interest in the Lands than strangers and they Uses have been in such reckoning and account since that an Vse hath obtained the name of an Inheritance and is now reputed amongst the Estates of Lands in our Law and therefore we say in Speeches and in penning of Statutes Estates in possession and Estates in use and a Vse cannot be limited to Parishioners no more than the Land it self so as there is a great affinity betwixt the words Lands and Use It is to be granted That the Statute of 27 H. 8. doth devest all out of the Feoffees yet it doth not devest it before that the use be vested in Cestuy que use for the words of the Statute are That the possession shall be executed in such manner quality and degree as was the Vse therefore the vesting of the Vse ought to precede the execution of the possession to it And he was of opinion That this future Vse in the principal Case limited to the second Wife did remain in the Feoffees at the first but that they had destroyed it by their Feoffment for the second Wife at the time of the Feoffment was not known and therefore it shall now accrue and he was also of opinion That this limitation to the second Wife was void at the beginning for the second Wife was not a person able to take when the Estate and Vse limited to the first Wife was determined and therefore she shall not take at all and if such an Estate had been limited in possession it should not have vested no more than now Mounson Iustice When the Feoffor and the Feoffees joyn in a Fine of that Land within which the use in future is wrapped he conceived That the Vse being in abeyance and consideration of the Law could not be touched by the Fine It is to be confessed That an Vse may be discontinued See 4. H. 7. 18. A Feoffment made to the use of A. for life and after to the use of B. in tail c. A. makes a Feoffment in Fee and dieth the same is a discontinuance of the other Vses and see 27 H. 8. 29. And in our Case the Vse might arise without any Entry of the Feoffees for the Vse is not discontinued but the Feoffees are barred by the Fine And he was also of opinion That this Vse might take effect without any Entry and take effect according to the limitation Manwood This Estate which is limited in use to the second Wife because it cannot vest in her because not known the Feoffees are yet content with it and this Vse is to grow out of their Estates at the seasonable time Then when they joyn in a Feoffment their Estate which was the root of the Conveyance and the Vses which are the branches spring not till she dieth and therefore if the Estate of the Feoffees which is the root of the Vses be destroyed by alienation of the Land before the Vses have their being as in our Case it is because that then the second was not known no use can afterwards rise for by the Feoffment they are destroyed and also every possibility of them But if the Vses had been in esse so as the persons to whom they are limited are known then the Statute shall execute the possession to such uses And as to that which hath been objected by my Brother Mounson That the Law shall keep and preserve the Vse and that notwithstanding any thing done by the Feoffees at its due time it shall rise That cannot be for the Statute of 27 H. 8. doth not speak of such Vses as this in our Case but of such Vses onely of which one may say such a use is limited to such a person and such to such a person c. and such Vses are onely executed by the Statute It may be demanded What Estate the Feoffees have in the Lands until such uses be executed It may be answered A Fee simple determinable as the Lord hath when he entereth upon his Villein Donee in tail And I conceive That this use was not in Custodia Legis quia de minimis non curat Lex and the use was such a thing of which the Law took no knowledge and in case of an Estate in possession such an use in abeyance should be bound As a Lease for life unto A. the Remainder to the right Heirs of B. A. suffers a common Recovery in the life of B. who afterwards dieth and afterwards A. dyeth the Heir of B. is bound for he had not right at the time of the Recovery This Fine levied by the manner shall not destroy the uses limited to the second Wife for as to the Feoffees they have nothing to doe with the Lands to transfer any Estate against the former limitation for the Statute leaves nothing in the Feoffees but vests all in Cesty que use and that which cannot vest in him to whom it is limited shall return to the Feoffor As if I make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of my self for life and after to the use of my second Wife all the Fee is now in me and when I take a second Wife then the Feoffees shall be seised to the use of such Wife in Remainder for her life but in the Case at Bar the Feoffees at the time when this second Wife was in esse had not any thing in the Lands for they had departed with all their Interest before by their Feoffment and Fine Note That by the first Feoffment the use was limited to D. the first Wife of the Feoffor for term of her life the Remainder in tail to A. Brent the Remainder in Fee to one Broughton and all these uses were executed by the Statute but these persons were not parties to the Livery but onely the Feoffees which had not any thing Then when they make their Letter of Attorney to make Livery of seisin not being seised of the Land the Attorney onely is a Disseisor and so nothing passed from the Feoffees if any right had been in them and for another reason nothing passed by this last Conveyance out of the Feoffees for the parties to the latter Conveyance had notice of the use and so it appeareth by the second Indenture the which makes mention of the first uses c. Dyer Here in our Case the Founders of these uses i. the Feoffor and the Feoffees have an intent to overthrow these uses for at the Common Law the Feoffees might doe it of themselves As if the Feoffees had made a Feoffment in fee in consideration of Money to others who had not notice of the uses now the uses are gone and the second Feoffees in such Cases were seised to their own uses I well know That by this Feoffment all is devested out of the Feoffees which might vest in the person to whom the use is limited but here this use which was limited to the second Wife could not upon the limitation of it vest in any person and therefore it shall
è contr 17 E. 3. 8. A man may make a Feoffment of a Manor by the name of a Knights Fee à fortiori in case of the Devise and in our case the Marquiss conceived That the Rent and Services reserved out of the Manor of Fremmington was the Manor of Fremmington and the Law shall give strength to that intention Walmsly conceived That the Rent did not pass by the name of Manor c. for this Rent nec in rei veritate nor in reputation was ever taken for a Manor Also the words Of the Manor and Hundred of Fremmington are put amongst others which are Manors in truth by which it seemeth That the Devisor did not intend to pass but one Manor and no other Hereditaments by that Manor of Fremmington It is a Rule in Law That in the construction of a Will a thing implyed shall not controul a thing expressed But here if by implication the Rent shall pass then the Manor of Camfield shall not pass which it was the intent of the Devisor to pass and that by express words See 16 Elizab. Dyer 330. Clatche's Case and see 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman's Case But in our Case here there are not any sufficient words to warrant any implication for neither in truth nor in reputation was it taken to be a Manor 22 H. 6. 2. Green Acre might pass by the name of a Manor although it were but one Acre of Land because known by the name of a Manor See accordingly 22 H. 6. 39. And see where before the Statute of Vses a man had Recoverors to his use and he wills by his Will That his Trustees should sell his Lands they may sell And he said That if a man seised of a Manor parcell in Demesne and parcell in service and he grants the Demesnes to one and his Heirs and afterwards deviseth his Manor peradventure the services shall pass but this Rent hath no resemblance to a Manor Gawdy This Rent shall pass by the name aforesaid Favourable construction is to be always given to Wills according to the intent of the Devisor and no part of a Will shall be holden void if by any means it may take effect then here it appeareth that his meaning was that upon these words every thing should pass to the Devisee concerning the said Manor of Fremmington for otherwise the words of the Manor of Fremmington should be void and frivolous which shall not be in a Will if any reasonable construction can be for it is found expresly by the Iury That neither at the time of the Will made nor at the time of the death of the Devisor the said Devisor had any thing in the said Manor of Fremmington but onely the said Rent of one hundred and thirty pounds And it may well be taken that the Devisor being ignorant what thing a Manor is though that the Rent was a Manor because that he had Rents and services out of the Manor For in construction of Wills the words shall serve the intent of the party and therefore if a man deviseth That his Lands shall be sold for the payment of his debts his Executors shall sell them for the intent of the Testator naming the Vendors is sufficient And see Plowden 20 Eliz. 5. 24. L. after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Executors shall be seised to the use of A. and his Heirs in Fee whereas then there was no Feoffees to his use the same was holden a good Devise of the Lands of A. and the Iudges conceived that the Devisor was ignorant of the operation of the Statute in such case and therefore his ignorance was supplied See Br. Devises 44. 29 H. 8. A. had Feoffees to his use and afterwards after the Statute of 27 H. 8. willed that his Feoffees should make an Estate to B. and his Heirs it was holden by Baldwin Shelley and Mountague Iustices that it was a good Devise See 26 H. 6. Feoff 12. A Carve of Lands may pass by the name of a Manor Ergo à multo fortiori Rent for Rents and Services have more nearness and do more resemble a Manor than a Carve of Lands and it cannot be intended that the meaning of the Testator was to grant the Manor it self in which she had nothing especially by her Will for covin collusion or indirect dealing shall not be presumed in a Will Also the Marchioness for four years together before her death had the Rent and Services of the said Manor and she well knew that she had not any other thing in the said Manor but the said Rent and Services and therefore it shall be intended that that was her Manor of Fremmington A. seised of a Capital Messuage and great Demesnes lying to it leaseth the same for years rendring Rent and afterward deviseth to another all his Farm lying in such a place It was rated in that case that by that Devise the Rent and the Reversion should pass See the Case betwixt Worselie and Adams Plowd 1 Eliz. 195. by Anthony Brown and Dyer Periam Iustice was of opinion that this Rent might be divided well enough But by Anderson It is but Rent-seck but Periam said it was a Rent distrainable of common Right but all of them agreed that the Rent might be divided but there should not be two Tenures And the Lord Montjoy being advised that this Rent did not pass by the Grant but descended to the Heir being the full part of the whole entred into all the residue of the Lands and made a Lease of the Manor of Camfield unto the Plaintiff upon which entry the Ejectione firmae was brought and afterwards the Plaintiff seeing the opinion of the Court to be against him and for the Devisee of the Rent by the name aforesaid did afterward discontinue his suit c. LVIII Costard and Wingfield 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Intrat T. 28 Eliz. Rot. 507. In the Common-Pleas 6 Co. 60. IN a Replevin the Defendant did avow for damage-feasant by the commandment of his Master the L. Cromwel The Plaintiff by way of Replication did justifie the putting in of his cattel into the Land where c. by reason that the Town of N. is an ancient Town and that it had been used time out of mind c. That every Inhabitant of the said Town had had common for all manner of cattel levant and couchant within the said Town and so justified The Defendant said that the house in which the Plaintiff did inhabit in the said Town and by reason of residency in which House he claimed common was a new house erected within 30 years and that before that time there had not been any house there upon which the Plaintiff did demurr Shuttleworth Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff That he should have common there by reason of resiancy in the said new house and he said that the Resiancy is the cause and not the Land nor the person thereof and thereupon he put the Case of
the Office found Also the Traverse is not good for he traverseth the matter of the Conveyance which is not traversable for if the King hath Title non refert quomodo or by what Conveyance he hath it As to the matter in Law scil Tenant in tail in Remainder is attainted of Felony if the King during the life of Tenant in tail shall have the freehold and he conceived that he should for it shall not be in abeyance and it cannot be in any other for when he is attainted he is dead as unto the King. The chief Lord cannot have it for Tenant for life is alive and also he in the Remainder in Fee c. the Donor shall not have it for the Tenant in Remainder is not naturally dead but civilly and the Land cannot revert before the Tenant in tail be naturally dead without issue but if there were any other in whom the Freehold might vest and remain then the King should not have the Freehold but onely the profits So if the Tenant be attainted the Lord shall have the Lands presently 3 E. 3. 4 E. 3. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have but the profits for the Freehold vests in the Wife and if the Lord entreth the Wife shall have an Assise And Tenant in tail may forfeit for his life as he may grant for his life See Old N. B. 99. If Tenant in tail for life dower or by the curtesie be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Lands during their lives and after their deceases he in the Reversion shall sue unto the King by Petition and shall have the Lands out of the King's hands and there it is farther said That the Lord by Escheat cannot have it for the party attainted was not his very Tenant nor he in the Reversion for the term yet endures But now it is to see if the Freehold be in the King without Office and he conceived and argued that it was Where the King is entituled to an Action there the King ought to have an Office and a Scire facias upon it as where the King is entituled to a Cessavit Action of Waste c. 14 H. 7. 21. where the Entry in case of a common person is necessary there it is requisite that there be an Office for the King As if a Villain of the King purchaseth Lands or an Alien born c. so for a condition broken Mortmain c. And in some cases an Office is onely necessary to instruct the King how he shall charge the Officer for the profits which may be supplied as well by Survey as by Office as if the King be to take by descent or as the Case is here And true it is that a person attainted of Felony may during his Attainder purchase Lands and yet he cannot hold it against the King and it is clear that by the Common Law in such cases the Land was in the King but not to grant for the Statute of 18 H. 6. was an impediment to it but now that defect is supplied by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 20. So that now the King may grant without Office See Doughtie's Case 26 Eliz. And in our Case an Office is not necessary to entitle the King but for explaining of his Title and see 9 H. 7. 2. The Lands of a man attainted of High Treason are in the King without Office so where the King's Tenant dieth without Heir or Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King dieth without issue See Br. Office before the Escheator 34. and see 13 H. 4. 270. A man is attainted of Treason the King before Office grants his Lands and Goods Things which lie in Grant as Advowsons Rents Remainder such things upon Attainder are in the King without Office. As to the general pardon of 23 Eliz. he said That that doth not extend to this Case and that this interest of the Queen by this Attainder doth not pass by that pardon out of the Queen so if the Queen had but a Right or Title onely Popham Attorney General By this Attainder the Estate of him in the Remainder in tail accrueth unto the Queen for the life of him in the Remainder for by our Law Felony is punished by the death of the Offendor and the loss of his Goods and Lands for the examples of others therefore nothing is left in the party Tenant for life is attainted of Felony the King pardoneth him his life yet he shall have his Lands during his life and he may dispose of the same for his life And so is it of Tenant in tail for he may forfeit all that which he hath and that is an Estate for his life which is a Freehold If Lands be given to one and his Heirs for the term of the life of another and the Donee be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Land during the life of Cestuy que vie for the Heir cannot have it because the bloud is corrupt and there is not any occupancy in the case for 17 E. 3. the Iustices would not accept of a Fine for the life of another because there might be an Occupant in the case But for a Fine of Land to one and his Heirs for the life of another they would take a Fine for there is no mischief of occupancy Land is given to A. for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. who is attainted of Felony B. dieth now the King hath the Fee executed And here in our Case If the Tenant for life had been dead no Praecipe had lien against him in the Remainder being in possession but the party who hath right is to sue unto the King by Petition 4 E. 3. If one seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for life be attainted the King shall have exitus proficua but he conceived that Case not to be Law For see F. N. B. 254 D. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife in Fee is outlawed for Felony the King seiseth the Husband dieth now shall issue forth a Diem clausit extremum the words of which Writ in such case are Quia A. cujus Terr Tenement quae ipse tenuit de jure haereditate N. uxoris suae adhuc superstitis occasione ejusdem Utlagar ' in ipsum pro quadam Felonia unde indictatus fuit c. in Man. Domini H. patris nostri extiterunt c. therefore the King had not the issues onely but also the Lands See to the same purpose the Register 292. b. Stamford's Placita Coronae 186 187. affirms That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall forfeit his Lands during his life And he said that the Estate of Thomas Venables was in the King without Office not to grant for that is restrained by the Statute of 18 H. 6. but it is in him before Office so as he who hath right ought
the Office comes too late for the Queen c. as in the Lord Lovel's Case Plow 18 Eliz. 482. A Lease for years is made unto an Alien upon condition that if the Alien pay such a sum of Money to the Lessor at any time during the Lease that he shall have Fee the Alien is made a Denizen the Money is paid and all that is found by Office The Queen shall not have the Fee for at the time of the vesting of the Fee the Lesse was Denizen and the Office shall not relate to the time when the Fee vests and no farther but to avoid incumbrances and so in such Case the Office comes too late And if the King's Villain purchaseth Lands and the King make him free and afterwards Office is found the same shall not entitle the King but the Villain manumitted shall hold the Land So in our Case the Queen after this Grant shall not take the benefit of this Office or breach of the Condition found by it And afterwards Manwood chief Baron gave order That those who do argue after shall speak but to two points 1. Where the Queen Leases for years rendring Rent payable at the Receipt at West in which Lease there is a Proviso That if the Rent be behind the Lease shall be void If now the Rent not being paid the Lease shall be void without any Office 2. To what effect an Office now shall be being found after the Queen hath granted the Inheritance over At another day Owen Serjeant argued to the contrary and he said the Lease is void without any Office for as a Lease for years may be made by contract so it may be avoided by words of contract otherwise it is of Freehold So that a Lease shall be avoided without entry 6 E. 6. 137 138. Plow Browning and Beston's Case Offices are of two sorts First entituling the Queen as purchase of an Alien purchase of Villain alienation in Mortmain and Offices informing the Queen where she hath interest in the Land before as in our Case here Admit that the Office was necessary to find the breach of the Condition the Patentee shall take the benefit of it for being found by Office that the Queen hath made such a Lease with condition to be void for non-payment of Rent and that at such a day the Rent was behind now being of Record every Subject shall take advantage of it As where a Husband makes a Feoffment in Fee upon condition of the Land of his Wife and dieth If the Heir enter for the Condition broken now may the Wife enter upon him for now the discontinuance is avoided See 11 H. 7. 17. Where the Grantee of the Reversion shall take advantage of a condition ut supra concluding That the Lease shall be void And see 136. Plowd Browning and Beston's Case And although after the default of payment the Rent due afterwards was accepted yet that shall not conclude the Queen for this acceptance is not under the great Seal but onely done by the Office Also the Lease being void for the non-payment cannot be made good by acceptance afterwards Atkinson contrary Although that the Lease be void de facto yet until it appeareth to the Court the Court cannot say it is void or not void therefore Office is necessary to ascertain the Court The Queen is a body Politick and the chief body Politick above others because she is the Maker Authour and Creatour of all other Corporations and that is the reason that the King cannot speak without writing and this is the most solemn writing i. Writing of Record So she cannot take but by Record And in our Case it doth not appear by any writing of Record the Rent was behind and it is agreeable to the Majesty of a King to do nothing without matter of Record which see 4 Eliz. in the case of the Dutchy And he said there is no difference betwixt the Case in 2 H. 7. and our Case In each Case it is a Lease for years Rent reserved in this onely differing that there is a clause of re-entry and here the conclusion of the Condition is that the Lease shall be void but in both Cases none can say that the Rent is behind untill it be found by Office therefore none can say that the Lease is void untill Office found See by Thorp 35 E. 3. Chattels personals of the King's Villains are in the King without office for such things may be lost or worn contrary of Chattels Reals as a Lease for years for Land cannot but continue and such things which may be in the King without writing he may grant without writing as a chain of Gold or a Horse Deodands Felons goods Wreck c. vest without Office because Chattels personals See 20 E. 4. 11. contrary when they are Chattels reals and permanent for there an Office is necessary In the Case of year day and waste an Office ought to be found Ergo à multo fortiori in case of a Lease for years which is a greater interest c. 49 E. 3. 11. There is a general Rule Quo modo quodque ligatur eo modo dissolvitur That which passeth by Livery ought to be reduced by re-entry that which begins by Record ought to be determined by Record and here in our Case the Land cannot depart from the King without Record therefore it shall not revert without Record although that the breach of the condition be but matter of fact yet the proof of that ought to be of Record And here in our Case is a condition and not a limitation And he said that in the Case often cited before of 11 H. 7. 17. it is a limitation and not a condition For if it were a condition the Grantee by the Law could not take advantage of it because not privy and he was clear of opinion that where the words are That the Lease shall cease or shall be void yet in such cases there ought to be an Office for in Leases of the King there needs no re-entry because the King to speak properly cannot re-re-enter And the words That the Lease shall be void do amount to words of re-entry and he said That in the Case of a common person upon such a condition broken the Land shall not be in the Lessor without re-entry no more shall they be here in the Case of the Queen without an Office Also the Rent reserved upon this Lease was behind and the Lessee continuing the possession the Queen by acceptance of the Rent hath affirmed the party Tenant and afterwards granted the Reversion over before any Office found of that matter Now the Lessee is discharged and shall never be impeached for the said Rent behind and the Grant Ex certa scientia c. after found shall not defeat this Grant by any relation And the Queen by her Grant hath included all the advantage which accrued unto her by the breach of the Condition and as to that which hath
for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant acknowledgeth himself to be Villein to a stranger the Writ shall abate without any averment if Frank and of Frank Estate for the Law presumes that the Tenant would not enthral his condition Wray to the same intent But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he that levyed the Fine was his disseisor upon whom he had before entred c. And if Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded and he saith that he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayes in aid of A. the Demandant shall not take averment that the Tenant the day of the Writ purchased was seised in Fee. Note that in this fine Ioynt-tenancy was pleaded but to parcel It was holden by Wray and Southcot that the whole Writ should abate As in a Writ the misnosmer of one shall abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants and so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the land in demand if the thing in demand be one intire thing it shall abate the whole Writ In this Case the Demandant ought to have in his Writ de Forsprise of the land in demand whereof the Ioynt-tenancy by Fine is pleaded per availe and under the gift of which the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Manor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with an Exception But if A. give to B. a Manor except ten acres in tail there if after upon any discontinuance the issue in tail have a Formedon in such case there needs no exception for the said ten acres were never after the gift parcel of the Manor which was given in tail for they were severed from the Manor upon the gift but if land in demand was several as twenty acres except two an exception is not good for he might demand eight acres See E. 1. F. N. B. 866. Praecipe unam bovat terrae except a Seleon and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Seleon is a parcel of land uncertain as to quantity in some places an acre in some more in some less Another point was That because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ doth suppose If the Court notwithstanding the admittance of the Tenant ought without exception of the party Ex officio to abate the Writ and Wray conceived that they should for it is a positive Law as if a woman brings an appeal of murther upon the death of her brother and the Defendant doth admit it without challenge or exception yet the Court shall abate the appeal 10 E. 4. 7. And see the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus and if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the common custome of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named common Hostler and the Defendant doth accept of such Writ without exception to it yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex officio 11 H. 4. 198. and 38 H. 6. 30. CXCVII 24 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Antea 150. More Rep. Saffron Walden's Case THE Case was this King Henry the 8. seised of certain lands in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Granted them unto another Tenend in Fee-farm Reddend dicto Dom. Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. And if this land should be holden of the King in Capite or holden of the Dutchy was the question Egerton Solicitor general argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. by which the Dutchy and possessions thereof were severed from the Crown See Plowden in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster 213. And see ibid. the Statute of 1 H. 4. Entituled Charta Regis Hen. 4. 1. De separatione Ducatus Lancastr à Corona by which it is enacted That the Dutchy of Lancaster taliter tali modo deducatur gubernetur pertractetur c. ac si ad culmen dignitatis Regiae assumpti minime fuissemus So as by that Act the Dutchy is dis-joined from the Crown and in such point as to possession as it was in a common person But the possession of the Dutchy doth not bind the person of the King as 10 H. 4. 7. The King brings an Action for certain Lands to him descended from his Vncle the Duke of Lancaster and the Writ was Non omittas propter aliquam libertatem and exception was taken to the Writ because that such clause ought not to be in the King 's Writ but where the King sueth as King but that Writ he sueth as Duke of Lancaster but the exception was not allowed The King cannot sue otherwise but as King for the person of the King ought not to be measured according to his possession so as it was a severance in order survey government and process and not in respect of the person But after the Statute of 1 H. 4. The said Act of Separation was repealed and farther enacted that the said King should hold the said Dutchy to him and his heirs Kings of England so as thereby the Dutchy is settled in the politick Body of the King afterwards came the Statute of 1 H. 7. by which it is enacted That the King shall hold the said Dutchy and the possessions thereof in such manner and form and so separated from the Crown as King Henry the fourth and King Henry the fifth did hold the same so as the Dutchy was devested out of the Body politick of the King where it was setled 1 H. 4. and vested in the Body natural of the King so as the possession of the Dutchy as to their government c. are in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster before he was King and if the Duke of Lancaster had made a Feoffment c. the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King So if the King himself maketh a Feoffment of Lands of the Dutchy the Feoffee shall hold of the King c. which see in the Dutchy of Lancaster's Case in the end of it And he conceived That notwithstanding the union of the Crown and the Dutchy yet the privity of the Tenure doth remain being preserved by the said Act of 1 H. 4. Another matter was That here the Tenure reserved is Tenend in feodi firma Reddend 10 l. c. And he said that this Rent is not parcel of the Tenure but rather a Rent-charge collateral to the Tenure For in all Cases where there is a Tenure expressed in suit or implied in Law before there Reddendo following shall not make the thing rendred parcel of the Tenure 3 Cro. 210 211. but it shall be a Rent in gross and here Tenend in feodi firma makes the Tenure c. and the Reddendo after shall not make the Rent reserved parcel of the Tenure See the
