the letters Patents for there it shall be taken in common construction and not to the deceipt of the King and therefore in the Dean and Chapter of Bristols case 7. E. 6. Dyer the words are nuper in Tenura I. S. et modo in Tenura A. B. there nuper is taken for the time past but modo for the present time and in 11. H. 7. Rogerum Townesend modo militem is to be intended that he is now Knight and not that he was a Knight in time past and not now also it is so to be observed here that these words habens et gaudens are annexed to this word modo both which are in the present time and restituit comes afterwards and so modo is not annexed to restituit but unto habens et gaudens also although the word shall be referred unto restituit yet all may well stand together for restituit may be referred unto the time present as siquae fuerint in 35. H. 6.11 and to that which hath been objected that until the Queen agrees unto the surrender the estate is not in the Queen he thought that where Tenant for life surrenders before agreement he in the reversion is Tenant to the Praecipe although he shall not maintain a Trespass before entrie for by 21. H. 7.12 it appeareth that an estate for life may be determined aswel by word as by surrender so in 9. H. 7. where the Tenant dies without heir the freehold is immediately in the Lord but yet he shall not have an action of Trespas before entrie now as to the first point he conceived it to be an actual surrender although there be no Vacat made nor any Memorandum and to examine it he did relate what Acts might make a surrender and to that purpose he said that words being used which do prove an assent of the Tenant that he in reversion shall have an estate that shall be a surrender without express words of a surrender for a man may surrender by these words Remisit or resignavit for the words are not material if so there be substance as in 40. E. 3. placito 14. and 40. Assises pl. 16. if a lessee for life saith to his lessor that you shall enter and I will that you shall have this land this is a good surrender So in 28. H. 8. Dyer 33. if a Termor agree that he in the reversion shall make a feofment that is a surrender so in 8. Eliz. Dyer 251 252. lessee for life is content that he in the reversion shall have the land and his interest that is a surrender but in that case it appeared that a rent was reserved and an agreement that the lessee should have it againe if he survived the lessor and therefore appearing plainly that it was not intended to pass by way of surrender it was at the last adjudged no surrender so in 14. H. 8. the Grantee of a Rent did surrender the Deed and that held to be a good surrender of the Rent it is daubted in 2. Eliz. Dyer in Sir Maurice Barkleys case 156. if the surrender of the Patent of an Office unto a master of the Chancerie out of the Court be good without beliverie of the Patent to be cancelled but that Book proveth nothing but that a delivery of a Patent to be cancelled shall be a good surrender though the Patent be not cancelled in facto it hath been objected that it matters not what commandment the Lord Seymor did give nor in what Court the Patents were given up nor before whom but to that he said in asmuch as it is found that the Patents were given up by the commandment of the Loâ—d Seymor to be cancelled that being it was by his command it was his own surrender also it appears that the letters Patents were under the great Seal of England which alwayes issueth out of the Chancery and therefore it cannot be cancelled in any other Court and it shall be intended that they were given up to be cancelled there also this word restituit signifieth to restore and a man cannot restore any thing but where he had it and he had it out of the Chancery and therefore it shall not be otherwise intended but to be there restored so in Baggots Assise 9. E. 4.7 it is pleaded Quod restituit litteras Patentes Cancellandas and sheweth not to whom nor where and it was held to be very good but it is there pleaded Quod sursum reddidit Patentes Domini Regis and shewed in special to whom they were surrendred because it may be to any that hath power at the time of the surrender but a man cannot restore unto any but such a one who granted unto him and therefore needs not shew unto whom he did restore
the which the Lord chief Baron Tanfield said insist not upon a labour of that kinde for it is plain enough because the Queen being partie there can be no Estoppel as to any part in that case also as to that part of his argument Mr. Walter agreed on the other side and also he said that if a grant of the Queeen were void at the Common Law for default of want of consideration this Statute aids not Walter for the Defendant and he divided the case into foure points the first whether the Tenant for life by the Kings guift by surrendring his letters Patents hath also surrendred his estate Secondly if the surrender in this case made be defective only for want of matter of circumstance as the inrolment c. whether such defects are saved by the Statute 43. Eliz. Thirdly whether in this case an actual surrender be the consideration meerly which moveth the Queen to grant or what shall be intended the consideration in this case Fourthly admitting that an actual surrender is the sole consideration in this case then whether a Patent shall be adjudg'd void for default of such consideration for a false consideration doth not avoid a Patent but a false surmise doth first when the Kings Tenant for life doth surrender or give up his Patent although without deed yet with such circumstances as the law requireth the surrender is good for although a surrender of letters Patents made by the Kings Tenant in tail will not make estate tail void or determine as it appears by the book case of 35. H. 8. title surrender and Cook 6. the Lord Chandos case yet the bare giving up of the letters Patents by a Tenant for life is a surrender of his estate so here in this case is some proportion between a Tenant for life of the Queen and a Tenant for life of a Common person to amount to a surrender and therefore it appeareth by 43. E. 3. that a Tenant for life may surrender without deed and without livery and from the land but a Tenant in tail may not do so also if a Common person hath a rent or other thing which cannot pass but by deed yet a surrender of such a rent shall be good by a bare deliverie up of the deed if he hath but an estate for life in the Rent and this also although it be but to the disseissor of the land out of which c. the same Law he took it of a particular Tenant for life of years also 32. H. 8. Brook Patents 97. it is made a doubt whether the estate tail of the Kings Donee be determined and gone by surrendring of the letters Patent and he referred that if thought worthy of a doubt whether it should be a good surrender of an estate tail they would hade held it clearly a surrender for an estate for life and it was admitted 3. Eli 2. Dyer fo 193. Mack-Williams case that if in the principal case if a Vacat or cancellation had been the surrender had been good actually without question and Sir Maurice Barkleys case cited on the other part proves the same also for there it is admitted that if the letters Patents had been given up there had been a perfect surrender And 40. H. 3. fol. 5. Belknap held that a surrender may be by word which is to be intended by giving up the Patent and that appears by Rolfs case in Dyer that a voluntary surrender needs no Conftat also where it hath been objected that the special verdict in this case hath not found in what Court the surrender was made he answered that the Law shall intend it to be made in the same Court from whence the letters Patents did issue for a surrender cannot be good being made in another Court and therefore it must needs be intended the same Court and he vouched 11. Ed. 3. fo 1. and 18. Eliz. Plinies Case and Covel and Cabels Case in Banco Regis 38. Eliz. wherein a special verdict it was holden that all things necessary for the perfecting of that the Iury hath found to be done must be necessarily intended concurrent Secondly the want of circumstances in a surrender are perfected and supplied by the Statute of 43. Eliz. for although matters of substance are not aided within this Statute yet matters of circumstances are aided And he said that all the defects in this Case are matters of circumstance and to prove that the defects in this Case are only in circumstance he said that there are three principal defects in conveyances which are meerly matters of circumstance and aided within this Statute the first is meerly want of form in a conveyance and that such a defect is aided he cited Hussies Case to be adjudged accordingly the second is where words are wanting in a conveyance and that such a conveyance is aided by this Statute he cited the opinion of Popham and Gawdy in 44. Eliz. in a cause depending in the Chancery the third matter of circumstance is where there is want of some matter concerning the executing of an estate and that such defect is only matter of circumstance and aided within this Statute he cited Morley and Whartons Case to be adjudged 7. Eliz. in the Common Pleas that the default of not inrolling is aided by this Statute and Mack-Williams and Kemps Case cited in Dyer before proves this to be but matter of circumstance and for that he thought the surrender in the principal Case wanting nothing but inrolment is aided by this Statute also in the argument of the second point he shews what defects in conveyances should be accompted matter of substance and so not aided by this Statute of 43. Eliz. and to this purpose he held that all disabilities of the person in a grant is matter of substance and so not aided within this Statute and he cited Twynes Case 32. Eliz. in the Exchequer to be accordingly Secondly he held that the nature of an assurance is not aided by this Statute and therefore if a man hath power to grant an estate by fine and he doth it by Deed this is not aided by the Statute for this is defective in matter of substance and he cited Wisemans Case and Sir Hugh Cholmleys Case in Cook l. 2. also he said if a man give land to the King and his heirs to have ten years after such grant this is not made good by the Statute Thirdly whereas it may be Collected that because it is found in the special verdict that an actual surrender was the cause which moved the Queen to grant or that it appears to be the cause he held that no consideration plainly appeareth but only by relation to a consideration before mentioned and he said that these words used by the Queen viz. modo habens et gaudens shew that the Queen took notice the state was still injoyed notwithstanding the delivery up of the letters Patents and therefore it cannot be intended by the verdict that the Queen intended
Sir Robert Dudley appointed and after Sir Robert Dudley by licence from the King Travelled beyond the Seas to Venice and after the Barganees made a lease to Sir Robert Lee to the intent that the Lady Dudley should take the profits of part thereof for ten years if the estate of the Barganees should continue so long unrevoked and after the King having notice of divers abuses made by the said Sir Robert Dudley in the parts beyond the Seas commanded the said Sir Robert Dudley by privy Seal delivered unto him the 10th of April in the 5th year upon pain of forfeiture of all his lands and fortunes to return again immediately c. and after a Commission issued forth to inquire what lands and Tenements c. Sir Robert Dudley had or others for him in use or upon confidence and the Iury found this special matter but found not any fraud expressy and thereupon the King exhibited his Bill here against the Barganees and also against Sir Robert Lee their Lessee who truly discovered all this special matter and that they were not knowing of the Deed until long time after making of it and that no consideration was given by them in this case for the lands so bargained and it was argued by Sir Henry Mountague Recorder of London for the King if these lands should be seised or not he conceived that there are three things considerable in the case First the contempt of Sir Robert Dudley in his not returning upon the sight of the privy Seal and of what quality this offence is Secondly what interest the King had by this offence in the land of Sir Robert Dudley being the offender Thirdly if notwithstanding these offences these lands ought to be seised for the King touching the first point he said that it is requisite to examine if a subject at the Common Law may go beyond the Seas without Licence and in what cases the Law allows a man to go out of the Realm without Licence and as to that he said that it appears by the reason in the 12th of Eliz. Dyer that at the Common Law every man may go out of the Realm but the Statute of the 5. Richard 2. restraineth all but Merchants noble men and Souldiers and as he conceived this was but an affirmance of the Common Law notwithstanding the Book before cited and to prove that he said that the opinion of Dyer in the first Eliz. fo 165. seemeth to agree also it is proved by divers Licences granted before this Statute see F. N. B. fo 85. in the writ de securitate invenienda quod Se non divertat ad partes exteras sine licentia regis according to the 12. Eliz. in Dyer and he further said that there are two reasons to prove that no man may go beyond the Sea without Licence at the Common Law for by 2. E. 3. and the 16. E. 3. and Glanvil in his Chap. of Essoynes by such means the subjects may be deprived of their suits for debt and also the King may be deprived of the attendance of his subject about the business of state and it appears by the Register fo 193. 194. that religious persons purchased licences to go beyond the Seas and it appears by Littleton in the Chap. of confirmation that a dissent takes not away an entry of him who is beyond the Sea except it be by the Kings commandment see the case intended by Littleton in the Chap. of Continual claim there it seems to be a doubt to Littleton then he argued further if the Common Law alloweth not a subject to go beyond the sea without licence but reputes it a great contempt this is a great contempt in him who will not return by the Kings command and the Law hath alwayes punished such contempt as it appears by Dyer fo 28. 177. 19. E. 2. John de Brittons Case also there is a president for seisure of all his lands for such contempt and he vouched the book what the King had done where he cited that the Prior of Oswaldshire forfeited all his lands and possessions for such contempts and so concluded the first point of the quality of the offence and spoke nothing of the licence which Sir Robert Dudley had of the King at the time the which as it seemeth was not expired nor the power which the King had to Countermand it within the time to which the Attorney general in his argument did speak to the Second point it seemeth that the contempt giveth such an interest to the King that he shall retain the land until conformity for he who dwelleth in contempt ought not to have any possessions here and he cited the 22. H. 6. and the 21. H. 7. and divers other books which are cited in Calvins Case Cook lib. 7. also he said that there is a difference where the King is offended as King of England and where as head of the Kingdome as this case is which is a greater offence in qualitie then for any offence for which men should lose their lives as if they should stand mute upon their arraignment c. also there is a great difference between this contempt and by outlawry and therefore in case of outlawry he needs no office but the King is only intitled to the profits of his lands which is but a transitory Chattel in which case an office is not necessary but where an interest coms to the King there ought to be an office and he vouched Pages Case in Cook lib. 5. and Sir William Herberts Case but he did not endeavour to prove what interest came to the King in this case for when an interest comes to the King there ought to be on office as to the second point he said that trust between parties is fraud as to the King and in this case the badges of fraud are found by the office First his purpose to go beyond the Seas Secondly his Barganees are not privy to the Deeds Thirdly no summe was paid by them Fourthly here is a power of Revocation Fifthly covenants to execute all grants as Sir Robert Dudley appointed Sixthly the subsequent Act that is viz. his staying beyond the Seas and his not returning upon the Kings command and although in this case there be no fraud in the parties who are Barganees and so the fraud is only of one partie yet it appeareth by the 19. of H. 8.12 that if an infant hath right to land and a stranger disseise the Tenant to the intent to infeoffe the infant without Covin in the infant yet the infant shall not be remitted and he vouched Delamores case in Plowden to be accordingly also there are divers cases in our books to prove the inveterate hatred which our law beareth to all Acts which are fraudulent and therefore in 44. E. 3. 41. Assise pla 28. it appears that a recovery upon a good title although it be in Dower which is favoured in Law against a Tenant who comes to the
Baron answered that he should have them of right see Bartues case in Dyer but the Lord Treasurer said that he saw no reason to satisfie himself thereof Doillie against Joiliffe DOillie Plantiff against Joiliffe in an Action upon the case for false imprisonment of the Plantiffs wife the case was that Leonard Lovies was formerly Plantiff in an action in the Common Pleas against Julian Goddard a feme sole and in this action the Plantiff and Defendant were at issue and a venire facias was awarded and before the return thereof the said Julian took to husband Doillie now Plantiff and after upon a special verdict found in the suit judgement was given in the Common Pleas for the said Julian against th◠said Leonard upon which judgement Leonard brought error in the Kings Bench and a scire facias was awarded against Julian by the name of Julian Goddard as a feme sole and she appeared by Attorney as a feme sole and this as the Defendant said in his answer was by the consent of her husband now Plantiff and after judgement was given to reverse the judgement in the Common Pleas and the entrie of that judgement as it was pleaded by the Defendant here was quod praedict Leonard Lovies recuperet c. versus praedict Julianam c. and costs and damages were taxed c. upon which judgement the said Lovies sued a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Julian Goddard and by vertue of that writ the Defendant here the Sheriff or Devon took the said Julian being the Plantiffs wife and imprisoned her until the Plantiff paid 10. l. which was the cost taxed by the Kings Bench for her