he said Misnosmer shall be tried where the Writ is brought c. So Ne unque administer as Executor c. Manwood Here the Lease is said to be made at Durham in a place certain if now there be not any other local thing said which might draw the trial elsewhere it shall be tried at Durham where the Lease is made An Infant makes a lease for years rendring Rent and afterwards re-enters and avoids his Lease by reason of his nonage and Title is made against him by the Lease upon which he pretended nonage it shall be tried where the Lease was made and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXIX Ross and Morrice 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench EDward Ross was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Edward Morrice 1 Cro. 108 109. and George Manly Defendants who made Conusance as Bailiffs to Jerom Weston The Plaintiff declares of the taking of two Geldings 20 Decemb. 29 Eliz. at Nayland in the County of Suffolk in a certain place called Nayland-Court-Meadow And the Conusance is that the place where was a Freehold of the said Jer. Weston c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance shewed That long time before Sir Christopher Danby was seised of 30 acres of Meadow in Nayland whereof the place where c. and Leased the same by Indenture to Thomas Calton 19 Maii 31 H. 8. Habendum from the Feast of the Annunciation 1553. for the term of 45 years Who 1 E. 6. assigned his Interest to Edw. Ross the Plaintiff's Father who 1 Maii the said 1553. entred and 11 Eliz. granted his Interest to Bamford and Mascal who entred and were possessed Sir Christopher Danby died seised of the Reversion 13 Eliz. and the same descended to Thomas Danby his son and heir 14 Eliz. Mascal died Bamford 15 Eliz. granted to the Plaintiff Habendum from the 17 of March 1583. for three years which expired 26 Eliz. Bamford entred and afterwards Thomas Danby granted the Reversion to Edw. Rockwood in Fee to which the said Bamford Attorned and the Plaintiff by force of the said Lease put in his Cattel c. The Plaintiff Replicando said That long time before that Danby had any thing Jeofry Lord Scroop had issue of his body Henry Lord Scroop and died And that one John Guntwarby was seised of the said Manor of Nayland whereof c. in Fee by his Charter 25 E. 3. gave to the said Henry Lord Scroop the same Et haeredibus corpore suo exeuntibus who had issue Stephen who entred and died seised having issue John who entred and died seised having issue Thomas who entred and 3 H. 7. suffered a Common Recovery to the use of himself and his heirs The Recoverers enfeoffed Thomas seised also of many other Lands and had issue Ralph Jeofry Alice Elizabeth and Margery and afterwards died seised Ralph Lord Scroop entred and thereof did enfeoff divers persons unto the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and the heirs males of the said Ralph and afterwards the said Ralph being possessed of the said Charter of entail made ut supra by Guntwardy 7 H. 8. Devised that the Feoffees should be seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and if they died without issue of the body of the said Ralph the said Jeofry then living that then the Feoffees should be seised to the use of the said Jeofry being his Vncle for his life and after his decease ad usum Rectorum haeredum in perpetuum secundum antiquam Evidentiam inde ante factam with an averment that the said Ralph at the time of the said Devise and of his death was possessed of the Charter of Entail made by the said Guntwardy and that the said Charter was the most ancient Evidence of the said concerning the said Manor Ralph died without issue possessed of the said Charter by which the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to his use for life and after to the use of the said Jeofry for life and after his decease of the right heirs of the body of Henry Lord Scroop lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and the said Charter and of the residue of the Manors to the use of the said Jeofry and his heirs Eleanor died after whose decease the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of the said Jeofry right heir of the said Henry Lord Scroop of his body begotten and of the other lands to the use of the said Jeofry in Fee Jeofry died without issue by which the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery Cosins and heirs of the body of the said Henry Scroop c. And of the heirs of the bodies of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and Charter as to the said Manor of Nayland and of the other Manors to their use in Fee And afterwards the said Alice took to husband James Strangways who had issue Thomas Elizabeth took to husband Fitz Randolph who had issue Elizabeth Dorothy Agnes Alice Margery took to husband Danby who had issue Sir Christopher Danby named in the Bar and afterwards all the said husbands and their wives died by force of which the said Feoffees were seised of one part of the said Manor of Nayland in three parts to be divided to the use of the said Thomas Strangways and of another part to the use of the four daughters of the said Elizabeth and her husband Fitz Randolph and of another such part to the use of the said Christopher Danby and of their heirs in Tail and of the other lands to the use of them in Fee in degree of Coparcinary Elizabeth the eldest daughter of Fitz Randolph took to husband Shirley Dorothy her sister took to husband Eshe Agnes took to husband Maynel and Alice took to husband Dranfield Thomas Strangways had issue James and died And afterwards partition was made by which to James Strangways were allotted lands in Kent and agreed that the Feoffees should be seised of the said lands to the use of the said James and his heirs and to no other use To Sherley and Elizabeth his wife lands in Essex were allotted and agreed upon the partition that the Feoffees should be seised to the use of them c. in Fee c. And to Danby the said Manor of Nayland in tail by reason of the Devise and Charter aforesaid as to the said Manor of Nayland and of other lands in Fee. And afterwards 23 E. 8. notice was given to the Feoffees of the said partition and averred that the partition was equal c. and that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said partition untill 27 H. 8. and confessed the Lease made by Danby to Calton and all the assignments set forth in the Bar to the Avowry and farther shewed That Thomas Danby
entred upon Ross the Plaintiff and enfeoffed Rockwood who enfeoffed Weston Coke for the Plaintiff The Case is no more but where a man hath issue a son and a daughter by several women and Deviseth his Lands to his son and the heirs of the body of the Father lawfully begotten in which case if the Son dieth without issue the Tail is extinct and the Daughter shall never have the Land for she doth not take by way of Reversion or Remainder and she doth not take in possession because the possession was in Jeofry who was the Heir of Henry c. And these Cases were vouched 1 Roberge's Case 2 E. 3. 1. to Tail John Mandevile took to Wife Roberge and Mandevile gave land to Roberge haeredibus ipsius Johannis quos ipse de corpore praedict Robergiae procreaverit there the Book is That the Formedon was Quae M. dedit Robergiae haeredibus dict Johannis quos ipsae de corpore dictae Robergiae procreaverit Et quae post mortem praefat Robergiae R. filii haeredis dict Johannis Mandevile haeredis ipsius Johannis de corpore dicto Robergiae per dict Johannem procreat c. and the same Writ awarded good which Coke denyed to be Law. And he cited the Case of Dyer 4 and 5 P. and Ma. 156. A. gives Lands to one for life the Remainder thereof rectis haeredibus masculis de corpore dict A. legitime procreat remanere inde rectis haeredibus dict A. who hath issue two Sons and dieth A. dieth the eldest Son hath issue a Daughter and dieth without issue male And he conceived first That in this case the limitation of the Remainder in Tail to the right Heirs of the body of the Donor is void for the Donor cannot make his own right Heir a Purchasor without departing with the Fee-simple of his person But admitting the limitation is good he said we are to consider If this entail to the Son once vested and commenced in the possession of the Son when he dieth without issue male The Estate be spent or that the same shall go to the younger Son And he said that it was the opinion of Dyer in that case That the younger Son was inheritable to the said Estate-tail as in the Case of Littleton 82. where the condition is That the Feoffee shall give the Lands to the Son and Heir of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Father and Mother lawfully begotten and the Husband and Wife before any such Gift die having issue and afterwards the Feoffee gives the Land to the Son and Heir of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Father and Mother begotten the condition is well performed and if the eldest Son to whom the Gift is made dieth without issue the youngest Son shall inherit And in a Formedon in the Reverter upon such a Gift the Writ shall be Et quae post mortem of the eldest Son ad ipsum reverti debet because the Husband and Wife obierunt sine haerede de corpor suis inter eos exeunt And such was also the Opinion of Saunders But Brook Brown and Catlin were clear contrary And he said that Bendloes Serjeant who reporteth that Case doth affirm That Iudgment was given in that case That the Estate-tail was spent and that the Daughter should have the Lands and not the second Son and so he said That in the Case at the Bar the Estate-tail was spent But he said That he conceived that in the principal case at Bar there is not any Estate-tail at all because the words upon which the Estate-tail is conceived are incertain and too general viz. secundum antiquam Evidentiam for there might be many ancient Evidences for the words may extend to Evidences which cut off the Estate tail as well as to the Entail of Guntwardy He also argued That the Partition was void and then the Lessee had a good interest for certain parts of the Lands for Partition cannot be made of an Vse and he said that he agreed That Partition betwixt Husband and Wives of Lands if it be equal should bind the makers because they are compellable to make Partition of them but contrary of an Vse for that they are not compellable to do Also in the principal Case the Land entailed is allotted to one of the Coparcenors which is not good but during the Coverture and afterwards void and then the Lease is void but in part and so the Conusance is not good Atkinson contrary and he said I conceive that by words of Relation a Fee may pass without the word Heirs See 39 Ass 12. The Father seised of Lands in fee doth enfeoff his younger Son in fee and the Father continues the possession of the Lands claiming to hold them at the will of the Son and the Son coming into the Town where the Lands do lie in the hearing of his Neighbours saith to his Father You have given to me these Lands naming them As fully as you have given them to me I give them back to you again and the same was holden to be a good Gift to the Father 43 E. 3. 22. The King seised of a Manor to which an advowson is appendant by Escheat or Conveyance gives the said Manor as entirely as such a one held the said Manor before the Escheat or Conveyance the Advowson shall pass without special mentioning of it And so here in our Case at Bar This Will hath reference to the ancient Evidence and it shall be as strong as if he had set down the special words of Entail and to ancient Evidence before the Entail it cannot extend for then a fee should pass and then the Devise should be void because to his Heir and the word Antiqua Evidentia shall have reference to the Charter which was made by Guntwardy for that was an ancient Evidence made two hundred years past and he cited the Case of 40 E. 3. 8. the Provost of Beverley's Case and conceived that the Estate was not spent for that the Estate-tail was in Jeofry as the fee was in him Lands are given to the Father for life the Remainder to the Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father the Father dieth the Tail and the fee are in the Son but yet after the death of the Son without issue the Lands shall be in the Brother's Son by descent and not as Purchasor And in our Case Jeofry was in in the Tail as right Heir of Henry and if Jeofry dieth without issue his Brother of the half bloud shall have the Lands as in the Case before cited of 40 E. 3. but that shall be in Tail by force of the Devise And he said That in this case here the Partition was made good enough although it were of Lands in use for a man might contract for an Vse without Deed 11 H. 4. Partition 156. Partition of an Advowson without Deed
Postea 82 83. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That Mr. Graunt was seised of the Lands c. and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life and farther he willed That when Richard his brother shall come to the age of 25 years he should have the Lands to him and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten Mr. Graunt died having issue of his body who is his heir Richard before he had attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with Proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. Sic ut partes ad finem nihil habuerunt and if this Fine should bind the Estate-tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged M. 29 and 30 Eliz. Tenant in tail discontinues to E. and afterwards levieth a Fine to B. although the partes ad finem nihil habuerunt yet the Fine shall bind the entail But the Serjeants at Bar argued That there is a great difference betwixt the Case cited and the Case at Bar for in that Case the said Fine was pleaded in Bar but here the Fine is not pleaded but found by special Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the same was not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or conclusion but by the Statute doth bind and extinguish the Estate-tail and the right of it and Fines are as effectual to bind the right of the entail when they are found by especial Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar And by Periam Collateral Warranty found by Verdict is of as great force as if it were pleaded in Bar And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate-tail by the Fine was utterly destroyed and extinct XLIX Jay 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas JAY brought an Action of Debt before the Mayor of Shrewsbury c. and declared upon an Obligation which was upon condition to pay money at London and issue was there joined upon the payment And it was moved how this issue should be tried viz. 4 Inst 205. If it may be removed by Certiorare into the Chancery and thence by Mittimus into the Common-Pleas and from thence sent into London to be tried and when it is tried to be remanded back to Shrewsbury to have Iudgment See 21 H. 7. 33. Vpon voucher in the County Palatine of Lancaster the Law is such in matters real for real actions cannot be sued but in the said County Palatine but in personal matters it is otherwise for such actions may be sued elsewhere at the pleasure of the party And thereunto agreed the whole Court and although such matters have been removed before yet the same were without motion to the Court or opposition of the other party and so not to be accounted Precedents See 3 H. 4. 46. abridg'd by Brook Cause de remover Plea 41. Where he saith That a Foreign Plea pleaded in London in Debt goes to the jurisdiction but upon a Foreign Voucher in a Plea real the Plea shall be removed in Bank by the Statute to try the Warranty and afterward shall be remanded L. Sands and Scagnard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared that he was possessed of certain Chattels which came to the Defendant by Trover The Defendant pleaded That heretofore the Plaintiff brought Debt against the now Defendant and demanded certain moneys and declared that the Defendant bought of him the same goods whereof the Action is now brought for the summ then in demand to which the then Defendant waged his Law and had his Law by which Nihil Capiat per breve c. was entred And demanded Iudgment if c. And by Windham and Rodes Iustices The same is no bar in this Action for the waging of the Law and the doing of it utterly disproves the Contract supposed by the Declaration in the said Action of Debt and then the Plaintiff is not bound by the supposal of it but is at large to bring this Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LI. Spittle and Davie 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Owen Rep. 8 55. IN a Replevin the Case was That one Turk was seised of certain Lands in Fee and by his Will devised parcell of his said Lands to his eldest Son in tail and the residue of his Lands to his younger Son in Fee Provided that neither of my said Sons shall sell or make Leases of the Lands given or bequeathed unto them by this my Will or doe any Act with any of the said Lands to the hindrance of their children or mine by any devise or means before they come to the age of 30 years and if any of my Sons doe so then my other Son shall have the portion of my Lands so devised to his Brother the eldest Son before his age of 30 years leased the Lands to him devised ut supra for years against the intent of the said Proviso The younger Son entred 2 Cro. 398. and he leased the same Land for years before his age of 30 years Vpon which the eldest Son did re-enter and the opinion of the Court was that here is a Limitation and not a Condition and here the re-entry of the eldest Son was holden unlawfull for this Proviso did not extend but to the immediate Estate devised expresly to them and not to any new Estate which did arise upon the limitation and when the younger Son enters upon the eldest Son by the said Limitation he shall hold his Estate discharged of the Proviso or any limitation contained in it LII Martin Van Henbeck 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information was exhibited in the Exchequer against Martin Van Henbeck Merchant-stranger upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. Cap. 17. concerning the gaging of vessels of Wine and shewed That the Defendant had sold to such a one so many pipes of Wine and that none of them did contain as they ought 126. gallons and although they were so defective yet the Defendant had not defalked the price c. according to the want of measure for which he had forfeited to the Queen all the value of all the Wine so defective Exception was taken to the Information because there is not set down how much in every pipe was wanting as one or two gallons c. To as a ratable defalcation might be made according to the proportion of the want of measure But if the Informer had set forth in his Information that no defalcation was at all such general allegation of want of measure without other certainty had been good And the Case was cited 32 E. 4. 40. Lysle's Case Where the plea wants certainty or where he pleads that he was ready to shew to the Council of the Plaintiff his discharge of an Annuity c. and doth not shew
15 E. 4. 29. And he agreed the Case That if the Lord doth improve part of the common that he shall not have common in the residue of the Land for the Lands improved because That he cannot prescribe for that which is improved as the Book is in 5 Ass But here in the principal Case he doth not prescribe in any person certain or in or for any new thing but he sets forth that the use of the Town hath always been that the inhabitants should have common there And this common is not common appendent or appertinent but common in gross See Needham 37 H. 6. 34. b. And he said That if the house of a Freeholder which hath used to have such common doth fall down and he erecteth a new house in another place of the Land that he shall have common to that new erected house as he had before And he took a difference betwixt the case of Estovers where a new Chimney is erected and this Case and he stood much upon the manner of the prescription Gawdy Serjeant contrary And he took exception to the prescription For he said that it is said therein That it is Antiqua Villa but he doth not say that it hath been so time out of mind c. and so it ought to be said as the Book is in 15 E. 4. 29. a. And then if it be not an ancient Town time out of mind the parties cannot prescribe as Inhabitants of the said Town to have common time out of mind c. And he said That if such a prescription as is said in this Case be good in Law viz. That every one who erected a new house within the said Town should have common to his said new house the same should be prejudicial to the ancient Town and to the utter overthrow and manifest impairing of the common there and it might so happen that one who had but little Lands in the said Town might erect twenty new houses there and so an infinite number of houses might be newly erected there and there should be common allowed to every Inhabitant within the said new erected houses which should be inconvenient and unreasonable Anderson chief Iustice He who erects a new house cannot prescribe in the common for then a prescription might begin at this day which cannot be and he insisted much upon the general loss which should happen to the ancient Tenants if such a prescription for new erections should be good Periam If it should be Law That he should have common in this Case That all the benefit which the Statute gives to the Lord for improvement should be taken away by such new edifications and erection of new houses which were not reasonable And such was the opinion of the other Iustices and therefore they all agreed that in the principal Case the Plaintiff should not have common to this new erected house but the entry of the Iudgment was respited untill the Court had seen the Record and after they had seen and considered upon the Record Anderson and Periam were of opinion as before But Windham did not encline to the contrary but they all agreed That he who set up again a new Chimney where an old one was before should have Estovers to the said new Chimney and so if he build a new house upon the foundation of an old house That he should have common to his said house new erected So if a house falleth down and the Tenant or Inhabitant sets up a new house in the same place Also if a man hath a Mill and a Water-course to it time out of mind which he hath used time out of mind to cleanse if the Mill falleth and he erecteth a new Mill there he shall have the Watercourse and liberty to cleanse it as it had before and afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given for the Defendant to which Windham Iustice agreed LIX Rous and Artois Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was large but the points in this Case were but two Owen Rep. 27. 4 Co. 24. The first was If Tenant per auter vye after the death of Cestuy que vye holdeth over If he be a Disseisor or not The second point was If Tenant at will or at sufferance be such a Tenant of the Manor as he may grant Copyhold Estates to Copyholders For the first point It was agreed by Godfrey and he held that the principal Case was That if Tenant pur auter vye holdeth over the life of Cestuy que vye that he thereby gaineth the Fee But he granted the Cases That where a man holdeth at the will of another that after the Estate determined if he holdeth over he hath not thereby gained fee for he is Tenant at sufferance and as Littleton saith in his Chapter of Releases 108. Tenant at sufferance is where a man of his own head occupieth the Lands and Tenements at the will of him who hath the Freehold and such an occupier claims nothing but at will But he said That in the principal Case he otherwise claimed than at the will of the Lessor for that it appeareth that he hath granted Copy and he said that this difference doth give answer to the Case which is t. H. 8. br t. per Copy 18. where it is said for Law That none is Tenant at sufferance but he who first enters by authority of Law As if a man makes a Lease for years or for the life of another and he holdeth the Lands after his term expired or after the death of Cestuy que vye If he claim nothing but at the will of him who hath the Freehold he is a Tenant at sufferance But if he holdeth in the Lands against the will of his Lessor then he is a Disseisor and so if he do act after such continuance of possession contrary to the will of his Lessor he is a Disseisor 10 E. 4. If an Infant maketh a Lease at will and the Lessor dieth and the Lessee continueth in possession and claims Fee the Heir shall have Mortdancester 18 E. 4. If Cestuy que vye dieth and the Tenant hold in and was impleaded The Lessor shall not be received and he conceived the reason of the Case to be because that the reversion was not in him but that the Fee was gained and rested in the other 22 E. 4. 39. g. by Hussey If a Termor holdeth over his term there an Estate in Fee is confessed to be in him because he holdeth the possession of the Lands by wrong but there is a Quaere made of it if he be a Disseisor or not but I conceive that he is for Trespass doth not lie against him before the Lessor hath made his entry and therefore if the Lessee doth continue in the possession of the Lands by reason of the first entry that is the reason as I conceive that the Writ of Entre ad terminum qui praeteriit lieth against such a Termor who holds so over his Term and
that Writ is a Praecipe quod reddat which doth not lie but against a Tenant of the Freehold And such is the opinion of Tilney 7 H. 4. 43. That if the Guardian holds in the Lands at the full age of the Heir or if the Tenant for years after the term expired holdeth over the Lands their Estates shall be adjudged a Fee. And in our Case here he doth not claim to hold in at the will of the Lessor for he hath done an act contrary to the will of the Lessor For he being Lord of the Manor in manner as aforesaid 3 Cro. 302. hath granted Estates by Copy and it is holden 12 E. 4. 12. by all the Iustices That if Tenant at will or Tenant at sufferance at will makes a Lease for years that the same is a Disseisin to the Lessor and the Tenant at will thereby gains the Freehold and the reason of the Book seems to be because he claims to hold a greater Estate than of right belongs unto him The second point was If Tenant at sufferance might grant Copies and he said that he might and such grant should be good because he is in by lawfull means and an Assise doth not lie against him as in the Book of 22 E. 4. 38. before and he is Dominus pro tempore And this Case is not like to the Cases where Copies are made by Abators or Disseisors for the Law doth adjudge that Copies made or granted by them are void and his act here as a Tenant at sufferance of making and granting of the Copies stands with the custome of the Manor which warrants them as in the Case of Grisbrook and Fox if an Administrator made by the Ordinary sells the goods of the Intestate and with the money thereof arising payeth the debts of the Intestate and afterwards he who was made Executor proves the Will he shall not avoid such sale of the goods because he hath made it according to Law and hath done no more than an Executor is compelled to doe So 12 H. 7. 25. b. If a Baily cut down trees to repair an ancient pail the same is good So 4 H. 7. 14. b. If he payeth a Quit Rent it is good And note 4 Mariae Br. Tenant by Copy 27. That the Lessee of a Manor in which there are Copyholds after the death of the Copyholder may admit the Heir of the Copyholder to the Land and so he may doe who hath but an Estate in the Manor durante bene placito and yet it seems by the Book that such a Tenant of the Manor cannot reserve and lessen Rent but he ought to reserve the ancient Rent or more Coke contrary And first he said that he who holdeth over the life of the Cestuy que use doth not gain any Fee where he comes in first by right for that he is but Tenant at sufferance 35 H. 8. Dyer 57. in the Case of the Lord Zouch Cestuy que use for life the remainder over in tail makes Lease for life of the Lessee he dieth the Lessee continueth his Estate and the opinion of the Iustices of the Common-Pleas and of others was that he is but a Tenant at sufferance for the Lease was not any discontinuance of the Remainder because he had authority by the Statute of Rich. 3. to make a Lease and that is intended of such Estate which he might lawfully doe and this is our Case and so it is adjudged already As to the second point I grant that Tenant for years or at will or at sufferance is Dominus pro tempore but there is a difference as unto granting of Copies by them For it was adjudged 25 Eliz. that they might grant Copies which are to be granted upon surrenders made by Copyholders As if a Copyholder doth surrender to the use of another they may accept of such a surrender and grant the Lands by Copy to him to whose use the surrender is made But if a Copyholder dieth they cannot grant voluntary Copies de novo And he said that Popham who argued the said Case in 25 Eliz. That this difference was agreed and so adjudged in one Sleer's Case And so 17 El. in the Case of one Stowley where the Case was That a Manor was devised to one and the Devisee entred and granted Copies and afterwards it was found that the Devise was void and it was there holden that Copies made by such Devisee upon surrenders were good and were not to be avoided but contrary of Copies made after the death of Tenants upon voluntary grants I grant that when Cestuy que use dieth the Estate for life is utterly void and gone and therefore he is in by wrong but he cannot thereby gain so great an Estate as a Disseisor because he came in at the first by right Atkinson put a difference betwixt Tenant at will and Tenant at sufferance for Tenant at will shall have aid but contrary of Tenant at sufferance as the Book is 11 H. 4. a Release to Tenant at will is good contrary to Tenant at sufferance when after the death of Cestuy que use he holdeth over he hath some interest scil to this purpose that he shall not be a wrong doer for he is neither Abator nor Desseisor therefore not a wrong doer and then if he be in by a right or rightfully he is then Dominus pro tempore and then the grants made by him by Copy are good 7 H. 7. 3. Tenant at sufferance was to justifie the distraining the cattel of another damage feasant Coke True it is the beasts of a stranger but not of the Tenant of the freehold Gawdy Iustice The Lessor cannot have Trespass against him before entry not because he is not a wrong doer but because it is his folly that he doth not enter All the Iustices did hold with the Plaintiff against the Copy granted and that he which granted it was but Tenant at sufferance and not a Desseisor nor had gained the Fee because he came in first by right And therefore they awarded that if the Defendant did not shew better cause that Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff LX. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN the Exchequer Chamber there was this Case An Indenture Tripartite was betwixt three A. was one of them and he covenanted with them Et quolibet eorum And the Covenant was that the Land which he had aliened to one of them was discharged of all incumbrances and he to whom the limitation of the Lands was but a Writ of Covenant sole Buckley argued that it was well brought and cited the Case of 6 E. 2. Br. Covenant 49. where one covenanted with twenty to repair the Sea-banks and he did not repair against two of them and they two brought a Writ of Covenant solement and the Writ holden maintainable because they onely were damnified and so he said in this Case But notwithstanding this it was afterwards 5 Co. 18. viz. M. 30 Eliz.
adjudged by the whole Court that the Covenant did not lie by one of them onely but ought to be brought by them both LXI Carter 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Being seised of the Manor of Staple in Odiham 1 Cro. 208. Owen Rep. 84. 8 Co. 119. and of divers other Lands in Odiham suffered a common Recovery of the whole and by Indenture expressed the uses in this manner viz. of all his Lands and Tenements in Odiham to the use of his wife for life the remainder over c. And of the Manor of Staple to the use of his youngest son in tail but by the clear opinion of the whole Court although the Manor of Staple was in Odiham yet the wife shall have nothing therein for the intent of the party was that the son should have the same and his wife the residue and accordingly Iudgment was given LXII Cobb and Prior 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case betwixt Cobb and Prior was this A man seised of Lands in Fee devised the same to his Wife during the minority of his Son upon condition that she should not do Waste during the minority of the said Son and died The Wife married a Husband and died the Husband committed Waste It was holden by all the Iustices That the same was not any breach of the Condition and Iudgment was entred accordingly LXIII Taylor and Brounsal 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. IN an Information upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. by Taylor against Brounsal the Case was That John Brounsal was seised and gave the Lands to T. B. and the Heirs of his body c. the Remainder to R. B. and the Heirs male of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J. B. T. B. died having issue a Daughter and R. B. made a Lease for years of the Lands And it was holden by the Court to be no maintenance within the said Statute for he in the Remainder might make a Lease for years Then it was given in Evidence That a common Recovery was had against the Husband and Wife with a single Voucher and so the Remainder limited to R. B. destroyed and that after that Recovery R. B. made the Lease To which it was said by the other side That the said Recovery was never executed and no discontinuance of the Remainder and then the Lease made by R. B. was good and the truth of the Case was That such a Recovery was had and an Habere facias seisinam awarded and retorned but no Execution was in truth had upon it nor the Recoveror never entred And if R. B. who is a stranger to the said Recovery shall be admitted against the Recovery to say That no Execution was thereof was the Question and therefore all the matter was found by special Verdict It was also given in Evidence That the Land was given to T. B. and the Heirs males of his body and then when the Daughter which is not in truth inheritable entereth if that Entry she being privy in bloud to R. hee Vncle shall be a Disseisin or Abatement c. as in the Case of Littleton where the youngest Brother entreth after the death of the Father for in such case the youngest Son doth not get any Freehold but is but a Tenant at sufferance Anderson When the Daughter enters and takes a Husband who leaseth for years and the Lessee entreth the same is a Disseisin Periam doubted it for he said When the younger Son entred the Freehold was in him which Anderson doubted LXIV Maunsel and Vernon 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IQ Debt by Maunsel against Hen. Vernon Esquire who came in by Capias i. compulsary Process and pleaded That he was Hen. Vernon Lord Powis and so a Baron of the Parliament and demanded Iudgment of the Writ Note some said That if the Defendant had come in by Issue joyned or gratis and not by compulsary Process he could not have pleaded this Plea or any other Misnosmer The Plaintiff replyed That the Defendant is an Esquire absque hoc that he is Lord Powis and a Baron of the Parliament and as the Iury was ready at the Bar to try this Issue this matter was objected And Anderson conceived That this Plea to the Writ was not good for the name of Lord is not any degree as Knight Duke Earl nor is it parcel of the name nor parcel of addition and therefore it is no Plea in abatement of a Writ and all the Writs of Parliament directed to Barons to summon them to Parliament shall have their Names Sirnames and Additions as if they be Knights Knights and if Esquires they shall be named Esquires and if a Bond be made by J.S. Lord R. the Writ shall not be so for the King by his Writ doth not name any one Lord but otherwise it is of Duke Earl c. for these are Offices of Dignity and parcel of their Names and not onely Additions Windham and Periam contrary and they conceived that there was no difference in this point betwixt a Lord and an Earl for which cause the Court being in doubt although that the Exception was entered of Record would have saved the same to the party and taken the Iury de bene esse but afterwards because it appeared it was joyned in the prejudice of Sir Edward Herbert who was a stranger thereunto and whose Title was concerned therein and there was none on his part to inform the Iury the Iury was at last dismissed by the Court. LXV Penruddock and Newman 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae by Penruddock against Newman 1 Leon. 279 the Plaintiff declared of a Lease made by the Lord Morley and upon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That W. Lord Mounteagle seised of the manner of D. whereof c. became bound in a Statute in such a sum of Money to A. who died the Executors of A. sued Execution against the said Lord scil Extendi facias a Liberate issued upon which the said Manor was delivered to the Executors but the said Liberate was not retorned and it was farther found That the Executors being so possessed of the Manor the Lord commanded a Court Baron to be holden there which was done by sufferance and permission of the Executors and in their presence at which time the Executors said to the Lord the Conusor We have nothing to do with this Manor And upon this Verdict several matters were moved 1. If the Execution were well done because the Writ of Liberate was not retorned and as to that divers Books were cited 21 H. 6. 8. 18 E. 3. 25. And there is a difference betwixt a Liberate and a Capias ad satisfaciend and Fieri facias these Writs are Conditional Ita quod habeas corpus c. Ita quod habeas denarios hic in Curia 32 H. 8. ca. 28. 16 H. 7.
14. but contrary in a Writ of Habere facias seisinam or in a Liberate for in these Writs there are not such words and therefore although they be not retorned Execution done by virtue of them is good enough See 11 H. 4. 212. If the Sheriff by force of an Elegit doth deliver the moyety of the Land and doth not retorn the Writ if the Plaintiff will plead a new Action of Debt the Defendant may plead in Bar the Execution aforesaid although the Writ be not retorned nor doth remain upon Record and it is not like unto the Case of Partition made by the Sheriff for that must be retorned because that after the Retorn of it a secondary Iudgment is to be given scil Quod Partitio praedict firma stabilis remaneat in perpetuum firma stabilis in perpetuum tenetur says the Book of Entries 114. And Egerton the Solicitor-General cited a Case to be lately adjudged betwixt the Earl of Leicester and the Lady Tanfield Earl of Leicester and Tanfields case That such an Execution was well enough although the Liberate was not retorned The second point was Admitting that it be a good Execution If the Executors being in possession of the Manor and suffering the Conusor to hold a Court there and saying the words aforesaid in the presence of the Lord who is Conusor if the same do amount unto a Surrender or not And it was the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice That it was not a Surrender for that here the words are not addressed to the Conusor who was capable of a Surrender but to other persons And it is not like unto the Case of 40 E. 3. 23 24. Chamberlains Assise where Tenant for life saith to him in the Reversion That his Will is that he enter upon the Land the same is a good Surrender because here is a person certain who may take the Land But in our case it is but a general speech and therefore it shall not be a Surrender LXVI Baskervile and Bishop of Hereford 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit brought by Walter Baskervile against the Bishop of Hereford and others the Plaintiff counted That Sir Nicholas Arnold Knight was seised of the Advowson in gross and granted the same to the said Baskervile and others to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Richard Arnold his Son in tail Proviso That if the said Nicholas died his Heir being within the age of twenty three years that then the Grantees and their Heirs should be seised to themselves and their Heirs until the said Richard had accomplished the said age Sir Nicholas died Richard being but of the age of fourteen years by force whereof the Grantees were possessed of the said Advowson c. and afterwards the Church became void and so it appertained to them to present Exception was taken to the Count by Serjeant Gawdy because the Plaintiff had not averred the life of Richard upon whose life the interest of the Plaintiff did depend and he compared the same to the Case of the Parson which had been adjudged where the Lessee of a Parson brought an Ejectione Firmae and it was found for him and in Arrest of Iudgment Exception was taken to the Declaration because the life of the Parson was not averred and for that cause the Iudgment was stayed Anderson Vpon the dying of Sir Nicholas Richard being but of the age of fourteen years an absolute Interest for nine years vested in the Grantees not determinable upon the death of Richard or rather they are seised of a Fee determinable upon the coming of Richard to the age of 23 years Rhodes and Windham Iustices contrary and that here is an Interest in the Grantees determinable upon the death of Richard within the term for if Richard dieth without issue within the term the Remainder is limited over to a stranger And as to the Exception to the Count it was argued by Puckering Serjeant That the Count was good enough for although the life of Richard be not expresly added yet such an averment is strongly implied and so supplyed For the Count is Quod dictus Nich. obiit dicto Richardo being of the age of fourteen years non amplius by force of which the Plaintiff was possessed of the said Advowson quo quidem Nich. sic possessionato existente the Church voided and possessed he could not be if not that the said Richard had then been alive and that is as strong as an Averment See 10 E. 4. 18. In Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleaded That A. was seised and did enfeoff him to which the Plaintiff said That long time before A. had any thing B. was seised and leased to the said A. at will who enfeoffed the Defendant upon whom B. re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff at will by force whereof he was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass and that was allowed to be a good Replication without averring the life of B. who leased to the Plaintiff at will for that is supplied by the words scil virtute cujus the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass See also 10 H. 7. 12. In an Assise of Common The Defendant made Title that he was seised of a House and a Carve of Land to which he and all those whose Estate he hath c. had common appendant and doth not say That he is now seised of the House but the exception was disallowed for seisin shall be intended to continue untill the contrary be shewed LXVII Morgan and Chandler 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt for Arrerages of Rent by Morgan against Chandler It was found by special Verdict That the Land out of which c. was assured by an Act of Parliament to the Marchioness of Northampton for the term of her life the remainder to the Lady Bourcher her daughter and the heirs males of her body the remainder to King H. 8. in Fee And it was ordained by the same Act Quod omnes concessiones dimissiones Anglice Grants and Leases factae vel in posterum fiendae by the said Marchioness of the Lands aforesaid per script Indentat dict Marchio bonae validae in Lege erunt durante termino c. The Marchioness made a Lease for 21 years to Kenelm Throgmorton rendring 10 l. Rent who assigned the same to the Defendant The Lady Bourcher died without Issue the Marchioness died and if the Lease should now bind the Queen was the Question And it was moved by Clark of Lincoln's-Inn That it should for the King was party to the Act of Parliament and those Estates for life in Tail and in Fee are all as one Estate and derived out of one Estate and the Estate of the King is bound with the Lease and it was moved by Broughton That the Lease should not bind the Queen and so by consequence not her Patentee and he
in execution it was adjudged in this Case that the Conusee should have the Corn sowed The same Law in case of a Recognizance LXXVI Smalman and Lane 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was a Capias upon an original Process was delivered to the new Sheriff of Warwick against Lane at the suit of Smalman And the Sheriff informed the Court that before that the Process was directed to him That the said Lane was taken in Execution by the old Sheriff upon a judgment given against him in the King's-Bench and that the said old Sheriff had imprisoned the said Lane by force of the Execution in his own house and there he remained and prayed the advice of the Court what retorn he should make upon that matter because the said Lane was never in his possession for all the other prisoners which were in the Gaol and in the ordinary Prisons were delivered to him and the old Sheriff would not bring Lane to the place where the other Prisoners were delivered And it was the opinion of all the Iustices That by the Law the old Sheriff ought to deliver the body of him who is in his custody by view to the new Sheriff and such Prisoners ought to be brought unto him to view and from that time the Law shall adjudge such Prisoners to be in the possession of the new Sheriff and not before for he is not bound to go to them not being in the ordinary Prison of the County Anderson The new Sheriff may retorn That the said Lane is in Execution in custodia sua and so charge himself For although the Office of the old Sheriff be determined yet it is not an escape so long as the party be in custodia and not at large Periam contrary It is an escape in the old Sheriff as soon as his authority is determined the Prisoner not delivered See now C. 3. part 71. Wesby's Case LXXVII Megot and Broughton and Davie 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 105. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit it was found by Nisi prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank one of the Defendants died and after Iudgment given the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the same Court where the Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of one of the Defendants pendant the Writ Roll 798. b. 3 Len. 96. Vide 2 E. 3. 21. It was said that the Case is not like the Case of an Action of Trespass for every Trespass done by many is several by each of them but every Assumpsit is joint and not several Another point was moved If the Court could reverse their own Iudgement Quaere LXXVIII Farrington and Fleetwood 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THE Case upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries was this 3 Len. 164 165. ante 333. Plus The Abbat and Convent of A. c. 29 H. 8. made a Lease of certain Lands for three lives to begin after the death of one F. if they so long live and afterwards 30 H. 8 within a year before the dissolution they make another Lease to Fleetwood If the first Lease in the life of the said F. be such an Estate and Interest as by virtue of the said Statute shall make the second Lease void was the Question for it was not in esse but a future Interest Manwood All the reason that hath been made for the second Lease is because the first Lease is but a possibility for F. by possibility may survive all the said three and so it shall never take effect But notwithstanding be it a possibility or otherwise it is such a thing which may be granted or forfeited and that during the life of F. And note the words of the Statute If any Abbat c. within one year next before the first day of this present Parliament hath made or hereafter shall make any Lease or Grant for years life or lives of any Manors c. whereof and in which any Estate or Interest for life or years at the time of the making of any such Lease or Grant then had his being or continuance and hereafter shall have his being or continuance and then was not determined c. shall be void c. And here is an Interest and that not determined at the time of the making of the Lease to Fleetwood And of such Opinion were all the Barons and divers other Iustices and therefore a Decree was made against the Lease c. LXXIX Beaumont 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte it was holden by all the Barons in the Exchequer Owen Rep. 46. That a Duty which is not naturally a Debt but by circumstances onely as Debt upon a Bond for performance of Covenants or to save harmless may be assigned over to the Queen for a Debt but in such case a present Extent shall not issue but a Scire facias shall issue forth to know if the party hath any thing to plead against such Assignment LXXX Goddard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was moved in the Case of Goddard concerning the Manor of Staple in Hampshire 11 Leon. 8. If the Tenant of the King of Lands holden in Capite be disseised and the Disseisor aliens the Lands and afterwards the Disseisee doth re-re-enter Manwood said That the Land shall not be charged with a Fine for alienation without licence because the Title of the Alienee grew under the wrong of the Disseisor but the person of the Disseisor shall be charged with such Fine Tenant of the King in Capite makes a Lease for life the Lessee for life makes a Feoffment in Fee without licence the Lessor re-entreth neither his person nor the Land shall be charged But if my Feoffee upon Condition maketh a Feoffment without license and I re-re-enter for the Condition broken now my Land shall be charged with the Fine upon Alienation for the Feoffee was in by me by good and lawfull Title because he had power to make a Feoffment over although subject to the Condition So if Tenant in tail or the Husband seised in the Right of his Wife make a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards the Land is recontinued the Fine accruing for Alienation without licence shall bind the Land And if Tenant for life loseth issues and dieth the Lands shall be charged with the same LXXXI The Lord of Northampton and Lord St. John 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Roll. 195. Co. 12. 1 2. Co. 4. 95. Dyer 262. THE Lord of Northampton had by ancient Letters Patents bona catalla felonum fugitivorum within the Isle of Ely and one dwelling within the Island was attainted of Felony to whom another was indebted by Obligation and the money by the Condition of the Bond was to be paid at a Manor of the Lord St. John's who within his Manor
Disseisor the Disseisee entereth in the life of Tenant in tail who afterwards dieth the warranty works nothing for the cause aforesaid And also he put this Case Tenant in tail of Land grants a Rent-charge in Fee and an Ancestor collateral releaseth to the Grantee with warranty and dieth the Tenant in tail dieth now the issue is bound but if Tenant in tail dieth before him who maketh the Release now the Rent is determined by the death of Tenant in tail and then the warranty cannot attach upon it At another day the Case was moved and conceived in these words scil Tenant for life the Remainder in tail Tenant for life leaseth for years a Recovery is had against him in the Remainder in tail living Tenant for life the Recoverors enter and oust the Lessee for years the Son and Heir of him in the Remainder in tail releaseth with warranty to him to whom the Recoverors have assured the Lands the Lessee enters he against whom the Recovery was had dieth the Releasor dieth c. It was holden that the Entry of the Lessee before that the warranty had attached upon the possession which passed had avoided the warranty And the Lord Anderson conceived That the Recovery should not prejudice the issue in tail but that the issue shall Fauxifie the same And if Tenant in tail be disseised and so disseised suffereth a common Recovery his issue shall not be barred quod fuit concessum per omnes And afterwards another matter was moved scil That the Release is pleaded to be made to Lincoln College by the name of Custodi sociis Scholaribus Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia where the true name of the College as is confessed by the Record in the Plea pleaded is Custos sive Rector Socii Scholares Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia c. It was adjourned See this Case reported 3 part Lincoln College Case LXXXIII Hall and the Bishop of Bath 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HAll brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Bath and others The Incumbent pleaded Quod ipse nihil habet nec habere clamat c. nisi de praesentatione Georgii Sidenham militis not named in the Writ and demanded Iudgment of the Writ upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was argued by Drew Serjeant for the Plaintiff That the Writ was well brought without naming the Patron for if a Quare Impedit be brought against the Patron and Incumbent and the Patron dieth 1 Leon. 45. pendant the Writ the Writ shall not abate 9 H. 6. 30. It might be that the Plaintiff did not know nor could tell who presented the said Incumbent but he findeth the Incumbent a Disturber by his Incumbency and if of necessity such Patron ought to be named then if such a Vsurper should die before the Writ brought he which hath cause of Action should be remediless And by Anderson and Periam the Writ is good enough for the reason aforesaid And Anderson put this case If A. wrongfully by Vsurpation doth present and his Clark is received and afterwards A. having gained the Patronage grants it over to B. Against whom shall the Quare Impedit be brought Walmsley Against B. which Anderson doubted LXXXIV Hughe 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Formedon the Writ was That A. Dedit Aliciae filiae suae and to J.S. and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten and it was shewed in abatement of the Writ That the name of the Wife is put before the name of the Husband To which it was said by the Court that if such a Writ be brought against the Husband and Wife and the name of the Wife be put before the name of the Husband the Writ shall abate and if in the Case at Bar it had appeared That the Donees at the time of the Gift were Husband and Wife upon such a matter disclosed the Writ should abate but that doth not appear plainly to the Court. LXXXV Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE It was holden by the Court 1 Cro. 567. 3 Cro. 224. Post 189. That if a Writ of Dower be brought against an Infant who loseth by default at the Grand Cape that he may reverse the same by a Writ of Error but where an Infant appeareth by Guardian and afterwards loseth by default there he shall never avoid it for if any default be in the Guardian the Infant shall recover against him in a Writ of Deceit And afterwards the Iudgment in the first case was reversed LXXXVI Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer-Chamber NOTE In the Exchequer-Chamber before the Lord Chancellour The two chief Iustices and the chief Baron a Writ of Error was cast upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer and it was agreed Quod propter absentiam Dom. Thesaurarii Angliae They ought not nor could receive the said Writ and the Statute of 31 Eliz. doth not help the matter for that extends but to discontinuances which before the Statute many times hapned for the not coming of the Chancellour or Treasurer and not to give Conusance in a Writ of Error in the absence of the Treasurer c. LXXXVII Lacy and Fisher 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin by Lacy against Fisher The Defendant pleaded that the place where c. is called Spicold and holden of the Manor of Easthall by certain Rent and made Conusance as Bailiff of the Lord of the said Manor and issue being joined hereupon It was tried by the Iury of the Visne of Spicold and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the issue was mis-tried For the Visne ought to have been of Spicold and Easthall also Web and Richmond's Case And a Case was cited to have been adjudged accordingly betwixt Webb and Richmond M. 31 Eliz. in the same Court. LXXXVIII Corbet 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That an Action of Debt was brought by original Writ against an Administrator in another County than where the Administrator was dwelling and before notice of that suit he paid divers other debts of the Intestate due by specialties so as he had not Assets to pay the debt in demand having Assets at the day of the Teste of the original and now the Defendant appearing pleads the same special matter and concluded And so nothing remained in his hands And it was holden per Curiam to be a good Plea See 2 H. 4. 21 22. LXXXIX Sir William Pelham 's Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer 1 Co. 41. THE Case short put was this A. Tenant for life of a Messuage c. the remainder in tail to B. with divers remainders over A. by Deed indented and enrolled bargained and sold the Messuage c. so conveyed to Sir William Pelham in Fee who afterwards suffered a common Recovery thereof in which A. is vouched and so a common Recovery is had and executed and
all this was before the Statute of 14 Eliz. And if the said Recovery should bind B. who was in the remainder in tail or if it be a forfeiture was the Question Altham of Gray's-Inn argued that here is a forfeiture First it is to see if a common Recovery suffered hy Tenant for life who is also Bargainor in this case be a forfeiture or not by the Common Law if no Execution be sued upon the same Recovery Secondly If the Recovery be executed if he in the Remainder may enter for the forfeiture When Tenant for life bargaineth and selleth the Messuage Post 65. acc 1 Len. 264. 1 Inst 251. b. acc 1 Inst 330. b. c. although upon it an Estate in Fee be limited yet nothing passeth from him but that which he may lawfully pass and that was the Estate for the life of the Bargainor for such Estate onely might lawfully pass and here the Bargainee is but Tenant for the life of another and when with his own consent he suffers a common Recovery and that without right the same is a forfeiture By matter in fact a particular Tenant may commit a forfeiture as well as by matter of Record By matter in fact he cannot commit a forfeiture if the Reversion be not thereby pulled out of him in the reversion As if Lessee for ten years maketh a Lease for 1000 years the same is no forfeiture for by that the Reversion is not touched but if he in matter of Record doe any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the Reversion although in truth it doth not touch the inheritance yet it is a forfeiture which see 39 E. 3. 16. If Tenant for life plead any thing against the right of him in the Reversion it is a forfeiture And by Finchden and Belknap he cannot plead to the right 5 Ass 3. Tenant for life is impleaded in a Praecipe by a stranger and confesseth the Action upon which the Demandant hath Iudgment the Lessor enters against whom the Demandant sueth Execution and the Lessor brought an issue and had Iudgment to recover for it is a forfeiture because the Tenant for life hath admitted the Reversion in another because it is an alienation to the disinheritance of the Plaintiff i. the Lessor 19 E. 3. t. Receit 14. where Tenant for life pleads in chief or doth not gainsay the Action of the Demandant or makes default by Covin he shall forfeit his Estate but if a Rent be demanded against Tenant for life and he render the same it is no forfeiture 22 Ass 31. Tenant for life is impleaded by Covin betwixt him and the Demandant and pleads in chief without aid prayer upon which Iudgment is given he in the Reversion may enter In a Quid juris clamat against Tenant for life who pleaded faulty traversing the point of the Action he in the Reversion shall not be received for in as much as the Tenant hath traversed the Action he is not within the Statute of West 2. of default Reddition but he in the Reversion may enter by the Common Law 22 E. 3. 2. In a Scire facias to execute a Fine against Tenant for life who pleaded to the Enquest whereas in truth the Land in demand was not comprised within the Fine and Iudgment is given for the Demandant in the Scire facias that he in the Reversion may enter In the principal Case here there is apparent and manifest covin for the Tenant for life is vouched without cause and this Recovery is by assent and is to the use of the Bargainee who is Tenant for the life of another and therefore by the Common Law he in the Reversion may enter before the Execution be sued And it is well known that these common Recoveries are used to dock a Remainder in tail and that was the scope of this Recovery And as to the Case of 5 E. 4. 2. Tenant for life is impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat who voucheth a stranger the Demandant counterpleads the vouchee and it is found for him he in the Reversion hath no remedy but a Writ of Right and if such vouchee enters into the Warranty and loseth by Action tried or by default c. That Book is to be intended of a Recovery executed for there in such a case he in the Reversion may not enter but is put to his Writ of Entry by the Common Law vide Br. Tit. Forfeit 87. 24 H. 8. Tenant for life is impleaded and prayes in aid of a stranger he in the reversion may enter but if he doth not enter untill the other hath recovered then he cannot enter but he is put to his Writ of Entry Ad terminum qui praeteriit vel de ingress ad com Legem and therein shall falsifie the Recovery And there by Brook Voucher of a stranger is not a cause of forfeiture for he doth not disaffirm the Reversion to be in the Lessor And he vouched 24 E. 3. 68. where Tenant for life pleaded in the Right without aid prayer and so he argued That before execution he in the Remainder might enter but after execution he is put to his Action but in our Case although Execution be sued yet he in the Remainder may enter for it is found by verdict That at the time of the Recovery he was within age and then no Laches of entry shall be imputed unto him and then he shall not be driven to his Action As if Tenant by the Curtesie maketh a Feoffment with Warranty and dieth and the same descendeth to his Heir within age yet he shall enter although that he had not avoided the Warranty in the life of his Ancestor And he also conceived that the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 31. did extend to this Case For Sir William Pelham the Bargainee was but Tenant for life and although that he be but Tenant for the life of another yet he is Tenant for life as fully as if he were Tenant for his own life The words of the Statute are or otherwise for the term of life or lives quo ad nom As upon the Statute of 20 E. 1. which gives receit i. de defensione juris the words are Cum quis aliquod Breve Dom. Regis impetret versus tenentem per Legem Angliae vel feodum talliatum vel sub nomine Dotis vel alio modo ad terminum vitae c. Also although that he who entreth at the time of the recovery was not next in the Remainder to the particular Estate yet he is within the Statute of 32 H. 8. for he was in the Remainder at the time of the Recovery and at the time of the entry he in the immediate Remainder was dead and then he next in Remainder See 15 E. 4. 9. by Littleton If I grant my services to one for life and he in a Praecipe brought against him plead in the Right or granteth unto another the said services in Fee the same is not any