deliverance upon which imprisonment the husband only hath brought his action against the Defendant being Sheriff Davenport of Grayes Inne argued for the Defendant and first he thought that between the parties to the error and the first action in the Common Pleas there is an estoppel and admittance that the said Julian continued a feme sole for the process in all the proceedings ought to be as it was in the Original and he vouched 18. Assise pla 16. by which book it appears that if a man bring an assise for lands in the Countie of O. and the Tenants plead a Common recovery of the same land in the Common Pleas this doth conclude the partie to say that the lands did lie else where c. also if an original be depending and before the first Capias or process awarded the Defendant intermarrieth and after a capias issueth against her as a feme sole this is well awarded lib. 5. E. 4.16 and also 5. E. 3. fo 9. and 10. also he said that such a thing as is done between the plea and not after the judgement is not material to alter the proceedings in that course it was begun for the same partie against whom judgement is given shall error have against him for whom the judgement is given except she had married after the judgement for then he agreed that the writ of error shall be brought by the husband and wife in case judgement had been given against the wife while she was sole 35. H. 6. fo 31. and 12. Assise pla 41. and it also appears by 18. E. 4. fo 3. if Trespas he brought against a married wife as against a feme sole and she appears as a feme sole and judgement is given and execution accordingly this is good until it be reversed by error and the Sheriff in such case never ought to examine if it be evil or nor no more then if Trespas be brought against A. my servant by the name of B. and A. is taken in execution the Master shall not take benefit of this misnaming admitting that A. should punish the Sheriff for it also he vouched one Shotbolts case 10. and 11. Eliz. Dyer and 15. Eliz. Dyer 318. in the Earl of Kents case which prove that the Sheriff is to be excused for taking me by a false name and if the Iudges admit this false name yet this judicial writ ought not to be examined by the Sheriff and it was adjourned Shoftbey against Waller and Bromley SHoftbey brought an action upon the case against Waller and Bromley and declared that the Defendants conspired that the said Bromley should commence a suit against the Plantiff and that the Plantiff was then worth 5000. l. and that he was then dwelling in Middlesex and that the Defendants knowing thereof maliciously and falsely agreed that the said Bromley should lay his action in London and prosecute it until the Plantiff were outlawed in the said suit to the intent that his goods should be forfeited to the King and after in performance of the agreement aforesaid the Plantiff suggested that he was dwelling in London and laid his action here which was prosecuted until the Plantiff here was outlawed to his damage c. Tanfield chief Baron thought that if the suggestion was by Bromley to make the process into a wrong County it seemed that the Action should lie against him only but in regard it is shewed in the Declaration that the said suggestion was made by him in performance of the precedent agreement that the action lieth against both which the Court granted Godfrey in this action moved in arrest of judgement and that for two causes the action lieth not upon the matter here it appears by the 4. Eliz. Dyer 214. that a man may say his action wherein an outlawry lies in London and then by the Statute of 6. H. 8. cap. 4. proclamation shall issue into the Countie where he dwelleth therefore the suing of him in another Countie is no such act wherefore an action should be brought no more then if before the Statute of W. 2. cap. 12. a man had brought an appeal Maliciosè yet no remedy before the said Statute as appears in the 13. H. 7. in Kellawaies case because it was lawful to bring an appeal and so notwithstanding the said Statute no action did lie against him who brought an appeal if it abated 9. H. 5. cap. 1. also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth remedy for false appeals or judgement in another Countie maliciosè c. by action of the case whereby it appeareth that in such case the Common Law allowed no action also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth another remedy then that Statute and therefore no action lies against us no more then in the case aforesaid at the Common Law Secondly here is no issue joyned if the Defendants be guiltie of the execution of this practice but only if they be guiltie of the agreement and this is found for the Plantiff but clearly such agreement without execution giveth no cause of action and the word Practizatione comprehends only the going about and not the executing of this conspiracy and therefore the issue should have been general if the Defendants be guiltie or not and therefore he prayed judgement might be stayed and he cited Owen
avoidance and after confirms the lease here the lease is not good in respect the next avoidance interrupts it for his life but after the death c. the term will be good as it was here lately adjudged and so he thought that in this case the confirmation is not good and also that the Commission not being returned is not good and after one of the Commissioners die before the return it cannot be recurned and by the inrolment here made the lease cannot take his effect with any relation and so be concluded that judgement ought to be given against the King Tanfield chief Baron the Commission for the acceptance of the acknowledgement of the Bishop touching that it is to be known whether this makes it the Deed of the Bishop and that the Commissioners should return c. the confirmation in this case was made in the life of the Bishop Lessor and of the Queen Lessee although that some of my brethren conceive the Record to be otherwise also in this case Dimock entred by vertue of his lease before the inrolment of the lease made to the Queen as the Record purporteth to the points First I conceive that nothing resteth in the Queen without inrolment but if Lessee for years be outlawed the King shall have this lease by the outlawry for the outlawry is intended to be upon Record but of a wardship for land that is not in the Queen by the death of the Queens Tenant without an office because there is no matter of Record if an Alien hath a lease of land this is forfeited yet he shall have personal Chattels and as to the Book of 18. E. 3. cited on the other side where the King brought a quare impedit c. this may be well agreed for the Prior of Durham confessed by Record that he had made a grant and this is a sufficient Record and as to the book of 20. E. 4. where the Patron was outlawed and before the outlawry the Church became void that the King shall present it may be well agreed although that no office be found for this presentation is but a thing personal and transitory and therefore those Books prove nothing in this case Secondly he said that when this lease was acknowledged before Commissioners yet that was not sufficient to make a record to intitle the King and it is here expresly denied in the Bar that this lease was certified into the Chancery in the life of the Queen and therefore he thought that here was no Record to intitle the Queen and to this purpose he cited a case in 19. Eliz. Robins and Greshams case if a Recognizance were acknowledged before a Master of the Chancery and not inrolled this is no Recoâ—d and an Action of debt lieth not thereupon and the 34. Eliz. in Brock and Bainhams case in this Court a Recognizance was taken before a Baron of this Court yet this was no Record without inrolment and therefore the bare acknowledgement in our case is no Record also he denied the opinion of Davers in 37. H. 6. to be Law but only for personal Chattels and the 12. Eliz. Brook and Latimers case was adjudged against the opinion of Davers for land or leases Thirdly he said that the successor of the Bishop comes in paramount the lease made to the Queen and the new Lessee entring before any inrolment hath made the successor of the Bishop as in his remitter and when an antient right comes this prevents the relation which otherwise might be by the inrolment and he said that the first lease here made to the Queen is meerly dead until inrolment and he vouched the 11. E. 4. fo 1. Vactons case the discontinuor enters upon the discontinuee after the discontinuee dieth his heir within age the discontinuor dieth this causeth a remitter and so by him if the disseissee enter upon the heir of the disseissor being an infant and dieth this avoids the descent by reason of the antient right which the disseissee had and by 7. H. 7. and 11. H. 7. Eriches case it appears that an Act of Parliament will not revive a thing that is meerly dead by reason of any inrolment and much more here an inrolment cannot revive this lease which is meerly void by the death of the Lessor and the entrance of the Lessee of the Bishops successor and there is a great difference betwixt the inrolment in this case and the inrolment of a bargain and sale in regard that the sale is dead before the inrolment and yet in the case of bargain and sale it was adjudged in the Common Pleas Pasch 2. Jac. in Sir Thomas Lees case called Bellinghams case that if a man bargain land to A. and before