forfeiture because it is not any discontinuance It will be objected That the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. are That such Recoveries shall be utterly void and if so then he in the Reversion cannot be damnified and then no cause of forfeiture To that it was easily to be answered That where Tenant for life doth any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the Reversion by matter of Record although it doth not devest or otherwise prejudice the Inheritance yet it is a forfeiture Coke contrary Here in our Case there is not any Covin Sir William Pelham the Bargainee he was deceived by the Bargainor for he did not know but that the Bargainor was seised in tail at the time of the Bargain and it was lawfull for him to doe other act in the farther assurance of his bargain and it was also lawfull for him to vouch his Bargainor and although the Bargainor vouched a stranger yet it is not a forfeiture 39 E. 3. 16. Aid prayer of a stranger is a forfeiture and the reason thereof is because he acknowledgeth the Reversion to be in a stranger and that is the cause of the forfeiture See Book of Entries 254. Where upon aid prayer the party to have aid sheweth special matter but in our Case Sir William Pelham hath vouched his Bargainor and that not without cause for he hath a Warranty from him and the Demandant could not counterplead it for he had seisin by force whereof he might make a Feoffment As unto the Case of 14 E. 3. Tit. Receit 135. Lesse for life in a Praecipe against him without aid prayer pleaded to the Enquest at the first day in that case it is said that he in the Reversion may enter It is true that he may enter in the Receit but not into the Land for forfeiture for then Fitz. would have abridged the Case in title of Entry Congeable and not in the Title of Receit and the Book of 5 E. 3. is good Law for there the Tenant doth confess the Reversion to be in another but in our Case the Tenant voucheth which is a lawfull act done and according to the Covenants of his purchase And although the Recovery be by agreement yet it is not therefore a forfeiture for if the Tenant for life voucheth truly it is no forfeiture Before the Statute of West 2. cap. 3. which gave Receit to the Wife and to those in the Reversion where the particular Tenant is impleaded and maketh default vel reddere noluerit there was no remedy in such cases but by Writ of Right but no entry and that was for the reason of the credit which the Law gave to Recoveries for if they might enter wherefore is Receit given but that was in two cases onely But afterwards because it was found that many particular Tenants being impleaded would plead faintly the Statute of 13 R. 2. gave receit in such cases And upon what reasons were these Acts and Statutes made if in such cases the entry was congeable But after these two Statutes another practice was devised for such particular Tenants would suffer Recoveries secretly in such sort that those in the Reversion could not have notice thereof so as they could not before Iudgement pray to be received to remedy which mischief the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made by which all Recoveries had against Tenant by the Curtesie or otherwise for life or lives by agreement of the parties of any Lands whereof such particular Tenant is seised shall be void as Tenant by the Curtesie c. should be void against him in the Reversion and yet there was an evasion to creep out of that Statute for such particular Tenants would make a Feoffment with Warranty and then the Feoffee should be impleaded in a Writ of Entry and he vouch the Tenant for life who would aver and such Recovery was holden to be out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. For the Recovery was not against such particular Tenants c. For the remedy of which mischief the Statute of 14 Eliz. was made by which it is provided That such Recoveries had where such particular Tenants are vouched shall be void if such Recovery be by Covin betwixt them And he conceived That the forfeiture is not in respect of the Recovery it self but of the Plea pleaded by the Tenant And here in our Case there is not any Covin found or that Sir William Pelham knew that he was but Tenant for life but it is found that this Recovery was with their assent and that was lawfull as the case is for they might agree to have such a Recovery for farther assurance and so Sir William Pelham hath not vouched any but his Bargainor and that according to their Covenants and this Bargainor was not a bare Tenant for life but he had also a Remainder in tail although not immediately depending upon the Estate for life which he had cut off there it was not meerly a feigned Recovery See 5 E. 4. 2. and 24 H. 8. br Forfeit 87. where Tenant for life being impleaded in a Praecipe voucheth a stranger the same is no Forfeiture for the same doth not disaffirm the Reversion but contrary of Aid prayer for a stranger may release with warranty to Tenant for life upon which he may vouch And he reported in his Argument That Bromley Chancellor of England sent him to both the chief Iustices to know their Opinions upon this point and they were of Opinion That the Voucher of a stranger was not any Forfeiture and also that after the Recovery was executed he in the Remainder could not enter but they conceided that the Right of him in the Remainder was not bound And he said That after the Recovery was executed that he in the remainder could not enter See 24 H. 8. Br. Forfeit 87. For if Entry in such Cases should be lawfull infinite Suits would follow thereupon which would be much to the Discredit of common Recoveries which are now the Common Assurances of the Land. As to the objection of the Enfancy the same will not help the matter Br. Sav. Default 50. 6 H. 8. A Recovery had against an Infant in which he voucheth and loseth is not erroneous contrary of a Recovery upon a default And if an Infant Tenant in tail suffer a common Recovery the same is a discontinuance for in such Recoveries Infancy is not respected And in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment had against the Father the Heir shall not have his age And he cited a case out of Bendloe's Reports 5 Eliz. Tenant for life the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee Tenant for life is disseised by Covin in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Disseisor he voucheth the Tenant for life who enters into warranty generally and voucheth over the common Vouchee It was adjudged That the Recovery was out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. for the Recovery was not had against the particular Tenant for he
was both against the common Law and also against all Conscience These matters coming to the knowledge of the Iustices and the mischiefs thereupon following being very frequent and it appearing that the Tenant in tail was a dangerous fellow and that there was no safe dealing with him they took consideration of them and considering also with themselves That Lineal Warranty and Assets and Collateral Warranty without Assets did bar the Entail upon this consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries So as by that means Tenant in tail hath Potestatem alienandi as he hath at the Common Law and by this means right was done to the Common Law because its authority was restored and thereby injury was done to no man But as for Tenant for life he never had Potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the recovery shall stand in force untill after the death of Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is alive Truly if the Law should be such great mischiefs would follow For then great Iointresses the Widows of great persons having assurances to them of great and stately Houses and of Lands furnished with Timber of great yearly value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit waste and the same should be dispunishable which would be an intolerable mischief and so he concluded that the suffering of a Recovery was a forfeiture and Iudgment Trin. 21 Eliz. was given and entred accordingly XC Noon 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer DEBT was brought in London against one as Executor and upon fully administred pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who assigned the same to the Queen whereupon a Scire facias issued out of the Exchequer against the Defendant into the County of Dorset The Serhiff retorned Nulla bona c. which Scire facias was upon a Constat of goods in another County It was agreed by all the Barons that the Debt was well assigned to the Queen And also that the Scire facias might issue forth of another Court than where the Record of the Iudgment remained and that upon a Constat of goods in another County than where the Writ is brought or where the party is dwelling he may well have a Scire facias in another County But the Retorn was challenged because contrary to the verdict As in a Replevin No such beast is not a good Retorn but Averia elongata or Nullus venit ex parte querentis ad monstrand averia And here the Sheriff might have retorned Devastavit which well stands with the Verdict 5 H. 7. 27. But as to that it was said by the Barons That it is true that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ was brought is concluded by the Verdict to make any retorn contrary to it but the Sheriff of another County shall not so be but the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought ought to retorn Devastavit c. and thereupon the Plaintiff shall have Process into another County But the Question farther was If a Scire facias upon Testatum shall issue into another County before that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought had retorned a Devastavit for some conceived That a Devastavit where the Writ was brought ought first to be retorned and then upon a Testatum Process should issue forth into any County within England But others were of opinion That without a Devastavit retorned upon a Testatum Process might be sued forth immediately into any other County Williams said If I recover goods by Action brought in Midd. I may upon a Testatum have a Capias into any foreign County XCI Western and Weild 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN a Writ of Accompt brought in London the Defendant pleaded Never his Receiver c. which was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgement given that the Defendant should accompt Afterwards the Defendant brought his Writ of Privilege and if the same should be allowed after Iudgment was the Question Coke It shall be allowed for the Defendant hath not surceased his time This Iudgement to accompt is not properly a Iudgment for no Writ of Error lieth upon it before the accompt be ended Manwood Regularly after Iudgment no privilege shall be allowed but that is to be intended of a Iudgment ended but here notwithstanding this Iudgment the Action is depending and therefore he conceived that the privilege should be allowed in this case It was objected That then the Plaintiff should be at great mischief for he should lose the advantage of his Trial for he must begin again and plead again and have a new Trial. Clark the Plaintiff shall have benefit of his former Trial by way of Evidence XCII Brian and Cawsen 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Rot. 1353. 3 Len. 115. IN an Action of Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen That William Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the custome of the Manor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he devised them in this manner i. I bequeath to John Th. my House and Land in M. called Larks and Sone To Steph. Th. my House and Land called Stokes and Newmans and to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said John Stephen or Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their bodies lawfully begotten then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their Heirs in manner aforesaid to give and sell at their pleasure but if it fortune one of them to die without issue of his body lawfully begotten Then I will that the other brothers or brother have all the said Houses and Lands in manner aforesaid and if it fortune the three to die without issue in like manner Then I will that all the said Houses and Lands be sold by my Executor or his Assigns and the money to be given to the poor The Devisor dieth John Stephen and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without issue John and Stephen are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath issue J. and surrenders all his part of the whole and his Estate therein to the use of Stephen and his heirs who is admitted accordingly Stephen comes of full age John the father dieth Stephen dieth without issue John the son as cosin and heir of Stephen is admitted according to the Will and afterwards dieth without issue The Wives of the Plaintiffs are heirs to him and are admitted to the said Lands called Larks and Sone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcell of Lands where c. by force whereof they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done and it was found That A. sole Executor died intestate and that Cawsen
Son living his Father cannot take as heir i. by limitation as Heir to his Father because that none can be said or held Heir to his Father as long as the Father be alive yet by way of Devise the Law shall favour the intention of the party and the intent of the Devisor shall prevail But all the Court was strongly against it and held that as well in Case of Devise as of Grant all is one Whereupon the Tenant produced Witnesses who affirmed upon their Oaths That the Devisor declared his meaning concerning the said Will That as long as his eldest Son had issue of his body that the Daughters should not have the Land but the Court utterly rejected the matter and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XCV the Countess of Linnox Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN this Case it was said by Manwood chief Baron That whereas the Cistercians c. had a Privilege that they should not pay Tithes for their Lands quas propriis manibus excolant but their Fermors should pay Tithes and now by the Statute of 31 H. 8. they are dissolved That the Queen and her Fermors should be discharged of such Tithes as the spiritual persons were for the Queen cannot excolere ergo her Fermors shall be discharged and so long as the Queen hath the Freehold her Fermors shall have such Privilege although she Leaseth for years or at Will But if the Queen granteth over the Reversion then the Fermors shall pay Tithes More Rep. 915. XCVI Golding 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case against Gloding the Case was 1 Len. 296. 1 Cro. 50. Noy 18. A Feme sole being Tenant for life by Devise of Lands Leased the same for years to begin after her death and afterwards made another Lease 18 Octob. for twenty one years to the same Lessee to begin at Michaelmas before and the Pleading was Virtute cujus quidem dimissionis and the Lessee entred Crast Sanct. Mich. which was before the making of the Lease And upon the Grant of these two Leases the consideration of Assumpsit was grounded in an Action of the Case thereupon and six hundred pounds damages given And now this was moved in Arrest of Iudgment Coke for the Plaintiff Where two Considerations are laid down in the Declaration although that the one be void yet if the other be sufficient the Action upon the Assumpsit lieth and damages shall be taken accordingly And the Grant upon the Assumpsit was That both the Leases should be assigned to the Defendant and the Plaintiff hath declared accordingly although that one of the Leases be void And the Agreement was That the Plaintiff should assign totum statum titulum interesse suum quae habet in c. It appears here in the Pleading That the Lease was made the eighteenth of October and the Lessee did enter and was thereof possessed Crast Mich. which was before and so the Lessee then entering was a Disseisor But by Coke the same is not a Disseisin although that the Lessee entreth before the Lease made for there was a communication of a Lease although the Lease was not made before the eighteenth of October and peradventure it was by assent of the Lessor in which case it cannot be a Disseisin but be it a Disseisin yet in as much as he hath assigned all his interest quod ipse tunc habuit the Consideration is answered and he hath also delivered both the Indentures of Demise and hath granted all that which he might grant be such Grant void or good it is good Consideration enough as to us Egerton Solicitor contrary In every Action upon the Case upon a Promise there are three things considerable Consideration Promise and Breach of Promise As to the Consideration in our Case the Grant of the Lease which is to begin after the death of the Lessor is merely void And as to the second Consideration it appeareth That the Lessor at the time of the making of the Lease had but a Right for he was disseised for he who was afterwards the Lessee entred before he had any Lease made unto him and so here is not any consideration to ground the Assumpsit upon But admit that there be a consideration yet the Action doth not lie For 19 Eliz. a difference was taken by the Iustices scil When in the Declaration in an Action upon the Case two or more considerations are laid and are not collateral but pursuant As if I owe you an hundred pounds and I say That in consideration that I owe you 100 l. and in consideration that you shall give me 10 l. I promise to pay unto you the said hundred pounds which I owe you If you bring an Action upon the Case against me for the hundred pounds and lay in your Declaration both considerations although you do not pay me the ten pounds yet the Action lieth But where the considerations are not pursuant but meerly collateral and do not depend the one upon the other As in consideration that you are of my Councel and you shall ride with me to York I promise to give to you an hundred pounds there both considerations ought to be performed or otherwise the Action doth not lie and so here in the principal Case the considerations being collateral they both ought to be performed Afterwards upon consideration had of the Case by the Court Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and it was said by Coke That there was not any Disseisin in the Case but he who entred was Tenant at sufferance by reason of the precedent communication XCVII Curtise and Cottel 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was this That one Bonham was seised of a Manor within which there were divers Customary Lands demisable by Copy for three lives The Lord of the Manor did demise some of those Lands to three Sisters Habendum to them for their lives successive for the Fine of 100 l. by them paid and they being seised accordingly the eldest Sister who was Tenant in possession took to Husband one Chapman after which the said Lord by Indenture leased the same Land to the eldest Sister the Remainder to the Husband the Remainder to the second Sister and no Agreement was made thereunto by the second Sister by Deed before or after the making of the Indenture but four days after the Lease made she agreed to it in the Country and then took to Husband Curtise and they entred claiming the said Land upon which Entry the Action was brought The point was That when the Lease by Indenture was made to the eldest Sister at which time no agreement was made by the second Sister who was in Remainder yet when after she agreed If by that Agreement her Right to the Copihold were extinct or not so as the interest of the eldest Sister being gone by the acceptance of the Estate by the Indenture the second Sister might come and claim
Law doth admit the oath of the party in his own cause as in Debt the Defendant shall wage his Law Periam That 's an ancient Law but we will not make new Presidents for if such oath be accepted in this Case by the same reason in all cases where is secrecy and no external proof upon which would follow great inconveniencies and although such an Oath hath been before accepted of and allowed here yet the same doth not move us and we see no reason to multiply such Presidents The Declaration is that the Plaintiff was robbed of 10 l. de denariis ipsius querentis and upon the Evidence it appeareth That the Plaintiff was the Receiver of the Lady Rich and had received the said money for the use of the said Lady and exception was taken to it by Shuttleworth but it was not allowed for the Plaintiff is accomptable to the Lady Rich the said money And it was agreed that if he who was robbed after he hath made Hue and Cry doth not farther follow the thieves yet his Action doth remain CX Large 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Len. 182. THE Case was A. seised of Lands in Fee devised the Lands to his wife until William his son should come to the age of 22 years and then the Remainder of part of the Lands to his two sons A. and John The Remainder of other part of his Lands to two others of his said sons upon condition That if any of his said sons before William should come to the age of 22 years shall go about to make any sale of any part c. he shall for ever lose the Lands and the same shall remain over c. And before his said son William came to the age of 22 years one of the other sons Leased that which to him belonged for 60 years and so from 60 years to 60 years until 240 years ended c. Bois A. and J. are joynt-tenants of the Remainder and he said That the opinion of Audley Lord Chancellor of England is not Law scil where a man deviseth Lands to two and to their heirs they are not joynt-tenants as to the survivor but if one of them dieth the survivor shall not have the whole but the heir of his that dieth shall have the moyety See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 29. And he said That this Lease although it be for so many years is not a sale intended within the Will and so is not a Ioynture 46 E. 3. One was bounden that he should not alien certain Lands and the Obligor did thereof enfeoff his son and heir apparent the same was held to be no alienation within the Condition of the Obligation Of the other side it was argued The remainder doth not vest presently for it is incertain if it shall vest at all for if William dieth before he cometh to the age of 22 years it was conceived by him that the Remainder shall never vest for the words of the Will are Then the Lands shall remain c. 34 E. 3. Formedon 36. Land is devised to A. for life and if he be disturbed by the heir of the Devisor that then the Land shall remain to D. Here D. hath not any remainder before that A. be disturbed It was farther argued that here is a good Condition and that the Devisee is not utterly restrained from sale but onely untill a certain time scil to the age of William of 22 years And it was said that this Lease is a Covenous Lease being made for 240 years without any Rent reserved As such a Lease made for 100 years or 200 years is Mortmain as well as if it had been an express Feoffment or Alienation But it was said by some Antea 36 37. that here is not any sale at all nor any lease for the Lessor himself hath not any thing in the Land demised As if a man disseiseth a Feme sole and seaseth the Lands and afterwards marrieth the disseisee he shall avoid his own Lease 5 E 3. One was bound that he should not alien such a Manor the Obligor alieneth one Acre parcell of it the Obligation is forfeit See 29 H. 8. Br. Mortgage 36. A. leaseth to a religious house for 100 years and so from 100 years to 100 years untill 800 years be encurred the same is Mortmain Vide Stat. 7 E. 1. Colore termini emere vel vendere And in the principal Case if the Devisee had entred into a Statute to the value of the Land leased by the intent of the Will the same had been a sale and such was the opinion of the whole Court and by the Court the word in perpetuum shall not be referred to the words precedent but unto the words following scil in perpetuum perdat the Lands And if a custome be in the case that the Infant of the age of 15 years may sell his Lands if he make a Lease the same is not warranted by the custome And afterwards it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Lease made as before was a sale within the intent of the Will of the Devisor CXI Brooke 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench APpeal of Burglary was brought against Brooke who was found guilty and before Iudgment given the Plaintiff died And now Egerton moved that Iudgment should be given for the Queen upon that verdict or at least that the Declaration in the Appeal should be in lieu of an Indictment and that the Appealee be thereupon arraigned and put to answer the same For if the Appellant had been Nonsuit or released the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen Coke God hath now by the death of the party delivered the Defendant and it is not like where the Plaintiff releaseth for there it is the default of the Act of the party but here it is the Act of God and he held it for a rule That where auterfoits acquit is a good Plea there also auterfoits convict shall be a good Plea And it was holden in Sir Tho. Holcroft's Case Sir Thomas Holcroft's Case That where the party is convicted at the suit of the Queen there the Appeal doth not afterwards lie Wray If the Appellant dieth before Verdict the Defendant shall be arraigned at the suit of the King But if his life hath been once in jeopardy by Verdict he conceived that it shall not again be drawn into danger and some were of opinion that the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen upon the whole Record and plead auterfoits acquit and that they said was the surest way CXII Ognel and Paston 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer .. 1 Cro. 64. CLement Paston was Defendant in an Action of Debt brought against him by George Ognel upon an Escape and the Case was this Francis Woodhouse was bound in a Recognizance to the said Ognel Whereupon Ognel sued forth a Scire facias and upon two Nihils retorned had
also of Statutes We cannot deny but that we have Lands of the Conusor and of the Gift of the Conusor our Ancestor whose Heir we are who was indebted to the Queen and yet we are not within this Statute Was or shall be indebted shall not be intended after the Gift made for if he first convey his Land and afterwards becomes indebted the same is not within the Statute and where a mischief is to be remedied by a Statute the remedy in exposition of the Statute is to be applied according as the mischief doth require Shall be is to be intended of future Debts after the Statute and in our case the Father was not Receivor or other Officer to the Queen And if this Statute should be so construed the Father might take 10000 l. for the Marriage of his son and assurance of Lands unto him and then if he will acknowledge a Debt to the Queen he should defeat the whole which should be a very great mischief The words are By Gift after the Debt acknowledged to the Queen And he cited the Case 19 Eliz. Plow 191. betwixt Ludford and Gretton upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. the words of which are That whatsoever Warrant hereafter to the Chancellor of England addressed the day of the delivery of the same it be entred of Record in the Chancery and that the Chancellour make Letters Patents upon the same Warrants bearing date the day of the said delivery in the Chancery and not before and all Letters Patents made to the contrary shall be void And the Case was That a Warrant was directed to the Chancellour for the making of Letters Patents and delivered to him before the making of them but the day of the delivery was not entred of Record c. And it was holden that notwithstanding that the Letters Patents were good for the mischief at the Common Law intended to be reformed by that Act was not the post-dating of the Letters Patents but the ante-dating and therefore that ought to be principally taken into consideration which mischief being understood the words of the said Statute are to be applied to it ipsae etenim Leges cupiunt ut jure regantur i. with an Equity according to the Mischief and not always according to the precise words and in that case it is sufficient if the Letters Patents bear date after and not before the delivery of the Warrant and that was the matter intended to be reformed Also as our Case here is we are not within this Statute for the words are Of the Gift of his Ancestour but here the Son hath not the Lands of the Gift of his Ancestour but rather by the Statute of Vses and so he is in the Post and not in the Per by his Ancestour for here the Fine was levied to divers persons unto the Vses aforesaid and here the Gift was not a mere gratuity to his Son but in consideration that he should marry the Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston and also the Father was the King's Debtor after the Gift and not before Popham Attorney-General to the contrary The letter of the Statute is with us for he comes in of the Gift of his Ancestour who was indebted to the Queen and although that the Gift was by way of use yet the precedents in the Common-Pleas and other Courts are That he may declare of the Feoffment of such a one although it was by way of use and he said If A. be bound to enfeoff B. of such Lands if he maketh a Feoffment to the use of B. and his Heirs he hath well enough performed the Condition and if the Case should not be within the Statute then should that branch of the Statute be idle and to no purpose For if the Ancestour be seised and becometh indebted to the Queen and after makes a conveyance ut supra the same is provided for by the first branch of the Statute For the Land is liable to the Recognizance or Obligation made to the King and that they shall be as effectual as a Statute Staple and reason requires that the son who comes in by mere gratuity of his Ancestour should be charged And it was a common practice before the making of that Statute That the King's Officers would convey their Lands to their children and then become the King's Debtors for the remedy of which mischief the Statute was made and the Statute of 27 Eliz. doth not respect the Heir because he is Heir but as a purchasor onely and that upon good consideration Coke If any fraud can be found in our Case then without doubt we should be within the Statute but being upon good consideration it is out of the Statute nor was there any purpose in the father when he made the said Conveyance to become the King's Debtor or Officer to him for if there were then he is within the Statute also the Gift had been a mere gratuity c. And afterwards at another day the Case was moved by Coke and he said That here is not any Gift because it was in consideration of Marriage and then no gift for it is an old Proverb What is freer than gift Egerton The father giveth to his son and heir the same is within the Statute and yet here is consideration scil of blood Coke contrary Where the father giveth to his younger son or to his daughter which is not his heir and of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron And afterwards as Coke reported the son and his Lands were discharged CXV Amner and Luddington 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Error 3 Len. 89. 8 Co. 96. ERror was brought in the King's-Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. The Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased unto Pierpoint for ninety nine years who devised the same by his Will in this manner I bequeath to my Wife the Lease of my House during her life and after her death I will that it go amongst my Children unpreferred Pierpoint died his Wife entred and was possessed virtute legationis praedict and took Husband one Fulshurst against whom one Beswick recovered in an Action of Debt 140 l. upon which Recovery issued forth a Fieri facias and upon that a Venditioni Exponas upon which the Sheriff sold the said term so devised to one Reynolds Fulshurst died his Executor brought Error to reverse the Iudgment given against the Testator at the Suit of Beswick the Wife did re-re-enter and sold the Land and died Alice an unpreferred Daughter of Pierpoint did enter and upon that matter found by special Verdict in the Common-Pleas the entry of Alice was adjudged lawfull upon which Iudgment Error was brought in the King's-Bench And it was argued upon the words of the Devise because here the House is not devised but the Lease it self scil all his interest in the thing devised And it is not like unto the Case betwixt Welchden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plow 519.
contrary This Lease is good For Jermine was but Tenant at sufferance at the time of this Lease but if Jermine had been a Disseisor then delivery in the Chapter-house was void and then the second delivery upon the land good And Harris agrees That if Jermine be but Tenant at sufferance then the second Lease made of the land was good enough But it was agreed by the whole Court That the Lease is good enough for the manner and there is not other form or means for a Corporation to make a Lease than this here And it was moved That the first Lease was not utterly ceased without entry and then the new Lease being made before entry is void But Wray was clear of a contrary opinion and said That the Dean and Chapter might make such a Lease before entry But Gawdy Iustice doubted of it Vide 28 H. 8. 6. Dyer and Com. 2. and 3. Ph. and Ma. 132. Browning and Beston's Case Harris The Attorney hath not pursued his Authority for his Warrant is to enter into the Land in the name of the Corporation and claim it to their use and then to deliver the Lease made upon the land but the Iury have not found such matter but have found onely that he came by virtue of the said Letter of Attorney and delivered the same upon the land but do not find that he entred and claimed the same to the use of the said Dean and Chapter But the Court held the same good enough for in a special Verdict every particular circumstance need not to be found and in pleading it ought to be and because it is found That the Attorney by virtue of the said Warrant of Attorney hath delivered the Deed upon the Land he hath pursued his Warrant in all Gawdy Delivery of the Deed is as necessary in case of a Corporation as it is in the case of other persons CXX Rymersly and Cooper 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 768. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 168 169. IN an Action upon the Case for slanderous words the Plaintiff declared That where by the custome of the City of London it hath been used If the Mayor Recorder or any Alderman being a Iustice of Peace there might take the Deposition of any person produced before them or any of them to be deposed in perpetuum rei memoriam ex parte alicujus personae which Depositions are there recorded in perpetuam rei memoriam and are good matter to be given in Evidence to any Iury there to inform their consciences of the truth of the thing in Question and declared farther That he himself was produced before one Bond as a Witness to testifie his knowledge in quadam causa ibid. ex parte Edw. Stapleton before whom he deposed c. The Defendant spake these words in scandal of the Plaintiff Rymersly was forsworn in the said oath before c. The Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff made not any such oath and upon that the Plaintiff did demur in Law. George Crook prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff for the same is no plea for the oath is but an Inducement and therefore not traversable for the ground of the Action is the speaking of the words and admit there were not any such Oath taken by the Plaintiff the offence of the Defendant was the greater Nam peccavit in utroque tam in juramento quod nullum omnino fuit quam in perjurio quod sine juramento esse non potuit for if one saith A. Murdravit J. S. whereas there never was any such J. S. yet the Action lieth for the scandalous words Also this Plea doth amount but to the general issue See 4 E. 6. Action Sur le Case 113. 34 H. 6. 28. And as to the words they are Actionable for forsworn amounts to purjured being spoken upon on oath taken in a Court of Record and so was it lately holden in the Case betwixt Brook and Doughty Brook and Doughtie's Case Godfrey Contrary The Declaration is not good for the custome in London is not well laid or pursued and therefore upon the matter it is but an oath taken before a private man for he hath declared That in the City of London it hath been used c. but doth not say That the City of London is Antiqua Civitas as he ought See the Case of the Prior of Lantony 12 E. 4. 8. and 22 H. 6. Prescription 47. If a man alledgeth a custome within a Town he ought first prescribe That the said Town is an ancient Town Also it is not set forth in the Declaration That Bond at the time of the Deposition taken was a Iustice of Peace in London and then the custome is not well persued But afterwards the Record was looked upon and allowed to be good by the Court and the Court conceived that the Plea of the Defendant was good enough as 13 E. 4. 8. In Debt against an Abbat the Plaintiff counted upon a borrowing by the predecessor c. the Defendant pleaded That he did not borrow and it was holden a good Plea and yet the Plaintiff in such Case might plead the general issue See 26 H. 8. and 34 H. 6. Br. Action Sur le Case 103. 3. Ma. Dyer 121. The Lord Mounteagle's Case 34 H. 6. 43. by Moile In Trespass Quare servientem suum verberavit c. It is a good Plea to say That he was not the servant of the Plaintiff and if in the principal the Defendant plead Not guilty he should thereby confess that the Plaintiff was sworn Wray chief Iustice The Plea of the Defendant is good And it was moved by Egerton Solicitor general That the custome to take Oath as is alledged is not allowable because it is not a reasonable custome that such Depositions should be taken in perpetuam rei memoriam If there be not a suit depending in the Cause and because that such custome not alledgable it is not reasonable and then the Plaintiff ought not to have Iudgment and such also was the opinion of Wray and Gawdy Iustices But for the default in the Declaration That it is not alledged That London is antiqua Civitas Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CXXI Alexander and Dyer 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 901. In the King's-Bench IN Debt for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years 1 Roll. 605. 1 Cro. 169. The Plaintiff declared That he leased to the Defendant 37 Sept. certain Lands to have and to hold from the Feast of St. Michael next ensuing for a year rendring 10 l. Rent Virtute cujus 29 Sept. the said Lessee entred and enjoyed the said land from the Feast of St. Michael all the said year and because the Rent was behind c. And upon Nihil debet pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that upon the Plaintiffs own shewing here is no Rent behind and then no cause of Action for it appeareth in the Declaration that
not pay them and the creditors sue them in the Spiritual Court they shall not have a Prohibition Vide 6. H. 3. Prohib 17. which Anderson Vehementer negavit and afterwards the Iustices looked and advised upon the Indenture and found that the indenture and Obligation were made to the friends of the mother of the daughters and not to the daughters themselves to whom the Legacies were give and bequeathed and therefore were of opinion that a Prohibition did not lie CLXV Thorp and Tomson 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 336. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That one Thimblethorp was seised of the lands where c. and by Contract sold the same to Thorp but no assurance was yet made and afterwards Thorp before any assurance made sold likewise the said lands to Tomson and afterwards Thimblethorp made assurance thereof to Tomson and afterwards Tomson being seised devised the Lands to his younger son Dyer 376. by these words I bequeath to R. my son all the lands which I purchased of Thorp whereas in speaking the truth according to Law he purchased them by immediate assurance of Thimblethorp although he did contract with Thorp for the same And the opinion of the whole Court was without argument either at Bar or at the Bench That the Devise was good for in the repute of the people they preseised of Thorp for Tomson paid the monies for the same to Thorp and the Court commanded Iudgment to be entred accordingly And afterwards Exception was taken to the Verdict because it is not found by what service the land devised was holden Socage or Knight-service nor that the Devisor is dead and these were holden to be material Exceptions and for that cause the Iudgment was stayed and afterwards the Verdict was rejected and a Venire facias de novo awarded CLXVI Grove and Sparre 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Trespass was brought by Grove against Sparre Process continued untill Sparre was outlawed and now it was moved unto the Court to avoid the Outlawry That the original Writ and all the Iudicial Process thereupon are directed Vice-Com Wigorn. and in the Filazar's Roll in the Margent is written Hereford and in the body of the said Roll is written Et praedictus Grove obtulit se quarto die post Et Vicecomes modo mandat quod praedictus Spar non est inventus c. Ideo praeceptum est Vicecom c. and at the Capias retorned it is entred in the Roll as before Hereford whereas the Capias is directed Vicecom Wigorn. as of right it ought to be and the Roll was perused by the Court and it was ut supra and that without any suspicion of Rasure for which the Court gave day to the Queens Serjeants to advise themselves to maintain the Outlawry and the Defendants Council prayed That a Recordatur be made in what Estate the Roll now is for doubt of amendment by way of Rasure or otherwise which was granted by the Court. CLXVII Rushton 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer RUshton was indebted to the Queen in 200 marks See this Case vouched in C. 4 part in Palmer's Case 3 Len. 204. upon which issued an Extent against him out of the Exchequer to levy the said sum to the Sheriff of Suffolk and it was found by Inquisition That Rushton 22 Junii 22 Eliz. was possessed of a Lease for the term quorundam annorum adhuc venturorum and the debt of the Queen did begin 12 Febr. 17 Eliz. Exception was taken to this Office because that the term is not certainly found but generally quorundam annorum and it was said by Coke That the Office was good notwithstanding that Exception for the Queen is a stranger to the Lease and therefore ought not to be forced to find the precise certainty which see in Partridge's Case in Plowd The Defendant had made a Lease Pro termino quorundam annorum contra formam statuti Also Rushton came not to the Lease by Contract but by compulsary means as by Execution c. And here we are not in the Case of pleading but of an Office where such precise form is not requisite As if it be found by Office that J. S. was seised in tail without shewing of whose gift the same was it is good so an Indictment De morte cujusdam hominis ignoti the same is good but such Endictment taken before the Coronor is not good And that a Lease for years may be extended see 21 Ass 6. If a man be indebted to the Queen being a Lessee for years and afterwards before any Extent comes sells his term the same cannot be extended after And here it appears That this Lease was to begin at a day to come and that the Lessee did enter before the day by which he was a Disseisor and so he said he had lost his term Tenant for the life of another is disseised and dieth he remains a Disseisor and the occupancy doth not qualifie such disseisin And afterwards the Inquisition for the incertainty aforesaid was holden void and a new Commission was awarded CLXVIII Holland and Boin 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Thomas Holland against William Boin's 3 Len. 175. 1 Len. 183. Ow. 138. who made Conusans as Bailey to Thomas Lord Howard and shewed that the Prioress of the late dissolved Priory of Hollywell was seised of the Manor of Priors in the County of Hertford and granted the same by words of Dedi Concessi pro certa pecuniae summa to Thomas Audley Chancellor of England and his Heirs who entred and died seised and that the said Manor inter alia descended to Mary daughter and Heir of the said Thomas Audley who entred and also died seised by force whereof the said Manor descended to the said Thomas Lord Howard c. and shewed that the said conveyance by the prioress to Audley bore date 4 Novemb. 29 H. 8. and then enrolled in the Chancery The Plaintiff in Bar of the Avowry shewed that after the making and enrolling of the said Conveyance the said Prioress Leased the said land to Sir H. Parker for 99 years and conveyed the said land to him and shewed farther That the said Conveyance specified in the Conusans was primo deliberatum 4 Nov. 31. H. 8. Absque hoc that the said Prioress the said 4 Novembris 29 H. 8. dedit concessit the said Manor to the said Audley upon which it was demurred in Law and the Court was clear of opinion That the averment of primo deliberatum against a Deed enrolled ought not to be reversed for by the same reason it may be averred never delivered and so upon the matter Non est factum And it was farther objected That bargain and sale by a Corporation is not good for a Corporation cannot be seised to another use and the nature of such Conveyance is to
take effect by way of use in the Bargainee and after the Statute to draw the possession to the use But the Court utterly rejected that Exception was dangerous Note Pasch 30 Eliz. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff in the Replevin scil the Conveyance of the Prioress was not well pleaded for it ought to be plead as a Bargain and Sale and not as a grant and Judgment was given accordingly for such was the Conveyance of the greater part of the possessions of Monasteries And by Shuttleworth Serjeant Although such a Corporation cannot take an Estate to the use of another yet they may charge their possessions with an use to another CLXIX Venable 's and Serjeant Harris 's Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Quaeries Hughs R. 13. 3 Len. 185. 4 Len. 112. THE Case was a Lease was made to A. and B. for their lives the Remainder to Thomas Venables in tail who 3 Eliz. was attainted of Felony 23 Eliz. was a general pardon Thomas Venables 24 Eliz. levied a Fine and suffered a common Recovery to the use of Harris Serjeant An Office is found Harris traverseth the Office and upon that there is a demurrer Leke argued That traverse doth not lie in this Case 4 H. 7. 7. where the King is entitled by double matter of Record the party shall not be admitted to traverse nor to his Monstrans de Droit but is put to his Petition which see 3 E. 4. 23. in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland 3 Len. 75. where the Tenant of the King is attainted of Treason and the same found by Office See also 11 H. 4. in the Case of the Duke of Suffolk and that is not helped by the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 8. For the words are untruly found by Office but here the Office is true By this Attainder Thomas Venables is utterly disabled to do any Act for by Bracton a person attaint shall forfeit Patriam Regnum Haereditatem suam 11 H. 4. one was attainted of Felony and before Office found the King granted over his Lands Also he is not helped by the general pardon for before the general pardon he had a special pardon so as the general pardon non operatur But the Iustices said The forfeiture did remain untill the general pardon Harris contrary And he put the case of Sir James Ormond 4 H. 7. 7. where the King is entitled by matter of Record and the subject confesseth the King's title and avoids it by matter of as high nature as that is for the King Traverse in that case lieth and if the King be entitled by double matter of Record if the party doth avoid one of the said Records by another Record he shall be admitted to his traverse and so here we have the pardon which is a Record and that shall avoid the Record of the King See 3 E. 4. 24. in the Earl of Northumberland's Case and here the pardon hath purged the forfeiture in respect of the offence and he said Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall not lose his lands but the profits onely for he hath his Estate by the Will of the Donor and there is a confidence reposed in him as in Walsingham's Case he cannot grant his Estate over and see Wrothe's Case An annuity granted pro Consilio impendendo cannot be granted over or forfeited for there is confidence And see Empson's Case and Dyer 2. 29 Ass 60. If the issue in tail be outlawed of Felony in the life of his father and getteth his Charter of pardon in the life of his father after the death of his father he may enter but by Thorp If the issue in tail getteth his Charter of pardon after the death of his father then the King shall have the profits of the lands during the life of the issue And the Case of Cardinal Pool was debated in the Parliament Cardinal Pool's Case 27 Eliz. That he being Dean of Exeter was seised of Lands in the right of his Church and was attainted of Treason It was holden That he should forfeit the profits of such Lands But admit that by this Attainder the Land be forfeited yet the party hath the Freehold until Office found See Nicols's Case on the Commentaries and see also the Case of the Dutchy in the first Commentaries And here the Pardon hath dispensed with the Forfeiture Tenant of the King alieneth in Mortmain before Office found the King pardons it this is good The Lord Poynings conveyed all his Lands to Sir Adrian Poynings who was an Alien and afterwards is made a Denizen and the King pardons him and releaseth unto him all his right in the said Lands without any words of Grant and it was adjudged the same shall bind the King. And he said that he had found a good precedent 14 H. 7. where a general pardon before seisure into the King's hands was allowed contrary after seisure without words of Grant. See Br. 29 H. 8. Charter of Pardon 52. If a man be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Felonies executiones eorundem the same shall not serve for life and Land if no Office be found but it shall serve for the Goods without words of Restitution and Grant for the King is entituled to them by Outlawry without Office but the King is not entituled to the Lands untill Office be found See ibid. 33 H. 8. 71. The Heir intrudes and before Office found the King pardons now the Heir is discharged as well of the issues and profits as of the Intrusion it self and also of Livery But a pardon given after Office is available for the Offence but not for the issues and profits And he cited the Case of Cole in the first Commentaries where a pardon was granted Mesne betwixt the stroke and the death See 35 H. 6. 1. 1 E. 4. 1. 8 Eliz. Dyer 249. Brereton's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 284 285. Egerton Solicitor to the contrary This Traverse is not good for he that traverseth hath not made Title to himself as he ought upon which the Queen may take Issue for it is at the Election of the Queen to maintain her own Title or traverse the Title of the party At the Common Law no Traverse lay but where the Livery might be sued but that is helped by the Statute of 34 E. 3. cap. 14. but where the King is entituled by double matter of Record as in our case he is no Traverse is allowed until 2 E. 6. cap. 8. And in such case two things are requisite 1. That the Office be untruly found 2. That the party who is to be admitted to his Traverse have just Title or Interest of Estate of Freehold c. But in our case The Office is confessed by the Traverse to be true although that the Conveyance be not truly found Also Harris at the time of the Office found had not just Title but an interest came unto him long time after
Covenant wherein the breach was assigned was That if R. W. Brother of the Plaintiff should say Make assurance of such a Manor to the Defendant as the Council learned of the said Defendant should advise Then if the Defendant pays unto the Plaintiff 50 l. the Obligation to be void The Defendant by advice of Council demanded a Release with Warranty c. And by Periam and Windham The same is not any Assurance but a means to recover in value Anderson contrary That it was a Collateral Warranty c. CLXXIII Cropp and Hambleden 's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 48. IN Trespass by Cropp against Erasmus Hambleden upon the special Verdict the Case was That one Martin Hastings was seised of the lands where c. in the right of his wife for the life of the wife and that they both did Lease unto the Defendant for years rendring Rent payable at the Feast of S. Michael and the Feast of the Annunciation c. with clause of re-entry if the Rent be behind by a Month after any of the said Feasts and after the feast of S. Michael 26 Eliz. and before the Month expired the Lessee the now Defendant sent his servant unto the house of the Lessor for to pay to him the Rent then due the servant went unto the house of the Lessor and there asked for him to whom it was answered by one Mary Briggs daughter of the wife of the Lessor who there dwelt in the said house with her mother that the Lessor was not at home for which the said servant delivered the said Rent to the said Mary requiring her to deliver the same over to the Lessor upon his retorn to the house in the name of his servant Mary reserved the said Rent and upon the retorn of the Lessor at his house told him all the matter aforesaid and that the servant of the Lessor the Defendant had required her to tender the said Rent to the Lessor in the name of the Defendant and thereupon offered and tendered to him the said Rent and the Lessor refused it And the Iury found That the third half year before the tender mentioned before the Lessor commanded the said Mary to receive the Rent then due who did accordingly and that the next half year then following the said Mary did receive the said Rent without commandment of the Lessor but after the Lessor agreed unto it and that the immediate half year before this tender in question the Defendant paid the Rent then due to the Lessor himself who received it And it was the opinion of Wray chief Iustice that this tender was good and it is not like unto the case of an Obligation for there the Obligee cannot have an Action of Debt before the last day but here the Lessor might have distrained or have had an Action of Debt before the Month expired and so the Lessor is bound by this tender and by Gawdy Iustice This tender cannot be said a tender by a stranger for here Mary came in privity of the servant of the Lessee and as it is found by Verdict Mary tendered it to the Lessor as being requested by the servant of the Lessee And afterwards upon consideration had betwixt the Iustices themselves the Iustices viz. Clench Gawdy and Wray for Shute was then sick it was clearly resolved against the Plaintiff and that the said tender as it is found in the Verdict is a good and sufficient tender and the Lord Wray delivered the reason as before and farther said That if the said Rent had been reserved payable at the feasts aforesaid or within a Month after each of them there the tender as above had not been good nor should bind the Lessor for in such case the Lessor could not distrain or have an Action of Debt for the said Rent before the Month expired And this is a case of extremity and deserves no favour and here is no mischief to the Lessor for he might have had his Rent in due time if he would and his captious refusal shall not avail him And Iudgment was given accordingly CLXXIV Bostock and Covert 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas BOstock and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Covert son and heir of her former Husband who pleaded That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of Lands amounting to the number of 300 Acres and held the same by Knights-service and died seised after whose death by virtue of the Statute of 34 and 32 H. 8. he entred into 100 Acres of the said Lands as the third part of the said Lands descended and held the same in severalty being the third part of the clear yearly value of the whole discharged of a Dower and that the Wife ought to have all her Dower out of the two parts devised And Anderson said That the Plea was not good for the heir who will take advantage of the Statute in that point ought to enter generally as Tenant in common with the Devisee and then in a Writ of Dower it is a good Plea so if after his entry as Tenant in common Partition be made betwixt him and the Devisee such a Plea is good but here he hath entred severally into a third part distinct from the residue and so hath ousted the Devisee of a third part severally for which cause he cannot have advantage of this Plea To which the rest of the Iustices Non contradixerunt CLXXV Sir John Southwel 's Case Pasch 37 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 147. SIR John Southwel of the County of Lancaster 7 Julii 19 Eliz. made a Conveyance of his Lands to divers Feoffees and their Heirs upon condition that they should find him and his Wife and so many persons in his house c. prefer his Daughters in marriage pay his debts c. And if there fell out at the years end upon accompt made by the Feoffees any surplusage that then at the end of every such year they should answer such surplusage as should then remain in their hands unexpended of the Rents and profits of his said Lands with clause of revocation c. Afterwards the said Conveyance being in force came the Statute of 23 Eliz. concerning Recusants upon which Statute the said Southwel is now endicted and afterwards upon a Commission issuing out of the Exchequer to the Sheriff of Lancaster to enquire of the Lands of the said Southwel although against the said Conveyance it was given in Evidence That after the said Conveyance the said Sir John Southwel had granted Trees from off the said Lands and had received Fines and Incomes for Leases c. yet the Iurors charged to enquire would not find that the said Sir John Southwel had any Lands c. And by special command from the Queen it was referred out of the Exchequer to all the Iudges of England If the Lands of the said Sir John Southwel conveyed as aforesaid were subject to the said
be determined or not And he said That Leases which are of Record are to be recited in Patents of the King but not those which are not of Record for Leases on Record may be easily found but contrary of Leases in Fait but in our case all is helped by the Non obstante for the words of the Letters Patents are Non obstante That no office be thereof found misrecital or non-recital of the former Leases c. It hath been objected That because that the Law of the Land is That in Grants of the King all former Estates ought to be recited the Non obstante of the Queen shall not help it To that he said That where the Law makes for the Queen there the Queen for a particular respect may dispense with the Law. If the Queen be deceived by the not recital that makes the Letters Patents naught but if the Queen be not deceived by the not recital the same shall not hurt And it is clear That the Queen may dispense with a Statute Law although perhaps not with the common Law The Queen grants upon suggestion if the suggestion be false the Patent is void because the Queen is deceived in her Grant and if the suggestion rest in Articles and some of the Articles be false the Patent for that is void but if in the Patent such clause be That be the suggestion true or false the Patent shall be good If the King seised of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant grant the Manor cum pertinentiiâ— the Advowson shall not pass But if the Grant be in tam amplis modo forma c. prout ipse Rex tenuit the Advowson shall pass And he said That the Office here is not necessary to determine the Lease but to enable the Queen to punish the Lessee for the continuance of his possession And if the conclusion of the Condition had been by way of re-entry for non-payment of the Rent and after the Rent is behind and afterwards the Queen accepts the Rent due after the Queen is not bounden by that but upon an Office found she shall avoid the Lease Drew Serjeant contrary and he said That here is a condition but not a limitation for here is the natural word of a Condition scil Proviso Some Cases put by Popham are Conditions and not limitations As a Lease for years Proviso that if the Lessee die within the term that then the Lease shall be void the same is a Condition And in many Cases many words less apt than these in our Case shall make a Condition As a Feoffment dummodo solvat c. And he said That without an Office the Lease is not void See 35 H. 6. 57. The King giveth to Religious use certain Lands ad effectum to find a certain number of Monks to hold in Frankalmoign the King in that case cannot have Cessavit for the Services are not certain but if it be found by Office that they have not their number or do not make their Prayers the King shall cease by Br. Tit. Offic. 4. And he said that this was often done in the time of Hing Henry the eighth Lands given Habend pro erectione Collegii Cardinalis Eborum c. Where the King is to have Lands but as a pledge as for an Alienation without licence Office ought to be found of such Alienation So of a Feoffment made to an Alien otherwise it is in case of necessity because the Freehold cannot be in abeyance Tenant of the King is attainted of Treason before 33 H. 8. the King shall haâ—â—â—â—e Land in point of common Escheat untill Office be found and afterwards by force of the Attainder So if the Tenant of a Subject be attainted of Treason before Office found the Land shall be in the Lord but after Office it shall be in the King 7 H. 4. If the King's Tenant dieth his Heir within age the King may seise the Body and grant it over without Office but not the Lands See for the same 5 E. 6. Br. Office 55. in the Case of Charles Brandon 35 E. 3. Villainage 22. The Villein of the King purchaseth Goods and Chattels the property of them is in the King before Office or seisure but in the case of lands he ought to seise If this had been the case of a common person the Lease should not be avoided without demand therefore neither in the Case of the King without Office For as the Lease it self was made by matter of Record so it ought to be avoided by matter of Record otherwise it shall not be taken void in Law notwithstanding that the words are That the lease shall be void By the Statute of 11 H. 7. Alienations and Discontinuances by Women are made void the same ought not to be holden altogether void as betwixt such Women and the Alienee but onely betwixt the Woman and the Heir the Statute of 1 Eliz. enacts That all Leases made by a Bishop above the term of twenty one years shall be void the same shall not be construed to be void but onely as to the Successor for it shall bind the Lessor himself as it was adjudged 5 Eliz. in the Case of the Bishop of Bath As unto the Office here in our case the same shall not enure to avoid the Lease but onely to enable the Queen to punish the party for the Mean profits after the breaking of the Condition But in our case nothing is due to the Queen for the Mean profits for we have shewed the payment of all the Rents and the Arrearages thereof after the breach of the Condition and before the Grant of the King and therefore this Office being for no use shall be void unless it had been found that the Land was of more yearly value than the Rent c. As in the case of common experience of Chantries the Lands shall not be intended to be of greater value than the Rent to be paid out of it if not that it be found by Office When the Queen hath after received the Rent and granted over the Reversion now the Forfeiture is purged not by way of conclusion but it amounts to as much as if the Queen had said That she would not take benefit of it 4 H. 6. Champernoun's Case The King by taking in Ward of the Heir of the Donee hath waved the Heir of the Donor See Plow in the Lord Barkley's Case 3 Eliz. 237. and F. N. B. 143. And here in our Case when the Queen grants over the Reversion here the whole use of an Office is gone for no Office shall be found for the benefit of a Subject and as to the Queen no benefit shall accrue unto her by such Office for if she by such Office shall be entituled to the possession she should avoid her own Grant of the Reversion for she ought to have as great an Estate by the breach of the Condition as she had at the time of the Condition And in this Case