inrolment of the Deed A. bargaines the land to B. which second bargain is inrolled this inrolment makes not the bargain good to B. for the relation of the first is only to perfect and make good the conveyance to A. from all incumbrances after his bargain but not to make the second Deed good which was void before also in 36. Eliz. in Sir Thomas Smiths case if the Bargainee suffer a recovery before the Deed inrolled yet that doth not make the recovers good and he said that in this case until an inrolment of the lease made to the Queen there is no Lessee and a lease cannot be without a Lessor and Lessee and before an inrolment of the lease the Lessor is dead so that there never was a Lessor and Lessee in life together and therefore the inception of this lease was altogether imperfect before the consummation came and so it leemeth by him that the death of the Bishop Lessor intervening before the inrolment is the principal cause that the first lease is not good as to the 4 th point of confirmation it seems to me in regard that the Bishop was seised in right of his Bishoprick and the Dean and Chapter have no interest in the land so that an assent is only sufficient in this case it seems to me that the confirmation as you call it is good enough for it is clear that an assent may be aswell before the lease as after for it passeth no interest no more then an Attornment Cook lib. 5. Foords case proveth this diversity plainly and by the same reason also it seems to me that this assent of parties who have no interest is good enough without inrolment but otherwise it should be if a confirmation were required in the case and as to the pleading I think the Bar is good and as to the exceptions which have been made viz. if the lease supposed to be made to the Queen be answered and he said it was good enough for the purpose of the Defendant is to bring the matter in Law before the Iudges and the matter in Law is if it were any lease or not as the information supposeth and therefore the Defendant ought not to agree with the information for the matter in Law and
in 1. Jacobi and no other conviction ever was and yet de facto he continued a Recusant untill his death and his Land viz. two parts thereof were seised in his life and the King answered of 200. l. thereof which incurred in the moneths contained in the Indictment and now a Writ is issued which supposeth the said Robert to be indebted to the King in 20. l. for every moneth be lived after 28. Eliz. untill 1. Jacobi for his Recusancy which amounted to 4000. l. which Writ also commands to enquire what Lands the said Robert Becket had at the time of his death and thereupon it was found that he had divers Lands c. and upon a Scire facias to the Terretenants to shew cause wherefore two parts of the Lands of the said Robert Becket should not now be seised for the debt of the Recusant aforesaid one Henry Becket as Terretenant or Tenant of the Premisses pleaded that the King is satiefied of all the 20. l. and for all the moneths that the said Robert was convicted to be a Recusant and he vouched the Constat thereof under the hand of the Deputy of the Pipe Office and for the residue he said that by 28. Eliz. cap. 6. it is amongst other things enacted that if any person which hath not repaired or shall not repaire to some Church Chappell or usuall place of Common Prayer but hath forborne or shall forbeat the same contrary to the Tenor of the Statute of 23. Eliz. cap. 1. and hath been heretofore convicted for such offence shall forfeit c. provided that it he hath made submission and been conformable according to the true meaning of the said Statute or shall fortune to dye that then no forfeiture of 20. l. for any moneth or for seisure of the Lands of the same offender from and after such submission and conformity or death and full satisfaction of all the arrerages of 20 l. monethly before such seisure due or payable shall ensue or be continued against such Offendor and traverseth without that that there is any Record besides this Writ to charge the said Robert Becket deceased of or for the summe of 4000. l. towards our said Lord the King c. and so prayeth to be discharged thereof Vpon which Plea the Kings Atturney Generall demurred and Coventry argued that the Plea is good he said that there are three Points to be considered First that if a man be convicted of Recusancy in 28. Eliz. for 10. moneths then passed and de facto continueth a Recusant untill his death in 1. Jac. without other conviction if now the King can claim 20. l. a moneth for more moueths then are contained in the Indictment whereupon he is convicted Secondly admit that the King may have the forfeiture for every moneth whereof no conviction was as well as if a conviction had been then if the King can seise the Lands for the payment thereof after his death no seisure being had for it in his life by the Stat. of the 28. Eliz. or if the power of seisure be altogether gone by the death of the Recusant Thirdly admitting that the King shall have more then is contained within the Indictment if the Debt it self be not gone by the death of the Recusant To the first Point there is no President to be found that any man convicted before 28. Eliz. was charged to the Payment of more then that which was within the Indictment and the words of the Statute of 28. Eliz. contained within this Clause which provides for the payment due since the Conviction do not inforce any construction to the contrary and in this Clause the words being do yet remain unpaid are not proper words but for a thing payable before this Statute for so many moneths whereof he was convicted of Recusancy and the words without any other conviction are to be understood for so much as was unpaid of that contained in the Indictment and the last Clause of this Branch of the Statute hath not the words without any conviction and the other Clause provides that by expresse words for the future time every person who shall be once convicted shall forfeit c without other conviction and it was resolved Hill 4. Jacobi in the Kings Bench between Grinstone and Oliver that the Statute of 28. Eliz. alters and adds three things to the Statute of 23. Eliz. 1. That all the money due for Recusancy shall be paid into the Exchequer 2. This limits a time for payment thereof yearly viz. in the four Terms of the year 3. This giveth a penalty viz. power to seise all the goods and two parts for non-payment but all that is only for that which was payable before the conviction and therefoâ—e the words in the Branch which contains our Case have apt words of construction that he shall pay all due for the paine of seisure for 23. Eliz. gives no seisure but imprisonment if payment be not made within three moneths after judgement and so in our case Conviction ought to precede the duty To the second Point it seemeth that the power of seisure within this Statute is gone by the death of the Recusant for before the Statute of 1. Jacobi the power for seisure was but a penalty that if the party fail in payment of 20. l. a moneth then c. and in all cases upon penall Laws if the party die before the penalty inflicted this shall not be inflicted at all and that this is but a penalty he vouched one Grayes case in 1. and 2. Jacobi to be adjudged accordingly Also the words in this Statute which give the seisure of Land appointeth a levying to be of the 3. part for the maintenance of the Offendor his Wife Children and Family and after his death he hath no Wife so that if it be demanded when the seisin must be the answer is then when a third part may be left for his use which cannot be but in the life of the Recusant Also it appoints that the seisure ought to be by Processe which ought to be in the life of the party by intendment Also the Proviso of the Statute of 28. Eli. saith that if any person shall dye no seisure shall insue or be continued aâ—d out case is within those words for in regard there hath been no seisure in his life therefore after his death no seisure ought to insue and the words which purport another semblance of construction viz. and satisfaction of all arrerages are to be understood only in case where there was a former seisure that is in the life of the party and have reference to the words to be continued and that the intent is so he said that the words are so that the Heir shall pay no more but so much as the Land was seised for To the third it seemeth that in this case the debt it self is gone by the death of the party At the Common Law a penalty shall never be recovered against the