by the Lessor to the Lessee cannot enure and that for want of privity Lit. 109. And such Lessee cannot attorn and if the Lessor after that accepts of the Rent the same doth not make the Lease good and all for want of privity therefore here is no privity As to property such a Lease shall not be said Assets in the hands of an Executor nor shall be sold upon an Extent nor forfeited by outlawry And here in this Case the Queen cannot be said to take any thing by the breach of the Condition but hath her reversion discharged of the Lease and he said That the Office is found well enough for time and it shall relate to the time when the title accrued that is when the Rent was behind and the arrearages of the Rent do not pass by the grant of the Land or the reversion The Queen hath a Rent-charge out of Lands which is behind the Lands come to the Queen and she grants the same over yet she shall charge the Lands with the said arrearages but contrary in case of an injury done upon the Land of the Queen As the Tenant of the King aliens without licence and afterwards the Lands so aliened came to the King's hands who grants them over the Grantee nor the Land shall be charged but onely he who was party to the alienation his Lands and his Executors So of an Intrusion Tenant for life of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee the King grants over the reversion and afterwards the tortious Feoffment is found by Office this Office is soon enough for time and the Grantee of the reversion shall have advantage of it and the King the mean profits from the time of the alienation and afterward in Mich. Term 33 Eliz. the Case was argued by the Barons Clark Puisne Baron The Lease is conditional and with a limitation also so conditional and limitation mixt together 3 Ass 10. Land given to one untill he come from foreign parts Lands given to one so long as he shall continue sole is an Estate for life with limitation upon her marriage so during the coverture c. and these limitations are not collateral but begin with the Estates when the Estates are limited but conditions always come when the Estate is settled as it is in our Case yet if the intent and substance of the Contract betwixt the King and the Subject be well considered there shall not be any difference c. Lands devised to one Proviso That if the Devisee shall disturb the Executors of the Devisor his Estate shall be void and the land remain over c. the same is a good remainder for it is a limitation conditional See Scholastica's Case Plowd Com. 14 Eliz. 413. concerning an Estate tail with a limitation And Fitz. James Case there put by Dyer See Browning and Beston's Case before cited and Martin Dockra's Case where a condition is conceived in words of Covenant c. Gent Baron argued to the same intent Manwood chief Baron to the same intent The Rents reserved upon the Leases of the Queen are to be paid to Receivors Baileys or at the Receipt of the Exchequer The Queen shall not make any demand of her rent for she hath an infinite number of Farmors and if demand be necessary she were to send an army of Receivors or Baileys to receive and demand her rents If the Rent of the King be to be paid at the Exchequer if the King 's Fermor be there and tender the rent at due time and none be there to receive it he hath saved his Lease for he hath done his possible endeavor although the words of the Condition in the Lease be behind and unpaid yet not tendred shall be understood as in the common case of Mortgages and Obligations But in all the Record before us there is no words of any tender therefore according to the words of the condition the Lease is meerly void and determined in right in privity and in tenure for so is the pleasure of the Prince expressed in her Letters Patents under the great Seal of England That it shall be then void and of no effect Then i. whensoever the Rent shall happen to be behind and therefore as soon as the Rent was behind the Lease was determined so that if after the non-payment a stranger had entred upon him scil the Lessee upon which he brings Ejectione Firmae the Defendant might have pleaded the special matter against him Iudgment if Action so as the Lease is void in Right It is also void in Privity and Tenure for a Release to such Lessee after the Rent is behind is altogether void for he was not then Lessee and so the privity is gone and no acceptance can make such Lease good And if such a Lessee after his Rent would surrender and in consideration of such Surrender obtain a new Lease from the Queen this new Lease is also void for here upon the matter is no surrender Also such a Lease is void in property for if the Lessee in such case dieth his interest such as it is shall not be accounted Assets in the hands of his Executor upon the breach of this Condition for the Rent although that the Lease be become void yet the possession of the land is not resetled in the Queen without Office and although the Office doth not make the Lease void which was void before for non-payment of the Rent yet before Office found the possession is not vested in the Queen for before Office found we cannot award Process against such a Lessee for his continuing the possession after the Rent behind and untill Office found the Lessee cannot be found an Intruder and Tenant at Will he cannot be for no other Will appears of the Queen but that in the Letters Patents and that is to have the Lease void whensoever the Rent shall be behind and that Estate is gone because the Rent is behind Tenant at sufferance he cannot be in this case In case of a common person when Lessee for years holds over his term he is become Tenant at sufferance and such a Tenant shall not pay Rent for it is the folly of his Lessor to suffer his Lessee at sufferance to continue possession of the Land after his term so as every Tenancy at sufferance is made by the Laches of the Lessor which Laches cannot be imputed to the Queen therefore here this Lessee when the Condition is broken is not a Tenant at sufferance nor shall have the profits of the Lands to his own use but the Law shall account him to be a Bailiff of his own wrong and so be accountable to the Queen but no Intruder till Office be found and that appears in our Books 1 H. 7. 17. The King's Tenant dieth his Heir within age if any entreth into the Land of the Heir he shall not be an Intruder untill Office found but the Heir or a stranger who entreth before Office and takes the profits
in fact so as he might have an Assise or an Action of Trespass Antea 210 1 Cro. 920. Ow. 96. So the Law is now taken A. deviseth his Lands to B. and dieth and a stranger entreth and dieth seised before any Entry by the Devisee now is the Devisee without remedy And here in our Case the Intruder hath not gained any possession in the Lands by his intrusion no more than if the King gives Lands to one in Fee and before the Patentee enters a stranger enters now cannot the Patentee grant it over if he doth not reduce the Estate by Entry See Dyer 9 and 10 Eliz. 266. P. 20 Eliz. in Curia Ward Garbery's Case acc The Queen seised of the Manor of Beverley a stranger erected a Shop in a vacant plat of the Manor and afterwards took the profits of it without paying any Rent for the same to the Queen and afterwards the Queen granted the Manor to the Earl of Leicester and he never entred into the said Shop nor took any Rent for the same and afterwards the Occupier of the Shop died in possession and his Son and Heir entred and the better opinion was that the same was not a descent against the Patentee because at the first it was not a disseisin against the Queen Another Question was moved as to a path-way then in question And the Iury found that one side of the path-way was the Land of the Parson of the Church and the other side the Church-yard and prayed the opinion of the Court therein to whom the interest of the path-way did belong to which it was said by the Court That that ought to be found by the Verdict For although that both be the Freehold of the Parson yet the soil of the path-way might be conveyed by an express Grant unto another But the Court seemed to incline that the soil of the path-way did belong to him who had the Lands on both sides and that is the Case as well of a high-way as of a path-way And it is also good Evidence to prove such matter Who hath used to cut down the Trees or to cleanse the way CLXXXIII Wiseman 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Court of Wards 6 Co. Weeden Baldwin's Case IN the Court of Wards before the Lord Treasurer Master of the Wards Wray chief Iustice Anderson and Periam Assistants to him the Case was That Wiseman was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service in Capite had issue by a former Wife who died and made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of her who should be his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of himself and of his issue of the body of such Wife to be begotten the remainder over Wiseman took a Wife and had issue and died If now living the Wife the issue shall be in Ward was the question It was argued by Coke That he shall not be in Ward And first it was agreed of both sides and also by the Iustices That it was a remainder and not a reversion and that at the Common Law the descent of a remainder during the Estate for life doth not entitle the King unto Wardship and there we are to see if upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. the last branch of it where two or more persons hold any Lands of the King by Knights-service jointly to them and the heirs of one of them and he that hath the Inheritance thereof dieth his heir being within age in every such Case the King shall have the Ward and marriage of the body of such heir so being within age the life of the Freeholder or Freeholders of such Lands notwithstanding See 33 H. 6. 14. That the father to prevent Wardship may alien and take to him and his son and the heirs of the father which mischief was intended to be remedied by the said Statute But these words shall not in construction thereof extend farther than the words especially because they cross the Common Law and go to charge the Inheritance of others and therefore they shall be taken strictly and not by equity as the Statute of West 2. cap. 40. Cum quis alienat jus uxoris suae concordat est Quod de cetero secta mulieris aut ejus haeredis non differatur propter minorem aetatem haeredis qui warrantizare debuit that Statute is taken strictly for if the Vouchee voucheth over the second Vouchee shall have his age Quod vide 18 E. 4. 16. Also the Stat. of West 1. enacts That where the Disseisor dieth seised the Disseisee shall have his Writ upon the Disseisin against the heir of the Disseisor of what age soever he be So the heirs of the Disseisee yet it is holden 9 E. 3. If the Disseisor leaseth for life and dieth and the Lessee be impleaded and makes default after default upon which the heir of the Disseisor prayeth to be received being within age he shall have his age notwithstanding the said Statute which shall be taken strictly because it controlls the Common Law and chargeth the Inheritance of the Subject So upon the Statute of West 1. cap. 39. That none shall vouch out of the line upon that Statute although the Tenant to the Action against whom the Praecipe is brought is bound by the Statute yet Tenant by receit is at large and he may vouch at the Common Law 2 H. 7. 2. 16 H. 7. 1. for these Statutes go in abridgment of the Common Law and therefore shall be taken strictly Now according to this Statute it is of the same nature as the other before remembred and therefore shall not be extended in construction beyond the Letter As Sir Rowland Hill's Case Grandfather father and son the grandfather seised of Land ut supra makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the son in Fee The grandfather dieth the father dieth the son shall not be in Ward Causa qua supra For this Statute shall not be construed by equity and by it the words thereof Preferment of children shall not extend unto the childrens children but to the children onely of the King's Tenant who makes the Conveyance And the words in this Statute or otherwise shall not be intended to other persons than are remembred in the Statute There was a Case late where the Statute was construed in such a manner Quod vide 18 Eliz. 345. Thornton's Case A Lady seised of Lands in chief made Conveyance of her Lands for the advancement of her bastard-daughter the same Conveyance is not within the Statute See also the Lord Powes's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. So in the Case of Sir Hugh Calverley the Law was taken That where the Husband dieth seised in the right of his Wife and they levy a Fine unto the use of the Husband and Wife for the advancement of the Husband such Conveyance and disposition is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Popham contrary And as to
the Case of making this Statute it was not to overthrow a foundation as it hath been said but it was rather a gratuity of the Subjects to the King for his bounty towards them for whereas by the Statute of Vses Vses were executed in possession so as the Subjects could not dispose of their Lands by their Wills as before the Vses Now by this Statute the King was pleased to give his Royal assent to an Act by which Lands might become devisable in respect of which the Subjects added to this Act the last clause to give him Wardship where it did not lie before by the Common Law and that as a recompence from the Subjects for the King's bounty and therefore it ought to be construed beneficially for the King. And to prevent covin and fraud was not the scope of this Statute For if three purchase Lands unto them and to the heirs of two of them now it is uncertain whose heirs shall inherit for non constat which of them shall survive and therefore no covin is averrable in such case and yet if the survivor of two to whom the Fee is limited dieth his heir within age such heir shall be in Ward So if such Lands be given to two and to the heirs of him of those two who shall first come to the Church of Paul Now it is uncertain which of them shall first come to the Church of Paul yet if he who first cometh to the Church of Paul dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward which Cases prove that covin and fraud were not the cause of making this Statute but onely the thankfulness of the Subjects unto the King for his bounty as abovesaid for if this Act had not been made the Subjects should not have power to dispose of their Lands for the advancement of their children but all should descend So as now the King hath lost the Wardship and Primer seisin of two parts of the Lands of his Tenant and hath also lost the averment of covin which he had by the Common Law where Estates were made by the King's Tenant for advancement of their children In respect of which losses the Subjects gave unto the King Wardship in case where the Lands continue in jointure as to that which hath been said That this Statute shall not be taken by equity I conceive the contrary the words of the Statute are In every such case i. e. In every like case not onely where two or more persons hold jointly to them and the heirs of one of them but also in every the like Case as the Case now in question and in every Case where the life of him who hath the Freehold is the sole impediment quo minus the heir hath not the Land by descent in Demesne And it may be resembled unto the Statute of Marlbridge of Collusion which speaks of Leases for years Quas tradere voluerint ad terminum annorum and yet a Lease for life or Lease for years is within the said Statute for the Statute was made in restraint of an ill liberty that the Tenants had by the Common Law in prejudice of their Lords which see 4 E. 6. 53. Plow 59. And as to the word otherwise that may be construed for payment of his Legacies And as to equity enlarging the Statute speaks where many hold and to the heirs of one yet if two hold to them and the heirs of one of them the same is within the Statute And as to Equity restraining he puts this case Land is given to the Husband and Wife and the heirs of the body of the Wife who have issue the Wife dieth the issue within age he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute but because that other matter That the Estate for life in the Husband is an impediment Quo minus he shall be in Ward It is a maxim of the Common Law That the father shall have the Wardship of the son and heir apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within the Letter of the Statute So if Lands be given to my Villain and to another and to the heirs of my Villain who dieth seised his heir within age I seise the Villain and claim the remainder he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute But I conceive in our Case the King shall have two Wards Simul semel the heir general of Wiseman and the issue in tail the heir general by the Common Law by reason that his father was the King's Tenant who disposed of his Lands for the advancement of his children and therefore the Queen shall have the third part in Ward And also the heir special shall be in Ward for that part of the Statute And it is no new thing to have two Wardships for one and the same Lands As 14 H. 8. of the heir of Cestuy quae use and also of the Feoffee and if the Tenant dieth seised having issue a daughter who is his heir the Lord seiseth the daughter and marrieth her and afterwards a son is born he shall have the Wardship also of him So of the heirs of the Disseisor and Disseisee and he said If Lands holden in chief be leased for life the remainder to A. in Fee A. dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward and that by reason of these words in the Statute In every such case it is not the same Case but the like Case for if he who hath the Fee dieth so as the Freehold survives to the other now the Estate becomes as an Estate for life the remainder over It was adjourned CLXXXIV The Lord Howard and the Town of Walden 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer More Rep. 159. Post 162 163. BEtwixt the Lord Howard and the Town of Walden the Case was That the King made a Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster Tenend in feodi forma reddend inde sibi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. The question was How and of whom the Tenure should be It was argued by Plowden That it should be holden of the King as of his Dutchy he said The King is not bounden by the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum but here upon this Feoffment the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy All Grants of the King notwithstanding that they be of Lands yet they savour of the person of the King and his Prerogative being wrapt up in his person shall guide the disposition of the land and he said that this Tenure shall be implyed by reason and in respect of his person And the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum extends to Tenants onely Libere tenentes magnatum aliorum but the King is not Libere tenens alicujus magnat 32 H. 6. 21 22. The King hath an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy to which
Case 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dom. Capital Feod c. Reddend 10 s. Rent here because that the Tenure was reserved Capital Dom. feodi illius this Rent reserved is not parcell of the Tenure but a Rent in gross King Edward the sixth gave certain Lands to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's Fee Reddend inde 6 l. per ann Cranmer made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail the remainder to the right heirs of Cranmer who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder in Fee escheated to the King by which the Seignory is gone But it was adjudged that notwithstanding that escheat the Rent did remain for the Rent was not parcel of the Seignory Now this Rent being a thing newly created and not parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy in 1 H. 4. nor ever descended from any Ancestor of the King being Duke of Lancaster shall be accounted to be in the King in the right of his Crown and so cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal See the said Statute of 1 H. 4. and the King cannot enlarge the said Dutchy nor the possessions thereof beyond the possessions which were of the Dutchy at the time of the making of the said Acts As if J. S. seised in Fee is impleaded and he saith that he holds the Lands in demand for life the remainder to the King in the right of his said Dutchy now the said remainder is vested in the King not in the right of the said Dutchy but in the right of his Crown The Villain of the King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster purchaseth Lands the King seizeth he shall be seised thereof in the right of his Crown and not of the Dutchy The King grants Common out of certain Lands parcel of his said Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the said Lands to another the Grantee of the Common dieth without heir so as the Common escheats to him now he shall have the Common in the right of the Crown and not of the Dutchy so although it is said That the Rent shall follow the nature of the Land out of which c. yet the same is but to some intents and not to every intent See the Statute of 2 and 3 Phil. Ma. cap. 20. by which it is enacted That all the Lands which have been granted or severed from the Dutchy to any person or persons and after such grant have come or reverted to the King in possession reversion or remainder or otherwise by attainder escheat forfeiture c. shall for ever be united to the said Dutchy and shall be adjudged and esteemed as part and member of the same which proves that such Lands were not holden of the King as Duke of Lancaster but as King for if they had been holden of the Dutchy upon the escheat they should be parcel of the Dutchy again without help of that Statute See the special Reservation Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet c. Now when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it was in the Election of the Ter-tenant to whom he would pay the Rent if it had been in the Case of a common person but it is otherwise in the Case of the King As if A. holdeth of two several Lords by owel Feoffment and dieth his heir within age the Lord which first gets the Ward shall have him but in the Case of the King it is otherwise Plowden The King is not bound by the Statute of West 3. But in this Case in the making of this Feoffment with this Tenend Reddend the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy for all grants of the King savour of the person of the King and then his Prerogative wrapt in the person shall guide the same and see the Statute of West 3. extends to all who make Feoffments Tenend de Feoffatoribus but the King is not Tenant to any one And if the King be seised of an Advowson in the right of his Dutchy and the same becomes void and the King presents to the same he may repeal his presentation and he vouched divers precedents of Patents made to many great Lords to hold of the Dutchy and also to hold of others And the King by his Dutchy-seal may give Lands in Mortmain And he argued That this Rent although newly created yet in so much as it came and accrued in respect of the Land which was parcell of the Dutchy it should be accounted also parcel of the Dutchy as if before the Statute of West 3. A. seised of Lands in Fee of the part of his father makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services c. the same Seignory shall go to the heirs of the part of the father in lieu of which the Seignory is come Tenant in tail after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the said Act rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be intended heirs in tail It was adjourned CXCVIII. Forster and Walker 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione firmae by Foster against Walker the Case was 3 Cro. 106. Shepherd's Touch-stonâ— of Conveâ—…ances 416. That Richard Meager was seised of a house in London and 6 E. 6. he devised the same to his Wife for life the remainder to John his son in tail the remainder to the Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors in London and died the Wife entred and died John died The Master Wardens and Commonalty of the Cordwaynors entred and leased the Plaintiff upon whom the heir general of the Devisor did enter The onely question was inasmuch as the Cordwaynors of London are incorporated by the name of Master and Wardens and Commonalty of Cordwaynors If this devise made to them by the name of Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors of London be good or not It was argued by Daniel that the Devise by the manner was good enough and he insisted much upon the favour which the Law gives to Wills and to Legatees in the Devises and construction of them even in Devises and Grants to Corporations and as to Grants to Corporations he cited the Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Decanus Capitulum sanctae individuae Trinit and they make a Lease leaving out these words sanctae individuae and yet held the Lease was good notwithstanding that for the words left out are not words of substance of the name but for the beauty and ornament of it But in the Case of Devise if the name be mistaken in matter of substance yet if upon the Devise the intent of the Devisor sufficiently appeareth it is good enough for the intent of the Devisor shall guide the Devise and