Heir except that judgement be given against the Ancestor and for that see 40. E. 3. Executors 74. and 41. Ass pl. 15. and 15. Eliz Dyer 322. And also if a Recusant had been convicted upon the Sat. of 23. Eliz. and dyed before judgement cleerely this forfeiture shall never be charged upon the Heir for the words are that a Recusant shall forfeit 20. l. a moneth and if he doe not pay it then appoints the recovery by Bill Plaint or Information and this ought to be alwaies in the life of the party then the Stat. of 28. Eliz. maketh not a new debt or Forfeiture but gives a penalty for the non-payment of that which was a debt within 23. Eliz. and that the intent of the Stat. of 28. Eli. was but such this is proved by the Title of the Act. viz. for the more speedy and due execution c. 2. It is proved by the first words of the Act for the avoiding of all delaies c. so that it appears that this Act is but as a penalty meerly Also he said that this Stat. of 28. Eliz. dispenceth with the conviction as to the penalty but doth not take away the Conviction also he said that conviction without Iudgement maketh not a Debt Also he who is convicted by proclamation and dieth is discharged Also he said that our Case hath been compared to a Debt upon an Obligation but this is not like for the Stat. stands not indefinite but hath reference to 23. for otherwise a Recusant may be doubly charged that is upon both the Statutes for there is no means to recover the Debt but by this Statute of 23. Eliz. See Sir Edward Walgraves case Dyer 231. Wentworth and others against Stanley WEntworth and his Wife and Rich and his Wife brought an Ejectione firmae against Stanley and shewed in their Declaration how one Edward Stanley was seised in Fee and infeoffed the Earl of Darby others to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the Plantiffs wife for 100. years and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant ejected them c. and this Feofment was made in 40. Eliz. the Defendant saith that long before one Richard Stanley was sesed in Fee and gave it to the said Edward Stanley in tail and that he so seised made a Feefment to the uses as is alledged and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant as issue of the Feoffor re-entred and so by his pretence his is remitted whereupon it was demurred and upon the opening this case the Barons were clear of opinion that the issue in tail is remitted and came paramount the lease and so the lease for years is gone also by the chief Baron and Baron Snig there needs no Traverse to be alledged by the Plantiffe because it was but of a fee gained in an instant by the feofment of a Tenant in tail and a fee-simple gained in an instant needeth not to be Traversed 5. H. 7. and 2. E. 4. wherefore the Court said that judgement ought to be given against the Plantiffs but yet at the desire of the some the Court gave day to the Councel on both parts to argue the case at which day came Heneag Finch for the Plantiffs and he argued to the matter in Law and therein he said that by the feofment of Tenant in tail the use to himself for life the remainder to his daughters for years without limiting the residue of the use that in this case the residue of the use shall be in the feoffes and not in the feoffor for by him there is a difference between a feofment by him who had a fee with limitation of an use as above and a feofment made by him who derives an estate out of a fee for when Tenant for life or Tenant in tail makes a feofment and limits an use for part of the estate as above there the residue of the issue shall be to the feoffee and he vouched Castle and Dods case adjudged in the Common Pleas 8. Iac. that if Tenant for life grant over his estate without limiting of an use it shall be to the use of the grantee more strong here in a tortious act as our case is but if Tenant in tail will levy a fine with limitation of uses as above there the residue of the use shall be to the use of the Conusor Secondly admit that the residue of the use in this case shall he to the feoffor yet he shall not be remitted to the use as it seemeth the words of the Statute of 27. H. 8. are that cestuy que use shall have like estate in the land as he had in the use and therefore it is clear that the first taker of the use shall not be remitted as it is resolved in Amy Townsends case in Plowden and although the words of the Statute mention not heirs or issues yet by the intent of the Statute they are in equal degree but the Books which are against this opinion are two viz. 33. H. 8. Dyer fo 51. but there it is not expresly said that the issue is remitted but 34. H. 8 Br. remitter 49. is expresly against me but the same year in Dyer fo 54. it is there made a quere and in Bevils case it is only said that the first taker of the use cannot be remitted but of my opinion was Baldwin and Shelley in 28. H. 8. Dyer 23 24. and in Sanages case and 29. H. 8. it is resolved that if a man hath land by Act of Parliament there shall be no remitter and so here wherefore c. and he said if Tenant in tail be the remainder in fee and Tenant in tail makes a feofment to the use of himself in tail the remainder to him in remainder in fee in this case he in the remainder in fee shall not be remitted for then the first taker should be remitted to the pleading it seemeth that the bar is not good and first the general demurrer here doth not confess the matter of fact no more then in Gawins case in 29. H. 8. fo 40. by Brown a demurrer upon account in an appeal is no confession of the fact and in 44. Eliz. in Crisp and Byrons case accordingly see Sir Henry Browns case before a good case to this purpose then as to the Bar it seems it is not sufficient for want of a Traverse of a seisin in fee alledged in the feoffor who was Edward Stanley for it is a rule that two affirmatives cannot be allowed in a Declaration and the Bar without Traverse of that which is mentioned in the Declaration is not good except there be cause of some impossibilitie or inconvenience but yet this is to be understood where the affirmatives are express and not by implication as in Moiles case if the Defendant in his Bar confess a fee determinable he needs not Traverse the fee alledged by the Plantiffe but in our case here is an allegation made by the
Bent and another for a Close it was ordered and an Injunction accordingly awarded that the Defendant should suffer the Plaintiffe to injoy the said Close with the appurtenances until c. and contrary to this order the Defendant had put his Cattle into the Close and thereupon an Attachment issued to answer this contempt and he said that he put in his Castle for a title of Common and it was ruled that this was no breach of the Injunction because the Common was not in question in the Bill but only the title of the Close wherefore he was discharged of the contempt and with the appurtenants doth not include the Common to be taken in the said Close Henry Clares case UPon a motion made by Serjeant Barker it appeared that one Henry Clare was indebted to the King and was seised of a third part of certain lands in Norfolk and that Mr. Richardson of Lincolns Inne was seised of other two Acres of the same laud as Tenant in Common and the beasts of Mr. Richardson pastured promiscuously upon all the land and Henry Clare put more Cattle in and upon proces to levy this debt for the King the Sheriffe took the Cattle of Mr. Richardson and sold them and it was now ruled that in regard it was lawful for a Tenant in Common to put in his Cattle upon all the land and that if they depasture all the grass the other hath no remedy and for that cause the Sheriffe could not take those Cattle for the debt of another Tenant in Common but otherwise it would be if the Cattle had been levant and Couchant upon the land of the Kings debtor and in the principal case the Sheriffe was ordered to restore the monie to Richardson for which they were sold and that if they were worth more yet the Sheriffe should not be charged therewith except it could be made appear some fraud in the sale or that sufficient suerties were to pay and discharge the dutie but if my Cattle are levant and Couchant upon the land of the Kings debtor the King may distrain them damage Feasant but he cannot distrain them for the debt by Tanfield chief Baron and Altham clearly to which Baron Bromley consented but Snig said beware of that Smith and Jennings case VPon evidence to a Iury it was said by Tanfield that if a man make Charter of Feofment of lands in two Towns and a Letter of Attorney to make livery and before livery made by the Attorney the Feoffor himself maketh livery of the land in one Town this is a Countermand of the Letter of Atturney and so livery cannot be made by the Attorney in the other Town and quere if the Towns were in several Counties Bacon the Kings Solicitor said that if a man make a Charter of Feofment of two several Acres whereof one is in lease for years and the other in demeasne and the Feoffor makes a Letter of Attorney to make livery and before that be executed the Feoffor himself makes livery now although that one Acre cannot pass by this livery because it is in lease yet this is a Countermand and revocation of the authoritie given by the Letter of Attorney for his intent is manifest so to be to which Tanfield and all the Court agreed Hobert Attorney general said that in this case although that one of the Acres was in lease yet in regard it appeareth not that the Lessee was in actual possession therefore he conceived that it should be construed that the Lessee was not in actual possession at the time of the livery made by the Lessor in the name of all and in respect there was no house upon the Acre in Lease it may be intended that the Lessee should be in actual possession but for that cause he rather conceived that it should be construed that the Lessee was not in possession and so the livery might well operate to pass it Tanfield and all the Court denied that the livery was good to pass it although that the Lessor was in actual possession but where Mr. Atturney alledged further that before the livery made an Infant had a Term for years in this Acre in lease and that the Feoffor at the time of the livery was gardian to the Infant and thereby had a possession therein and therefore the livery made in the other Acre in the name of all should be good to pass all to which the Court agreed and thereupon directed the Iury to finde the livery and seisin to be made of all and in this case the Court inclined that because this Feofment was made but ten dayes before that the Feoffor committed Treason and in asmuch as it was made to the use of the son being an Infant and not upon consideration of marriage that therefore the Feofment should be fraudulent and void as to the King but the Atturney general said that this Feofment was made in performance of a precedent agreement viz. it was agreed that the Feoffor should make such a conveyance to an use c. and that the wife of the Feoffor also being an Inheritrix should make such a conveyance of her land which was done accordingly and upon proofe of this agreement the Court inclined that it was no fraud and in this case it was ruled by the Court if parties have matter of evidence by the Records of this Court they ought to produce the Records themselves for Copies of them are not allowable It was said by Altham and agreed by the Court that if an Information be exhibited for intruding into a Close the 24th day of March and for the asportation of 9. Cart Loads of Wheat betwixt the 24th of March and the first of October the which the Detendant converted c. and upon not guiltie pleaded the Jury found that the Defendant took three Cart Loads of the said Corn upon the 24th day of March and after before the first of October they took also three Cart Loads more and damages were assessed for all that here no judgement shall be given upon this verdict for the Information doth not charge the Defendant with the taking of any part upon the 24th day of c. and then in regard that damages are more judgement can be given for no part of it see Cook lib. 5. Plaisters case but this case being moved at another day Tanfield said that he having inspected the Record he found the verdict insufficient for another cause because the Jury found that as to one Cart Load of Wheat to the value of 20. l. the Defendant was guiltie and doth not mention to what damage viz. to the damage of 100. s. or otherwise and by him ad valentiam is not sufficient without shewing also to what damage and for that cause by him a venire facias de novo ought to be awarded and so it was done by the Court. Edwards case EDwards case was that an erroneous judgement was given in a Coppihold Court where the King was Lord and this
give money to a patron to make a promise to him c. and the incumbent payes it such an incumbent is Simoniacus by the Civil Law and so if the incumbent pay the mony not knowing it untill after the induction yet he is Simoniacus and by him if a friend gives money and the Parson is thereupon presented though the Parson if he knew not of the money given yet he shall be deprived of the benefice and this difference was certified by Anderson and Gawdey to the Councel table upon a reference made to them by the King touching the filling of benefices by corrupt means and the Statute of purpose forbears to use the word Simonie for avoiding of nice construction of that word in the Civil Law and therefore the makers of the Act sets down plainly the words of the Statute that if any shall be promoted for money c. so that by these words it is not material from whom the money comes and then in such cases for the avoiding of all such grand offences a liberal construction ought to be made as hath been used in such cases and therefore he remembred the large construction which was made upon the Statute of fines in the Lord Zouches case lib. Cook 3. and so upon the Statute of usurie it hath been adjudged that if money be lent to be re-paid with use above 10. l. in the hundred at such a day if three men or one man so long live in these cases all such bargains and contracts are void within the intent of the Statute as it hath been adjudged in the Common Pleas and so it is in Gooches case Cook lib. 5. upon the Statute of fraudulent conveyances and secret Ioyntures also upon the Statute of Simonie it was adjudged although some of the Common Pleas doubted of it in regard a father is bound to provide for his son and Rogers and Bakers case in this Court was an antient case and adjudged for the Plantiffe and as to the other point it is found by the verdict that the presentation made by the Queen to Covel is not revoked nor admitted which words implie that Covel is still living in case of a special verdict and therefore to argue to that point as if it were found that Covel was living yet he conceived that the presentation without institution and Induction is determined by the Queens death and therefore in 2. Ed. 3. a license of Alienation clearly is not good in the time of another King for the license saith which are holden of us c. and by the death of the King they are not holden of him Fitzherberts natura brevium contra 16 H. 8. the nature of a presentment is explained where an Infant would avoid his presentation and in the principal case the Bishop cannot make any admission upon this presentation of Covel after the Queens death for he cannot do that in any manner according to the presentation because that is determined by the Queens death and therefore it seems clearly there needs no repeal in such a case although it appears by some presidents that repeals have been used in such cases and as to the case 17. Eliz. Dyer 339. that proveth not that there ought to be any repeal for it appears there that judgement was given upon a reason altogether different from our case and that was because a presentation was obtained of the Queen a quare impedit depending by her of which suit she had no notice and for that cause her second presentation was void and that was the true reason of that judgement as it is also put in Greens case Cook lib. 6. and I was present Mich. 17. Eliz. when this case was adjudged and the sole reason which they gave for the judgement was because the presentation by intendment could not take away the Action attached by the Queen for then the Queens grant should enure to a double intent which the Law will never tollerate without express words purporting so much but in our case there is no such double intendment and therefore c. but if there had been an admission and institution pursuing the presentation of Covel although no induction yet peradventure in such case there ought to have been an appeal because in such case it is not only the Queens Act but of the ordinary also interposing which is a Iudicial Act also without question we are out of the Statute of 6. H. 8. for here is no grant made by the Queen and a presentation clearly is not within that Statute and for that other reason the presentation of Calvert is good without recital of the Queens presentation also clearly if there ought to be a repeal in the case yet it is not examinable in this Action of Trespass which is possessorie and for the profits only but it may be examinable in a quare impedit and as to Greens case Cook lib. 6. which hath been used as an authoritie in this case that differs much from our case for there the thing which made the Queens presentation void was contained within the very Charter of the presentation and therefore differed from our case wherefore he commanded judgement should be entred for the Plantiffe and so it was Halseys case touching Recusancy THe case in the Exchequer Chamber touching the payment of the Kings Majesties debt due for the Recusancy of John Halsey as Recusant convict deceased with the lands and goods bought in the name of John Grove and Richard Cox Defendant in this Court that John Halsey was indicted and convicted for Recusancy the 18. day of July Anno 23. Eliz. and so remained convicted without submission till his death who died the last day of March 3. Iac. and after his conviction viz. after the 40. year of the Raign of the late Queen Elizabeth did purchase with his own money divers leases for years yet to come of lands in the Countie of Worcester and Warwick in the name of Richard Cocks for himself in trust and likewise did with his own money purchase certain leases for years yet to come of lands in the County of Hereford in the name of the said John Grove all which purchases were in trust for the Recusant and to his use Margaret Field is his next heir who is no Recusant Iohn Halsey hath not paid 20. l. a moneth since his conviction nor any part thereof these lands and leases were seised into the Kings hands for the satisfaction of the forfeitures due for the Recusancy of the said Halsey 14. August 5. Iac. Thomas Coventrie argued for the Defendant the question is whether these lands which were never in the Recusant but bought in the name of the Defendants in manner aforesaid be liable to the payment of his Majesties debts by the said Recusant as above said or not there are three points considerable in the case First if lands purchased by the Recusant in the name of others in trust are liable to his debt Secondly if the land of a