relief of the poor resident in the Parish where the offence was committed and therefore it ought to appear upon the Indictment of what Parish the party Indicted is or otherwise Non potest constare Curiae to which Parish the third part of the Penalty doth belong so that full execution may be made according to the Statute But the whole Court was clear of opinion That the Indictment is good enough notwithstanding that Exception for all the penalty which accrues by the said Statute belongs first to the Queen viz. a third part thereof to her own use another third part for the relief ut supra to be delivered by Warrant by the Officers of the Receipt of the Exchequer And afterwards the Inhabitants of the Parish in which the offence was committed are to sue in the Exchequer for their third part of the penalty and surmise in their Bill that the offence was committed within their Parish and Rule was entred accordingly CCV Gerrard 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 98. GErrard Master of the Rolls presented Chatterton Bishop of Chester to the Church of Bangor to which Church one Chamber 's also presented his Clerk by which several presentments the said Church became Litigious The Archbishop of York being loci illius Ordinarius awarded a Jure Patronatus c. depending which the Archbishop admitted the said Bishop whereupon Chambers Libelled in the Spiritual Court against the said Bishop because the said Archbishop Dicto Episcopo plus aequo favore admisit dictum Episcopum pendente the Jure Patronatus in which case by the Law of the Church the admittance is void For Lite pendente nihil movetur and now came the said Bishop and prayed upon that matter a Prohibition which was granted because that the right of the Patronage came in debate after which came the said Chambers and prayed a consultation because he did not meddle with the right of the Patronage but onely with the tortious admittance To which it was said by the Court That the awarding of the Jure Patronatus is not a thing of necessity but at the will of the Ordinary and so for his better instruction but if he will at his peril take notice of the right of the Patronage he may admit which of them he will without a Jure Patronatus awarded And it may be in this Case that after the Jure Patronatus awarded and before any Verdict given upon it the Archbishop was satisfied of the right of the now Plaintiff in the Prohibition to the Patronage and thereupon admitted the Clerk c. and if he was deceived to subject himself unto a Quare Impedit whereof he had discharged himself if he had attended the Verdict in the Jure Patronatus and by the clear opinion of the Court the Consultation was denyed CCVI. Barker and Taylor 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was That a woman Tenant in tail within the Statute of 11 H. 7. accepted of a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine rendred back the lands to the Conusor for 100 years It was moved If this conveyance and disposition be within the penalty of the said Statute for the Statute speaks of Discontinuances c. And it was the clear opinion of the whole Court That it is within the Statute for by such practice the meaning of the Statute might be defeated 3 Co. 51. and if such a render for 100 years should be good by the same reason it might be for 1000 years which is like mischievous and as dangerous unto him in the reddition as a Discontinuance And by Rhodes Iustice It hath been adjudged That if a woman who hath Title of Dower before that she be endowed will enter and levy a Fine that the same is within the said Statute and yet she is not Tenant in Dower See Dyer 5. Ma. 140. Penycock's Case and see now 36 Eliz. Sir George Brown's Case adjudged accordingly CCVII. Morris and Webber 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae by George Morris against Webber alias Turnor 5 Co. 98. the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease by Humphrey Bury c. And upon Not guilty the Iury found this special matter That Hen. Bury was seised Et cepit in uxorem quandam Willmottam Gifford 4 Mariae And afterwards 1 Eliz. she Libelled in the Spiritual Court against the said Henry in causa divortii de nullitate matrimonii and found upon the Libel In haec verba and all the sentence upon it viz. In Dei Nomine Amen Per depositiones examinationes Medicorum aliorum fide dignorum honestarum expertarum matronarum comperimus invenimus Quod praedict Henr. Willmotta legit aetatis plenae pubert exist per duos annos integros simul cohabitaverunt in uno lecto concubuerunt licet dict Willmotta operam liberis dare cupierit nunquam tamen per carnalem copulam cum dicto Henrico conjungi aut ab illo cognosci potuit aut potest idque propter vitium perpetuae frigiditatis naturae impotentiae generandi Quae nulla medicorum opera curari pot idque praedict Humphrid saepius confessus est se nunquam cum praedicta Willmotta tanquam virum cum uxore conjunctum fuisse aut conjungi potuisse Igitur invocato primitus Dei nomine Matrimonium praedict irritari cessari quatenuscunque de facto processit cassum irritum nullumque in Lege Juribus juris omnino carere carere debere decernimus declaramus ipsosque quatenus sunt de facto matrimonialiter ad invicem conjuncti a vinculo Matrimonii separamus c. Humphry made a Feoffment in Fee unto the use of himself for life and after to the use of the first or eldest son of the body of the said Henry in tail Willmot married Cary Henry took to wife Phillippam Mountjoy scientem Matrimonii praedict definitivae sententiae praedict durantibus ambobus Matrimoniis tam inter dict Cary Willmotta quam inter dictos Henricum Phillippam dicta Phillippa exitum habuit per dict Henricum Humphrey the Lessor upon which Lease the Plaintiff declared Humphrey died Henry entred and leased to the Plaintiff Shuttleworth Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff That this Divorce not reversed or undone by appeal or otherwise should stand in force and according to it the Law of the Land should judge See 47 E. 3. 17. Casu ultimo Five manner of Divorces are mentioned 1 Causa professionis 2 Praecontractus 3 Consanguinitatis 4 Affinitatis 5 Frigiditatis upon a Divorce Causa professionis the wife shall be endowed and the heir shall inherit but in the other not And the principal Cause is reported by the Lord Dyer 2 Eliz. 179. where Cary and Willmott levying a Fine of the lands of Willmott as husband and wife and it was moved That such Fine ought not to be
That William Heydon was seised of the lands and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeoffa pas the parties were at issue and it was found by special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased the Lands to the Defendant for years and afterwards he made a Deed of Feoffment to the same Lessee of the same Lands in Fee by the words of Dedi concessi with a Letter of Attorney within the said Deed to make Livery to the Lessee and the Deed of Feoffment was delivered to J. to deliver the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same accordingly The Lessee delivered the same to the Attorney named in the Deed who made Livery accordingly And it was moved by the Council of the Plaintiff That upon all this matter here is not any Feoffment And by Walmesly Serjeant This Deed so delivered took its effect presently as a confirmation and then the Livery and Seisin comes too late for as soon as the said Deed was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave to it its operation to this effect To vest the Fee and the Freehold in the Lessee by way of confirmation See for that Littl. 532 533. But the whole Court was of a contrary opinion for it is in the election of the Lessee to take the Conveyance as a Feoffment or as a confirmation And here it appeareth upon the Deed that the intent of both parties was That the Lessee should take by way of Feoffment and not of confirmation for otherwise to what use should be a Letter of Attorney inserted in the Deed And here the Lessee hath liberty to make his election how he will take either by Feoffment or by confirmation which election he hath determined by the acceptance of the Livery And by Anderson If tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter of Feoffment and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorney named in the Charter who makes Livery accordingly here is a good Feoffment and a discontinuance and afterwards after many motions made and day given to shew cause Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should be barred CCXLII. Rooke and Denny 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN an Action upon the Case by Rooke against Dennis for misusing of the Plaintiff's Horse by occasion of which misuse the said Horse became blind of one eye and gall-back'd The Plaintiff counted That the said Horse was stolen by three Felons after whom the Plaintiff made fresh suit and that the Felons were apprehended and attainted at his suit because Iustice Windham Hetley's Rep. 64. Rolls 809. More 572. Hetley's Rep. 64. and that the said Horse came unto the hands of the Defendant who misused it Ut supra The Defendant said that before that and the said Attainder of the said Felons the said Felons had waived the said Horse within his Manor in which Manor he had waife and estray c. And it was holden by the Court that the same was no Plea without traversing the fresh suit whereof the Plaintiff hath declared for by the fresh suit the property of the Plaintiff in the said Horse was preserved and so upon that misuser of the Horse by the Defendant an Action well lyeth and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly CCXLIII Pretiman and Cooke 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Ejectione firmae The Case was Ante 129. 1 Cro. 52. 3 Len. 180. That one Hawkins was seised of three Messuages in Bury and had issue Robert a son and Christian and Joan daughters and by his Will devised his three Messuages to his wife for life the remainder of one of them to Robert his son and his heirs and the remainder of another of them to Christian his daughter and her heirs and the remainder of the third Messuage to Joan his daughter and her heirs And farther willeth That if any of his said three issues should die without issue of his or her body that then the other surviving shall have Totam illam partem betwixt them equally to be divided The Devisor died the wife died one of the daughters died having issue the son died without issue the sister surviving entred into the whole part of Robert the son and died her husband held in the land as tenant by the Curtesie and the question was If the surviving daughter should have all the part of him that died without issue or she and the issue of the other daughter Coke The survivor shall have the whole And he said that the Devisees have an Estate in tail for the Fee doth not vest in them for it is incertain which of them shall survive but when one surviveth then he shall not have for life but in Fee for the words Totam illam partem goe as well to all the Estate as to all the things A. tenant for life the remainder to B. in tail the remainder to the right heirs of A. A. grants Totum statum suum both the Estates pass and the Grant includes the whole See 41 E. 3. Fitz. Br. 541. In Ravishment of Ward supposing the ravishment of two daughters Quarum maritagium ad ipsum pertinet and it was challenged because he doth not say Maritagia but the challenge was not allowed and he said That if a man deviseth his land wholly to A. that he hath a Fee-simple See the Case H. 28 Eliz. the Case between Higham and Harwood And Coke said That they had by this Devise a Fee-tail with a Fee-simple Expectant each of them severally in the Messuage to them limited Golding Each of the Devisees hath an Estate-tail in the Messuage to them devised and but an Estate for life in the Messuage which is to accrue upon the death without issue c. For no Estate is limited expresly nor what Estate the survivor shall have for here are not any words which do import a Fee-simple as according to Littleton imperpetuum or to do what he will with c. See for that 22 E. 3. ad Terminum qui praeteriit but here are onely bare words of which no farther construction can be made but for life And as to the words Totam illam partem the same doth not extend farther than if he said Partem suam And he said that nothing vests in him who survives for there ought to be two to take by the survivor or otherwise nothing shall accrue to the survivor for the words of the Devise are aequaliter inter eos dividend and that which accrues by survivor shall be divided betwixt two otherwise nothing shall accrue And if it cannot survive to two then it shall descend to the issue of the sister who is dead and to the surviving daughter and they shall be tenants in common and not joint-tenants Clench These words Totam illam partem go onely to the house and not to the Estate in it which Shute granted If both the daughters had survived Robert they should have Fee
good answer for they are Pleas onely before the Auditors and not in an Action upon Accompt and farther he said That although the Verdict be found but for part yet it is good for no damages are to be recovered in an Accompt In trespass it is true if one issue be found and not the other and joint-damages be given the Verdict is not good for any part but if several damages be given then it is good as it is ruled in 21 H. 6. Coke 26 H. 8. is That the Plaintiff cannot declare generally of an house Curam habens administrationem bonorum but he must farther say Twenty quarters of Corn or the like c. In the principal Case it is a joint-charge and but one for the shop and goods and he answers unto one onely but he ought to answer to all or else it is no answer at all But Coke found out another thing viz. That there is a thing put in issue which is not in the Verdict nor found nor touched in the Verdict and that was the Verdict of all which is found not to be good and it is not helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Jeofailes I grant that discontinuances are helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. but imperfect Verdicts are not helped thereby Vid. 205. It was a great Case argued in the Exchequer Chamber and it was Brache's Case An information was against Brache for entring into a house and an hundred Acres of Lands in Stepney He pleaded not guilty The Iury found him guilty for the hundred acres but said nothing as to the house upon which a Writ of Error was brought and Iudgment was reversed and he said it was not a discontinuance but no verdict for part Daniel That was the default of the Clerks who did not enter it and it hath been the usage to amend the defaults done by the Clerks in another Term All the Iustices said That is true if the Postea be brought in and not entred but here it is entred in the Roll in this form Daniel Where I charge one in Accompt with so much by the hands of such a one and so much by the hands of such a one although there be but one Absque hoc to them all yet they are as several issues The Court answered Not so unless there be several issues joined to every one of them But by Gawdy Iustice If there be several issues and the one be found and the other not no Iudgment shall be given Clench Iustice In the principal Case It is not a charge of the goods but in respect of the shop therefore that ought to be traversed Shute Iustice The Traverse of the shop alone is not good Egerton the Queen's Solicitor said That the Books might be reconciled and that there needed not a Traverse to the goods for the Traverse of the shop Prout is an answer to all But now he takes issue upon the goods onely which issue is not warranted by the Declaration and he said That if one charge me as Bailiff of his goods ad Merchandizandum I shall answer for the increase and shall be punished for my negligence But if he charge me as his Receiver ad computandum I shall not be answerable but for the bare money or thing which was delivered CCXLVI Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Postea 215. IN Trespass for taking of goods the Defendant justified as Bailiff to J. S. The Plaintiff by Replication saith That the Defendant prest his Cattel of his own wrong Absque hoc that he is Bailiff to J. S. And by Anderson 1 Leon. 50. If one hath good cause to distrain my Cattel and a stranger of his own head without any warrant or authority takes my goods not as servant or Bailiff to another and I bring Trespass against him he cannot excuse himself by saying that he did it as Bailiff c. for once he was a Trespassor but if one do distrain as Bailiff although that in truth he be not Bailiff if afterwards he in whose right he justifies assents to it he shall not be punished as a Trespassor for this assent shall have relation unto the time of the distress taken which Periam concessit and also Rhodes A. distrains and being asked for what cause he distrains and he assigns a cause which is not sufficient and afterwards an Action is brought against him 3 Co. 26. he may avow the distress for another cause CCXLVII. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That the Queen gave Lands in tail to hold in Capite and afterwards granted the Reversion Windham In this Case the Tenure is not incident to the Reversion but is in respect of the person and therefore the Tenure in Capite doth remain and the Donee shall hold of the Queen as in gross And also the Grantee of the Reversion shall hold of the Queen in Capite and so two Tenures in Capite for the same Lands See 30 H. 8. Dyer 45. If the Queen in this cause had reserved a Rent upon the Gift in tail the same should go with the Reversion CCXLVIII Dighton and Clark 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DIghton brought Debt upon a Bond the Condition of which was That whereas the Plaintiff was in quiet possession of such lands If now neither J. S. nor J. B. nor J. G. did not disturb the Plaintiff in his possession of the said lands by any indirect means but by due course of Law That then c. that Defendant pleaded That neither J. S. nor J. D. or J. G. did disturb the Plaintiff by any indirect means but by due course of Law upon which there was a demurrer Godfrey The Plea in Bar is not good for there is a Negativa pregnans scil a Negative which implies an Affirmative See 21 H. 6.9 In a Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin the Defendant saith That the Demandant by his Deed after the Darrein continuance did confirm and ratifie the possession of the Tenant c. The Demandant said Not his Deed after the Darrein continuance and the same was holden to be Negativa pregnans See more there and see also 5 H. 7. 7. And see farther 39 H. 6. 8 9. Another Exception was taken to the Plea in Bar because he hath pleaded That neque J. S. neque J. D. neque J. G. had disturbed the Demandant by any indirect means but onely by due course of Law and that issue cannot be tried not by the Countrey for they cannot know what is a due course of Law and by the Court it cannot be tried for the Defendant hath not certainly shewed by what due course of Law the Demandant hath been disturbed which see 22 E. 4. 40 41 c. The Lord Lisle's Case In Debt upon a Bond the Condition was That if the Defendant before such a day or any other for him and in his name come to B. and there shew unto the Plaintiff or one of his
upon the Statute of 5 R. 2. against J. and E. J. died pendant the Writ and E. pleaded in Bar and the Plaintiff did reply and conclude and so was he seised untill the said E. Simul cum dicto J. named in the Writ entred upon the Plaintiff c. But the opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here in the case at Bar Drake by his several issue which he hath joyned with the Plaintiff upon Not guilty is severed from the other five Defendants and then when they plead in Bar The Plaintiff ought to reply to them without meddling with Drake who upon his several Plea and issue joyned upon it is a stranger to them as if the said five had been the onely Defendants But if he had not replyed to Drake as if Drake had made default or had died after the Writ brought as in the case before cited of 28 E. 4. there he ought to have replyed as it is objected So in an Ejectione firmae of twenty acres The Defendant as to ten acres pleads Not guilty upon which they are at issue and the Plaintiff replies and says as to the other ten acres and so was he possessed untill by the Defendant of the said ten acres he was ejected this is good without speaking of the other ten acres upon which the general issue is joyned And the Court was ready to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff but they looked upon the Record and seeing that one issue in this Action was to be tryed between the Plaintiff and the said Drake And although the Plaintiff offered to release his damages and the issue joyned and to have Iudgment against the five Defendants who had demurred Vid. antea 41. yet the Court was clear of opinion that no Iudgment should be given upon the said Demurrer untill the said issue was tryed for the Action is an Ejectione firmae in which Case the possession of the land is to be recovered and it may be for any thing that appeareth That Drake who hath pleaded the general issue hath Title to the land c. But if this Action had been an Action of Trespass there in such case Ut supra upon release of damages and the issue joyned the Plaintiff should have Iudgment presently CCLI French 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IT was presented before the Coroner That John French was Felo de se and that certain goods of the said John French were in the possession of J. S. and this presentment was certified into the King's Bench upon which Process issued forth against the said J. S. and continued untill he was Outlawed And now came J. S. and cast in his Writ of Error to reverse the said Outlawry and assigned for Error because that in the presentment upon which he was Outlawed there is not any addition given to the said J. S. And at the first it was doubted If upon that presentment Process of Outlawry did lye and Ive one of the chief Clerks of the Crown-Office said to the Court That such Process in such case did lye and that he could shew five hundred precedents to that purpose Another matter was moved upon the Statute of 1 H. 5. 5. of Additions If this Outlawry by the Statute aforesaid ought to be reversed by default of Addition for as much as the said Statute speaks onely of Outlawries upon original Writs in personal Actions Appeals and Indictments But it was agreed by the whole Court That as to this purpose the presentment should be accounted in Law as an Indictment and afterwards the Outlawry against French was reversed CCLII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. A Lease for thirty years was made by Husband and Wife if they so long should live and if they die c. That the land should remain to A. their son during the term aforesaid And it was holden by Wray Iustice That if the Husband and Wife do die within the term that the son should have the land De novo for thirty years But Gawdy was of opinion that he shall have it for so many years which after their death should be expired CCLIII Cooper 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectionefirmae The Case was That the Husband and Wife had right to enter into certain lands in the right of the wife and a Deed of Lease for years is written in the name of the Husband and Wife to one A. for to try the Title and also a Letter of Attorney to B. to enter into the land and to deliver the said Deed of Lease to the said A. in the name of the Husband and Wife 3 Cro. 118. 2 Cro. 617. Yel and as well the Letter of Attorney as the said Deed of Lease are sealed by the said Husband and Wife with their seals and entry and delivery is made accordingly the said A. enters and upon Ejectment brings an Ejectione firmae and the whole matter aforesaid was found by special Verdict and the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover for the special matter found by Verdict i. e. the Deed of Lease and the Letter of Attorney do maintain the Declaration well enough and here is a Lease made by Husband and Wife according to that the Plaintiff hath declared CCLIV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of the Plaintiff's Close Owen 114. 1 Cro. 876. 2 Cro. 195. 229. Godb. 123. and killing of eighteen Conies there the Defendant as to all the Trespass but to the killing of the Conies pleaded Not guilty and as to the killing of the said Conies He said that the place Where is a Heath in which he hath common of pasture and that he found the Conies eating the grass there and he killed them and carried them away as it was lawfull for him to do Cowper Although Conies be Ferae naturae yet when they are in in-grounds they are reduced to such a property that if they be killed or carried away I shall have an Action of trespass Vid. 43 E. 3. 24. And if a Deer be hunted by the Plaintiff in a Forest and afterwards in hunting it be driven out of the Forest and the Forrester doth follow the chase and the Plaintiff kill the Deer in his own grounds yet the Forrester may enter into the land of the Plaintiff and re-take the Deer 12 H. 8. 9. And although the Defendant hath common in the soil yet he cannot meddle with the wood there nor with the land nor with the grass otherwise than with the feeding of his cattel for he hath but a faint interest And if he who hath the Freehold in the land bringeth an Action of trespass against such a commoner for entring into his land and the Defendant plead Not guilty he cannot give in evidence that he hath common there And it hath been late adjudged That where commoners prescribe Godb. 123. That the Lord hath used to put in
such a pasture but so many beasts that such a prescription is a void prescription It was argued on the other side That the owner of the soil hath not the true property of the Conies in him but a kind of property And see F.N. B. 86 and 87. Quare clausum fregit 20 Cuniculos cepit Against a stranger he may have an Action but not against the commoner because he hath wrong in his common by the feeding of the Conies there for although he hath not an interest in the soil yet he hath an interest in the profits of it and a commoner may distrain the beasts of him who hath not right of common for damage-feasance as the books are 4 H. 7. 3. 15 H. 7. 15. and there the commoner hath not any remedy if he cannot enter and kill the Conies for he cannot take them damage-feasance nor can impound them for no Replevin lyeth of them if the owner of the soil ploweth the lands yet the commoner may put in his cattel claiming his common and he may well justifie the same because the wrong beginneth in the owner of the soil At another day the Case was moved again and then it was argued by Coke and he said The point is Whether a commoner having common of pasture may kill the Conies which are upon the ground and he argued That he might not And first he said It is to be considered what interest he who hath the Freehold may have in such things as are Ferae naturae and then what authority a commoner hath in the ground in which he hath common As to the first point he said That although such beasts are Ferae naturae yet they are reduced to such a property when they are in my ground by reason of my possession which I then have of them that I may have an Action of trespass against him who taketh them away as in the book in 42 E. 3. If one hath Deer in his Park and another taketh them away he may have an Action of Trespass for the taking of them See 12 H. 8. If a Keeper or Forrester follow a Buck which is chase out of the Park or Forrest although he who hunteth him killeth the Buck in his own ground yet the Keeper or Forrester may enter into his ground and seize the Deer because the property and possession of the Deer is yet in them by their persuit In 7 H. 6. It is holden That if a wild beast doth go out of the Park the owner of the soil hath lost his property in it but upon the said book it may be well collected that whilest it remains in the Parke That the owner of the Park hath property in it for 18 E. 4. 14. It is doubted whether a man can have property in such things which are Ferae naturae But in 10 H. 7. 6. it is holden That an action of Accompt lyeth for things which are Ferae naturae and see 14 H. 8. 1. In the Bishop of London's Case and 22 H. 6. 59. That as long as such things are in the parties ground they are in his possession and he hath a property in them and in an Action brought for them The Writ shall be Quare damas suas cepit by Newton And see in the Register fol. 102. where an Action was brought Quare ducent Cuniculos suos pretii c. cepit It hath been objected on the other side That the Defendant hath common there To that I answer Admit he hath common yet he hath not an interest in the soil for he cannot meddle with the wood grass or other profit arising of the soil but the interest which the commoner hath is onely the feeding of the grass with â—he mouths of his cattel and if he who hath the Freehold in the ground doth bring an Action against the commoner for entring into his land If the Defendant pleads Not guilty he cannot give evidence that he hath common there for such evidence will not maintain the issue See 22 Ass A commoner cannot take in the cattel of a stranger to agist upon the common and therewith agreeth the book of 12 H. 8. and so it hath been adjudged in this Court. Godfrey contrary And he argued That it is lawfull for the commoner to kill the Conies feeding in the common And he agreed all the cases which were put by Coke and farther he said That the owner of the ground had not an absolute but a kind of a qualified property in the Conies and therefore see the Book of 3 H. 6. and F.N. B. If a Writ of Trespass be brought Quare Cuniculas suas cepit the Writ shall abate and yet he hath a kind of property or a possession rather in them I grant that against a stranger the Plaintiff might have his Action for killing of his Conies but not against the commoner because the commoner hath a wrong done unto him by the Conies eating of his common and therefore he may kill them and although the commoner may not meddle with the land because he hath not an interest in it yet in some cases he may meddle with the profits of it and he may distrain the cattel of a stranger there damage-feasance as the Book is in 15 H. 7. I grant that it is not lawfull for Tenant for life to kill the Conies of him who hath free-warren in the land For if a man bringeth an Action of Trespass Quare warrenam suam intravit Cuniculos suos cepit It is no Plea for the Defendant to say That it is his Freehold See 43. E. 3. accordingly In L. 5 E. 4. In Trespass Quare clausum fregit Cuniculos suos cepit The Defendant said That the Plaintiff made a Lease at will to J. S. of the land and that he as servant to the said J. S. did kill the Conies there and it was holden a good Plea and yet it is there said That by the grant of the land the Conies do not pass but the reason of the book might be as I conceive because the feeding on the land with the Conies is to his damage and therefore that he might justifie the killing of them and so are the Books of 2 H. 7. and 4 E. 4. If I have common of pasture in lands and the Tenant ploweth up the land I shall have an action upon the Case in the nature of a Quod permittat And in 9 E. 4. If one hath lands adjoyning to my land and levyeth a Nusance I may enter upon the land and abate the Nusance So if a man taketh my goods and carrieth them unto his own lands I may enter therein and seize my goods So if a Tenant of the Freehold plows the land and soweth it with corn the commoner may put in his cattel and therewith eat the corn growing upon the land So if a man do falsly imprison me and put me in his house I may justifie the breaking open of his house to get forth In 21 H.