Recusant may be seised after his death Thirdly if they shall be charged by the Statute of 1. Iac. as to the first it seems they are not wherein I shall endeavour to prove three things First that such land was not liable to debt by the Common Law Secondly that they are not liable to debts by the general words of the Statute Law Thirdly that they are not liable to debt by any word within the Statute of primo Iac. as to the first he observed that here is no fraud put in the case but that these lands and leases were never in the Recusant so that before that they were conveyed to the Defendants they were not liable to this debt and I alwayes observed that which the common law calleth fraud ought to be of such nature as shall be tortious and prejudicial to a third person and put him in a worse estate and condition then he was before and then he who is so prejudiced in some cases should avoid such conveyances by the common Law 22. Assises 72.43 Ed. 3.2 and 32. the Defendant in debt after judgement aliens his goods and he himself takes the profits yet the Plantiffe shall have them in execution so that if a man binde himself and his heirs in an Obligation and dies and assets descend to his heir who by Covin aliens those assets yet he shall be charged in debt for in these cases the Plantiffe had a lawful debt and such lands and goods before the alienation were liable and that former interest was intended to be defeated by those alienations and therefore they are void but of the other side where no former interest of the partie is wronged there no fraudulent conveyance was void at the Common Law and therefore if Tenant in Knights service had made a fraudulent Feofment to defraud the Lord of his wardship this was not aided by the Common Law until the Statute of Marlebridge for the title of the Lord was not prejudiced or wronged by this Feofment because it was subsequent to the Feofment also after the said Statute the Lord was without remedy for his release for it is agreed in 17. Ed. 3. fo 54. and 31. Ed. 3. Collation 29. and therefore at the Common Law if cestuy que use had bound himself and his heirs in an Obligation and died if the use descended to his heir none will say this use was assets to the heir and so was Rigler and Hunters case 25. Eliz. as to the second point it seems that the general words of a Statute shall be expounded according to the rule and reason of the Common Law and by the Common Law such confidence is not extendible therefore c. Westmin 2. cap. 18. which gives the elegit hath these words medietatem terrae and within those words an use was never extendible by that Statute 30. Ed. 3. because it was not an estate in him and so if a man be indebted for Merchandise or money borrowed and makes a gift of his lands and Chattels to defraud Creditors and takes the profits himself and flieth to the Sanctuary at Westminster or Saint Martins and there abideth by conclusion to avoid the payment of his debts it is thereby enacted that Proclamation shall be made at the Gate of the Sanctuary where such person resideth by the Sheriffe and if such person doth not thereupon appear in person or by Atturney judgement shall be given against him 2 Rich. 2. Stat. 2. cap. 3. 1. Rich. 3. cap. 1. and execution awarded aswel of those lands and goods given by fraud as of any other out of the same Franchise these words are more particular then the Statute of Westminster the second and yet it was doubted if it did extend to executions for debt as it appears by 7. H. 7. and 11. H. 7.27 and therefore in 19. H. 7. cap. 15. an Act of Parliament was made that execution for debts Recognizances and Statutes should be sued of lands in use As to the third it seems that that Statute doth not make lands in use liable to debts the words of the Statute are that the King shall seise two parts of the lands Tenements and Hereditaments leases of Farms of such offendors so that they are as general as the words of the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 18. and here those lands and leases were not the Recusants for he had but a confidence in them the first clause of the Statute doth not extend thereunto for two causes First in regard that it never was in the Recusant and this clause extends only to such conveyances which are made by any man which hath not repaired or shall not repair to some Church for the disjunctive words do not extend throughout that branch but to the last part thereof viz. that which cometh after the word and for otherwise this would extend to conveyances made at any time without limitation which should be against the meaning of the Act. Secondly this Branch provides what shall be done concerning the King touching the levying and paying of such summes of money as any person by the Lawes of the Realm ought to pay of else to forfeit c. and by the Statutes before made nothing was forfeited but for such time as is mentioned in the Indictment which in our case is but 6. moneths but out of this branch a strong argument may be made in respect that the Statute avoids all conveyances made by Recusants in trust by express words but saith nothing to conveyances made by others to the use of Recusants and therefore this Statute doth not extend unto it if Tenant by Knights service infeoffs his heir within age and dies the Lord may enter upon the heir without suing an action but if a Feofmenche made to a stranger there he cannot enter but ought to bring his Action according to the provision of that Statute because it may be to the use of the Feoffee but no such provision is made for the heir the Statute of 3. Jac. cap. 4. provides by express words that the King shall seise two parts of all the lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases and Faims that at the time of such seisure shall be or afterwards shall come to any of the hands of the said offendors or any other to their use or in trust for him or her or at his or her dispose or disposition or whereby wherewith or in consideration whereof such offendors or their families or any of them shall or may be relieved maintained or kept c. the different penning of these Statutes proves the diversitie of the meaning thereof this Statute is a new Law which gives to the King this penalty which he had not before and in new manner for it appoints that the partie shall be convicted by Proclamation and that being so convicted he shall alwayes pay the said penaltie until his submission without any other conviction 3. Jac. cap. 4. and also limits a manner how this new penaltie shall be levied viz.
above mentioned of a lease for years and also it was there said that if Tenant for life be the remainder to the King for years the remainder to another in Fee and the Tenant for life makes a Feofment in Fee this drawes the Kings remainder out of him and so he held that here is no gift Secondly that here is no imployment and so the Feofment is made good Altham second Baron contra I will consider only two points First if it be a gift for years or for ever and I say that it is a gift for ever for here is no intent in the Donor to determine the superstitious use because he doth not limit any other use to which it should revert but only that the Priest should be maintained for ever and as that which hath been said that it was not imployed he answereth that out of the Book of 22. Assises 52. where 12. d. is reserved for three years and after 100. s. seisin of 12. d. is seisin of the 100. s. because it is issuing out of the freehold as the case is in Littleton in the Chapter of Atturnement Tenant for life the remainder in Fee the Lord shall not avow upon the remainder but shall have it by way of Escheat for all the estates together are holden of the Lord but if land be given to finde a Priest in D. and one is maintained in S. this is a mis-imployment but in our case I conceive that the Feoffees have power to dispose the land as to them seems best and therefore it is uncertain and then given to the King as it was in Dales case land was given to the intent that a Priest should be maintained as I. S. and I. D. thought fit so that he had not less then 8. marks yearly the King shall have all for the Feoffees may give all to the Priest if they please and in Turners case land was devised to a Priest and divers poor men all is given to the King by the superstitious imployment and as to the words if by the Law it may be they are idle for id possumus quod de Jure possumus and therefore 9. Ed. 6. an office was given to one if he were able to exercise it these words are idle for the Law saith that he shall not have it if he be not able to execute it 30. Ed. 3.8 a gift to two and to the longer liver of them that the Survivor shall have it are idle words 10. H. 7. a Condition that c. and here it the condition had been until an Act of Parliament prohibit it they are Idle words for if land be given to I. S. and his heirs upon condition that if he die without heirs c. this is a void condition and Repugnant to Law Lastly I hold the feofment good by way of Admittance and that the livery takes effect notwithstanding the Queens interest 4. H. 6.19 the Kings Tenant for life is disseised he shall have an Assise and yet there is no intrusion upon the King 17. H. 7.6 the Kings Lessee makes a feofment the King enters and so he held that the judgement should he given for the Defendant Snig Baron argued much to the same intent that Bromley had done and that the Schedule is so circumspect that nothing is given after the 99. years and that a spirit of Divination forwarned him of the alteration and he agreed the Feofment to be good with this difference where the King is in possession actually and where the Reversion is in the King and the book of 2 H. 4.9 that none shall enter upon the Kings Farmor is to be understood of the Kings under Tenants and not