as taken for Rent arrere yet he cannot be said his Bailiff at the time of the distress which was granted by Rhodes Periam and Windham and as to that which hath been objected That if this traverse be allowed the meaning of the party shall be drawn in question i. e. the meaning of him who took the cattel the same is not any mischief for so it is in other cases as in the case of Recaption See 9 H. 6. 1. 45 E. 3 4. CCLXXV Humphreston 's Case Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. More 103. 1 Anders 40. Dyer 337. Owen 64. Sty 293. IN an Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That W. Humphreston seised of the Manor of Humphreston suffered a common Recovery to be had thereof by Kinnersley and Fowk in the Writ of Entry in the Post to the intent that they should make an Estate to the said W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife for their lives the remainder Seniori puero dicti W. and to the heirs of the body dicti senioris pueri legitime procreat the remainder to the heirs of the body of the said W. Humphreston with divers remainders over And afterwards the Recoverers in December following by Indenture made an Estate accordingly and made Livery to W. Humphreston and his wife and afterwards in November 2 E. 6. by Indenture between the said W. Humphreston of the one party and Kinnersley on the other part The said W. Humphreston did covenant with the said Kinnersley to do all such lawfull and reasonable things for to assure the said lands unto the use of the said W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of the eldest child of the body of the said W. Humphreston lawfully begotten and to the heirs of the body of the said eldest child of the body of the said W. Humphreston and after to divers other uses over and afterwards Ter. Pasch 2 E. 6. W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife levyed a Fine of the said land to C. and B. in Fee to the use of the said Indenture Elionar died W. Humphreston married another wife and had issue a daughter named Frances and afterwards had issue a son named William and died William the son being of the age of six years entred into the lands and leased the same to the Plaintiff for years who being ejected by the Defendant brought the Ejectione firmae And this special Verdict And the points moved upon it were argued by Atkins Phetiplace Fenner Fleetwood Plowden and Bromley and afterwards this Case was argued by the Iustices And Gawdy puisne Iustice conceived That Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff First he conceived that this Lease for years made by the Infant without Deed and without Rent reserved is not void so as every stranger shall take advantage of it but onely voidable for an Infant may make a Bond and a Contract for his commodity and profit and the same shall bind him as for his meat and drink apparel c. But if upon such Lease he had reserved a small Rent as one peny where the land was worth 100 l. per ann such a Lease had been void and in our Case this Lease was made upon the land and was made for to try the title to it which is a good consideration and to the profit of the Infant and for his advancement and then the Lease is not void It hath been objected That here the Recovery being suffered to the intent that the Recoverers should make an Estate ut supra c. that the use shall rise presently upon the Recovery to him who suffered the Recovery and then the Recoverers could not make Livery unto him he held strongly That the use and the possession should be adjudged in the Recoverers untill they made the Estates c. for they otherwise could not make the Estates c. 2 Roll 789. and these words To the intent shall be construed that they shall have the lands untill they made the Estates c. And he held that the remainder limited Seniori puero where there is not any in rerum natura is good enough as a remainder limited to him who shall first come to Pauls And he conceived that the son should take this remainder and not the daughter and he conceived that the Estate tail here was not executed i. e. the second intail Divers Authors of Grammer have been produced to prove that Puer may be taken both ways Tam puer quam puella Desporterius Calapine Melancthon and the Grammer allowed but I conceive that Puer is a word proper for a Boy and Puella for a Maid and where we have proper words we ought not to iudge but according to them and because the word is doubtfull we ought to consider the cause upon the circumstances and therefore it is to be intended that W. Humphreston had a greater desire that his son should have his Inheritance than his daughter if there be not some special matter to prove that the intent of the father was for his daughter Southcote Iustice agreed with Gawdy in the first point and also that the Recoverers have convenient time to make the Estates and that they are to make the same without request for the benefit of the wife who is a stranger to it and is to have the lands for her ioynture and he cited the Case of the Abbat of York 44 E. 3. 8. and 9. where the difference is taken between a Feoffment made upon condition to re-enfeoff the Feoffor or to enfeoff a stranger And here in our Case the Feoffment is made in convenient time and here is sufficient consideration That the Recoverers shall be seised to their own uses untill c. And these words Roll supra Roll 407. Ea intentione shall be taken for a Condition And also that this remainder limited Seniori puero is good notwithstanding that there be not any Senior puer alive at the time And as to the word puer he held that it did extend to both Sexes indifferently and because it is doubtfull what Sex the father intended we are to construe the same upon the circumstances which appear upon the parts of the Indentures and here it appeareth upon the Indenture that he hath explained his mind scil Eldest child be it Male or Female As if I have two sons named J. and I devise my lands or limit a remainder to J. my son the Law shall construe this Devise to extend to my younger son for without devise or limitation my eldest son should have it But if J. S. hath two sons known by the names of A. and I Devise lands to A. son of J.S. there I ought to explain my meaning openly And he conceived That the Estate tail is executed defeasiable in W. Humphreston upon issue afterwards had and that the daughter should have the lands and not the son and if the Fine destroy the remainder in abeyance limited
Legacies c. did promise to pay to the Plaintiff 400 l. at four several days The first day of payment incurred and no money was paid whereupon the Plaintiff brought the Action the Defendant pleaded That he made no such promise and it was found for the Plaintiff and damages were assessed for the default of payment at the first day and that was moved in arrest of Iudgment because the Assumpsit was intire and the Plaintiff ought to have forborn his suit until all the days of payment were past and then to have one entire Action for the whole but the opinion of the whole Court was against that for they said It is not like unto a Debt upon a Contract or a Bill where the debt is to be paid at several days for here no debt is to be recovered but onely damages for the debt and this default of payment is a wrong and therefore the Action will well lie and so it was adjudged CCLXXX Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A. Devised that his lands should descend to his son but he willed 1 Cro. 252. Hob. 285. Dyer 251. a. Dy. 210. a. 3 Len. 9. 79. Yel en Ayleff Choppins Case Vaugh. 184. That his wife should take the profits thereof until the full age of his son for his education and bringing up and died the wife married another husband and died before the full age of the son and it was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustices That the second husband should not have the profits of the lands until the full age of the son for nothing is devised to the wife but a confidence and she is as Guardian or Bailiff for to help the Infant which by her death is determined and the same confidence cannot be transferred to the husband but contrary if he had devised the profits of the land unto his wife until the age of the Infant to bring him up and educate him for that is a Devise of the land it self CCLXXXI Bawell and Lucas 's Case Pasch 16 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin by Bawell against Lucas It was agreed by all the Iustices viz. Mounson Manwood Harper and Dyer That if a man seised of a Manor leased part of the Demeans for years or for life That the reversion doth remain parcel of the Manor but such a Reversion by the Grant of the Manor doth not pass without Attornment of the Lessee And where a Manor is granted by Feoffment unto another and afterwards the Tenants attorn the services pass by the Livery and not by any Grant and although in the first Grant the Lessee doth not attorn but a long time after yet the Reversion is not severed from the Manor for the Attornment as to that intent shall have relation to the Livery to make the Reversion to pass from the time of the Grant but not to charge the Lessee with Waste and Dyer said That if a Feoffment in Fee be made of a Manor with an Advowson appendant and the Tenants do not attorn yet the Feoffee shall have the Advowson for the Advowson is appendant to the principal part of the Manor scil the Demeans and cannot be appendant to the services and Dyer said That if A. maketh a Feoffment in Fee of a Manor part of which is in Lease for years Habendum to the Feoffee and his heirs to the use of the Feoffee and his heirs upon condition that the Feoffee shall pay to the Feoffor within ten days 1000 l. and if he fail then to the use of the Feoffor for life the remainder to the use of his son in tail and the money is not paid the Lessee attorns after the ten days to the Feoffee 2 Leon. 265 266. the same is a good Attornment to raise secondary uses although that the first uses did not take effect for the condition is not annexed to the Estate of the Land but unto the use onely and the meaning was that the Feoffor should never have again the Inheritance A Feoffment is upon condition that the Feoffee shall give the Land in tail to a stranger who refuseth the gift there the Feoffor may re-re-enter but a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff a stranger or to grant a Rent-charge if the stranger refuseth there the Feoffor shall not re-re-enter for his intent was not that the Land should revert c. CCLXXXII Vavasor 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That Nicholas Ellis seised of the Manor of Woodhall leased the same to William Vavasor and his wife for the life of the wife the remainder to the right heirs of the husband The husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his wife for their lives the remainder to his right heirs the husband died the wife held in and committed waste in a Park parcel of the Manor It was moved If the Writ of Waste shall suppose that the wife holdeth in Ex dimissione Nichol. Ellis or Ex dimissione viri and the opinion of all the Iustices was That the Writ upon this matter ought to be general viz. That she holds in de haereditate J. S. haeredis c. without saying ex dimissione hujus vel illius for she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Uses and therefore the Writ shall be Ex haereditate c. And also the opinion of the Iustices was That the wife in this case is not remitted but that she is in according to the form of the Feoffment Dyer The Formedon brought against Manures rehearsed in the Writ a Will and divers Conveyances by reason of which the Writ was of exceeding length and in such cases the Writ is good yet if the Writ be general it is sufficient Note in this Case That the Plaintiff assigned the waste in destroying of Deer in the Park And Mead Serjeant said That waste cannot be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant hath destroyed all the Deer and of that opinion was Dyer Manwood If the Lessee of a Pigeon-house destroy all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is waste and if the Keeper doth destroy all the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is waste although he hath not destroyed the whole See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Wast 97. If there be a sufficient store left in a Park Pond c. it is well enough c. CCLXXXIII Mutton 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. JAne Mutton brought a Writ of Entry Sur disseisin 1 Anders 42. More 96. against Anne Mutton who pleaded That one John Mutton was seised and levyed a Fine to the use of himself and such wife and wives as the said John should after marry by what name or names they should be called for term of their lives and afterwards to the use of the same Jane now Demandant in tail the remainder over to the right heirs of the said John Mutton and afterwards the said
Tho. Henage Hungate's Case the Queen leased for years unto Hungate provided that he should not do Waste Waste is done the Queen granted the Reversion to Sir Tho. Henage Office is found the Grantee entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull and that the Queen should have the mean profits from the time of the Waste done untill the time of the Grant. Some say Sir Walter Mildmay's Case that that case was not adjudged but compounded And he vouched Sir Walter Mildmay's Case The Lord Sturton held Lands of the Queen in Knights-service and was attainted of Felony by which the Lands escheated to the Queen who granted those Lands and it was holden that the Queen should have the mean profits betwixt the time of the Felony committed and the Grant. And after in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff scil the Patentee of the Queen against the Lessee who cast in a Writ of Error and by his Council prayed That the Writ of Error be not broken open untill the Iudgment be entred Manwood The Iudgment hath reference and relation unto the first day of this Term and therefore do not doubt of that CLXXIX Sted 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 259. STed of Great Melton in the County of Oxford was assessed to 7 s. for Fifteens and upon refusal to pay it the Collectors distrained the Beasts of Sted and sold them Sted brought Trespass thereupon in the King's-Bench and the Collector exhibited his Bill into this Court against Sted who shewed by his Council That the Statute of 29 Eliz. which enacted this Fifteen provideth That the said Fifteen shall be levyed of the movable Goods and Chattels and other things usual to such Fifteens and Tenths to be contributary and chargeable and shewed farther that the Cattel distrained were tempore districtionis upon the Gleab Land of a Parsonage presentative which he had in Lease which Gleab Land is not chargeable usually to Fifteens granted by the Temporalty nor the Chattels upon it But it was the Opinion of the whole Court Although that the Parson himself payeth Tenths to the King yet the Lay-Farmor shall pay Fifteens and his Cattel are distrainable for it even upon the Gleab Land of the Parsonage and therefore it was adjudged that in the principal Case the Distress and Sale were good and lawfull CLXXX The Dean and Chapter of Winsors Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 258. IN this Case it was moved If one hath a Rectory impropriate and by the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 3. is to pay an annual Rent for the same in the name of a Tenth and by that is discharged of Tenths and first fruits If he shall have the Privilege of the Exchequer for he is to pay the same sum yearly And the Barons were of Opinion that he should not for so every one who is to pay any Tenths or first fruits should draw another who sueth him into the Exchequer and so all Controversies concerning Tithes and Parsonages should be drawn hither which should be a great prejudice to the Spiritual Courts But Egerton Conier's Case Solicitor vouched a Case scil Conier's Case where the King gave a Parsonage to a Priory in Frankalmoign and the Tithes thereof being withdrawn the Prior impleaded him who withdrew his Tithes in the Exchequer and in that Case it was holden that the Prior should have the Privilege for the King is in danger to lose his Patronage or rather his Foundership if the Rectory be evicted Gent Baron The Tenant of the King in chief or he who pays first fruits or he who holds of the Queen in Fee-Farm shall not have in such respect the Privilege here Quaere CLXXXI Cony and Beveridge 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 216. IN Debt upon a Bond the Case was That the Plaintiff leased unto the Defendant certain Lands lying in the County of Cambridge rendring Rent and afterwards the Defendant became bounden to the Plaintiff in a Bond for payment of the said Rent upon which Bond the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the County of Northampton to which the Defendant pleaded payment of the Rent without shewing the place of payment and upon payment they were at issue and found for the Plaintiff by Nisi prius in the County of Northampton In Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that the issue was mis-tryed for here the payment of the Rent being pleaded without shewing the place of payment it shall be intended that the Rent was paid upon the Land which is in the County of Cambridge See 44 E. 3. 42. Anderson was of opinion that no Iudgment should be given for the cause aforesaid Rhodes and Windham contrary for it doth not appear that the issue is mis-tried because that no place of payment is pleaded and it might be for any thing is shewed that the Rent was paid in the County of Northampton CLXXXII Berry and Goodman 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae upon a special Verdict the point was Ow. 95 96. One intruded upon the possession of the Queen into Lands in Kisgrave in Suffolk and during this Intrusion the Queen granted these Lands to A. B. by her Letters Patents and the Patentee before any Entry made in the said Land granted the same over Some held that the Grant was good for the Intruder had gained nothing against the Queen and by the Grant of the Queen and the assignment over nothing accrued to him and where a man hath possession of Lands his continuance therein cannot gain to him any interest or increase his Estate without some other act done of later time If the Guardian do continue in possession after the full age of the Heir he is not a Disseisor nor hath any greater Estate in the Lands and upon the Book of 21 E. 3. 2. this Case was collected The Tenant of the King dieth his Heir within age a stranger intrudes the Heir at full age sueth his Livery out of the King's hands the Intruder dieth in possession the same descent shall not take away Entry Coke contrary The Intruder cannot be Tenant at sufferance for at first he enters by wrong and none can be Tenant at sufferance but he who comes in by Title And it is clear That the Intruder by his first Entry doth not gain any Estate in possession upon which he can have an Action of Trespass but after the Grant of the Queen he hath presently Fee by wrong 8 H. 4. 129. A stranger enters upon the King to which he hath right in the right of the Ward yet the Freehold doth remain in the Heir And he said that if A. levyeth a Fine to B. sur Conusans de droit c. now the Conusee hath possession in Law but not in fact and if before the entry of the Conusee W. entreth and dieth seised he hath no remedy for he had not possession
indictment and prayed his Clergy c. and demanded Iudgment If the Plaintiff should have this appeal The Plaintiff Replicando said by protestation Nul tiel record and for plea did demur in Law. Dalton for the Plaintiff took Exception to the plea for the conclusion of it viz. Iudgment if appeal where it ought to be Iudgment if he shall be again put to answer And he took a difference where a matter is pleaded against the Plaintiff to which the Plaintiff is party As where a man pleads a Fine levied by the Plaintiff himself there he shall conclude Iudgment if action but where the Fine is pleaded levied by the Ancestors of the Plaintiff there he shall plead Iudgment if against such Fine c. Vide 9 H. 7. 19. At the common Law before the Statute of 3 H. 7. such conviction at the suit of the King did discharge the party convicted from farther trouble but if the indictment upon which he was arraigned be insufficient then it is not any plea. And here the indictment is insufficient for by the Statute of Articuli super Chartas cap. 3. the Coroner of the County together with the Coroner of the King's Houshold shall do the Office which belongs to it and send the roll to which Office two Coroners are requisite but here in the taking of this inquisition there was but one person although two capacities id est Coroner of the County and also Coroner of the Verge and so the indictment was taken Coram non Judice See the Statute of the Star-Chamber which is That the Chancellor c. calling to them one Bishop and one temporal Lord of the King's Council c. If the Chancellor be a Bishop yet another Bishop ought to be called c. If I devise that my lands shall be sold by two Bishops and J. S. hath two Bishopricks yet his sale is not sufficient Egerton contrary Although here is but one person yet there are two Coroners Quando duo jura concurrunt in una persona aequum est ac si essent in diversis At the common Law before the Statute De Articulis super Chartas The Coroner of the Verge by himself might enquire of Murther but because the Kings Court oftentimes removed into another County by reason whereof no enquiry could be made for the remedying thereof that Statute was made which is in the affirmative and doth not abridge the common Law before and therefore it shall have a reasonable construction See the Statute of West 1. cap. 10 By which it is enacted that sufficient men shall be chosen Coroners of the most loyal and the most sage Knights this Statute shall not be taken Stricto sensu that none shall be chosen Coroners but Knights but the Statute requires that sufficient persons shall be chosen As to the Statute of 3 H. 7. It is to be known That the common Law before acquitted was a good Plea and the cause was for the great regard that the common Law had to the life of a man In which case a great mischief as the Statute recites did ensue that to save the appeal of the party they would not arraign the party within the year and day after the murther within which time the offender did compound with the party interessed and so after the year expired all the matter concerning the prosecution at the King's suit was put in oblivion wherefore it was enacted That such offender shall be within the year arraigned at the suit of the King and if the party be acquitted at the Kings suit within the year and day That the Iustices before whom c. should not set the party at large but to remain in prison or to let him to bail untill the year and the day be past and within the said year and day the wife or next heir to the party slain may take their appeal against the party so acquitted or attainted the said acquittal or attainder notwithstanding and he said that these words person attainted did not extend to person convicted for they are two distinct conditions in Law for attainder procures corruption of bloud but the same is not wrought by conviction and every Treason imports in it self Felony but yet notwithstanding they are distinct Offences See 22 E. 4. Coron 44. where it was ordered by all the Iustices of England That none should be arraigned of the death of a man at the suit of the King within the year and day so as the suit of the party be saved And the Iustices counselled all men of Law so to do and that the same be executed as a Law without alteration upon which rule of the Iustices arose an inconvenience for after that order of the Iustices was known The offender would practise with the party to whom the appeal by the Law belonged to obtain from him a release for some sum of money and then when the year and day passed the heinousness of the murther was out of memory This mischief being espied was the occasion of the making of the Statute of 3 H. 7. But the said Statute doth not meet with our Case but our Case is at the common Law for this Statute extends onely unto persons attainted but a person convicted is not touched by it and therefore being out of the words of the Statute it shall be also out of the meaning of it for being a penal Law it shall be taken by equity as all Statutes which give attaint shall be Stricti juris and shall not be taken by equity It hath been objected that the Statute de Frangentibus prisonam 4 E. 1. hath been taken by equity the same is not so for it is not any penal Law but the same mitigates the rigor of the common Law for before that Statute the breaking of the prison was Felony in every case but now it is not Felony but where the party was committed to prison for Felony c. CXCVI. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon of a Manor Dyer 291. 3 Len. 92. the Tenant pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Fine with J. S. The Demandant did aver the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ doth suppose and upon that issue was taken and found for the Demandant upon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this That whereupon Ioynt-tenancy pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to abate without any averment by the Demandant against it the averment hath been received against the Law c. Southcote At the common Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Deed the Writ should abate without any averment but that was remedied by 34 E. 1. but Ioynt-tenancy by Fine did remain as it was at the common Law for he hath punishment enough in that by that plea if it be false he hath by way of conclusion given the moyety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioynt-tenancy and the Law doth not intend that he would so slightly depart with his land