of his Lessees Tanfield chief Baron said that neither by the intent of the Statute nor of the parties the fee is given to the Queen but it is apparant that during the 99. years the parties intent is in suspence for fear of alteration and that they would see the difference of the times and leave the disposing thereof to his Feoffees and if they had sold the land and with the money maintained a Priest as many stocks of money have used to do without doubt it had been forfeited to the King and not the land and it would be in vain to speak of an Amortization if it be for a stipendary Priest only for this would not be necessary to have a foundation incorporated and to make an Amortization for such a Priest and therefore it seems to him that there is no determination of his will after the 99. years but that all is left to the determination and disposition of the feoffees who then should be and after the intent of the Statute which was penned by Hales Iustice of the Common Pleas. I observe four words given appointed limited and assigned and I do not conceive that our case is within the compass of any of them for as I said before it is in suspence until the end of 99. years and the parties who should have the interest are not known untill the time come nor the estate setled until that time but if it had been conveyed to superstitious uses after it had been given to the Queen notwithstanding the conveyance had not been sufficient if he who did convey had power in respect of the abilitie of his person and the estate in him and therefore Pasch 22. Eliz. the case was this Sir William Say before the Statute of 32. H. 8. of Wills was seised of lands in fee not devisable and before the said Statute he devised it to finde a Priest and notwithstanding that the devise was not good yet it was adjudged that the land was given to the Queen by 1. Ed. 6. but if it were a feme covert or an infant who are disabled in Law or a Tenant in tail who is disabled in respect of his estate there it had not been given to the Queeen but in all cases there ought to be an assignment or otherwise nothing is given and there is a difference where one grants land to the intent with the profits thereof to finde a Priest there all the land is given to the Queen and where he grants a rent for the maintenance of a Priest for there the King shall have but the Rent and he said that the Case cited 5. Ed. 6. Benlos is good Law and as to that which hath been said That because the power of the Feoffees is uncertain it should be given to the Queen true it is where the power is uncertain to bestow the profits but if their power be certain it is otherwise and as to the imployment there is none because there is no gift but the imployment of the particular estate is an imployment of the Remainder and a small thing will make an imployment James case was of the Greyhound in Fleetstreet which was given to finde a Priest and the White Horse for the maintenance of another and the Feoffees of the White-horse maintained the Priest of the
declares the use to be to himself for life and after to T. B. with power of revocation and to limit new uses and if he revoke and not declare then the use shall be to the use of himself for life and after to Henry Becket with power in that indenture also to revoke and limit new uses and that then the fine shall be to such new uses and no other and after 42. Eliz. by a third Indenture he revoked the second Indenture and declared the use of the fine to be to the use of himself for life and after to Hen. Becket in taile the remainder to I. B. c. R. B. dies and T. B. his brother and heire is found a Recusant and the lands seised and thereupon comes H. B. and shews the matter as above and upon that the Kings Atturney demurreth Bromley and Altham Barons that the Declaration of the uses made by the third Indenture was good and he having power by the first to declare new uses may declare them with power of Revocation for it is not meerly a power but conjoyned with an interest and therefore may be executed with a power of Revocation and then when he by the third Indenture revokes the former uses now it is as if new uses had been declared and then he may declare uses at any time after the Fine as it appears by 4. Mar. Dyer 136. and Coke lib. 9. Downhams case and in this case they did rely upon Diggs case Cooke lib. 1. where it is said that upon such a Power he can revoke but once for that part unlesse he had a new power of Revocation of Vses newly to be limited whereby it is implyed that if he had a new power to appoint new uses he may revoke them also Snig Baron to the contrary and said that he had not power to declare 3. severall uses by the first contract which ought to Authorise all the Declarations upon that Fine and then the Revocation by the third Indenture is good and the limitation void and then it shall be to the use of R. B. and his heirs and so by the death of R. B. it doth descend to T. B. the Recusant and also he said that such an Indenture to declare uses upon uses was never made and it would be mischievous to declare infinite uses upon uses Tanfield held that the uses in the second Indenture stand unrevoked and the new uses in the third Indenture are void and then H. B. ought to have the Land again out of the Kings hands The power in the second Indenture is that he may revoke and limit new uses and that the Fine shall be to those new uses and no others and then if there be a Revocation and no punctuall limitation he had not pursued his Authority for he ought to revoke and limit and he cannot doe the one without the other Also he said that after such Revocation and limitation the fine shall be to such new uses and no other then if there be no new uses well limited in the third Indenture the former uses shall stand void Nota it seemeth that if a man make a Feoffement and declare uses and reserve a power to revoke them without saying moe he cannot revoke them and limit new for the use of the Fine being once declared by the Indenture no other use can be averred or declared which is not warranted thereby for he cannot declare the fine to be to new uses when it was once declared before Cook lib. 2.76 That no other use can be averred then that in the conveyauce Cooke lib. 9 10 11. Although that the first uses are determined as if a man declare the use of a Fine to be to one and his Heires upon condition that he shall pay 40. l. c. or untill he do such an Act if the first use be determined the Fine cannot be otherwise declared to be to new uses And therefore it seemes that all the uses which shall rise out of the Fine ought to spring from the first Indenture which testifieth the certain intention of the parties in the leaving thereof and then in the Case above the second Indenture and the limitation of new uses thereby are well warranted by the first Indenture and in respect that this is not a naked power only I conceive that they may be upon condition or upon a power of Revocation to determine them But the power to limit the third uses by a third indenture after revocation of the second uses in the second indenture hath not any Warrant from the first Indenture and without such Warrant there can be no Declaration of such new uses which were not declared or authorised by the first Indenture which Note for it seems to be good Law FINIS AN EXACT TABLE of the Principall Matters contained in this BOOKE A. AN Action of false impriprisonment for taking his wife in execution she appearing as a Feme sole 48 52 An Action upon the Case for conspiring to outlaw a man in a wrong County 49 Amerciament for a By-law 55 An Action upon the Case where against a Servant for breach of trust much good matter 65 66 67 68 Amerciament where well levied by the Sheriff 74 Action by an Executor against a Sheriff in the debet and deâ—â—net where good 80 81 Authority in fact and authority in Law abused a difference 90 Action for these words against I. S. spoken of the Plaintifs wife she would have out her husbands throat and did attempt to doe it 98 C. Custome for Pirates goods if payable 15 Coppy hold surrendred to the use of a younger Sonne he can have no Action before admittance 20 Churchwardens if elected by Vestry-men where good and capable to purchase Lands 21 Conspiracy see Action Collector of a fifteenth leviable upon one Township 65 Commissioners of inquiry and their power 83 84 D. DEbt against the Sheriff for an escape a good Case 20 Distresse for a By-law upon the Kings Tenant he must bring his Action in the Exchequer 55 Devise to the wife until the issue accomplish 18. years endeth not by death of the issue before 56 57 Decree where execution thereof may be stayed 68 69 E. ERror a Writ directed to an inferiour Court ought to be executed without fee paid or tendered 16 Elegit the party who sued it dieth no scire facias for the Heire 16 Equity where releviable in the Exchequer 54 Estreats where they may be discharged for insufficiency in the Indictment or not mentioning the offence 55 Estoppell in the Kings case 65 Exception in a Grant 69 Escape a difference where caused by a rescous and where by the Sherif or Bailif 70 71 Executor see Action 80 81 Erroneous judgement given in the Kings Mannor reversed in the Exchequer by Petition 98 F. A Feoffement to the use of the Husband and Wife for their lives and after to the heirs of the body of the wife begotten by the Husband what estate 17 First fruits ought