found for the Plaintiff and Finch Recorder moved in arrest of Iudgement first for that they assigne the wast in a Park where the wast is in Land c. Secondly Because that that Action did not lye for them both alike for if the Grandfather and he in the remainder in tayle had joyned in a Lease yet they could not joyne in wast The Books are If Tenant for life and he in the remainder joyn in a Lease they may also joyn with wast 21 H. 8 14. Although 19 H. 7. be put otherwise And 2 H. 5. Sir William Langfords Case Two joynt Tenants to the Heirs of one of them and they make a Lease for life And it was adjudged that they might joyn in wast for the Tenant for life had a reversion for life and had not made any Forfeiture If the Grandfather and he in remainder had joyned in a Lease and afterwards in wast it had been naught for the lease came out of the first root And it was resolved Tr. 2 Jac. Kings Bench Poole and Browses Case That one in remainder cannot have wast where there is an intermediate Estate for life Yelverton and Hutton did not believe the Case of 2 Jac. Crook If there be Tenant for life with such a power c. of Lands held in capite he may make Leases for life without Licence of Alienation and well proves this cause Yelverton and Hutton For the wast being assigned in a Park it is good for a Park is Land Sed adjournatur Hodges against Franklin TRover and Conversion is brought by Hodges against Franklin The Defendant pleads sale of the Goods in Marlborough which is a Market overt and the Bar was well pleaded and an Exception was taken For that that it is not said that Toll was payed It was said by Hutton That there are divers places where no Toll is to be paid upon sale in Market And yet the property is changed and Iudgement accordingly Grimston against an Inn-keeper IN an Action upon the Case it was said at the Bar and not gain-sayed That they ought to say in the Declaration Trasiens hospitavit for if he board or sojourn for a certain space in an Inne and his Goods are stollen the Action upon that is not maintainable And for omission although the Verdict was given for the Plaintiff Iudgement was given Quod nihil capiat per billam upon fault of the Declaration and he paid no Costs Wilkins against Thomas IT was said by the whole Court That a consideration is not traversable upon an Assumpsit but they ought to plead the generall issue and the Consideration ought to be given in Evidence Ireland against Higgins IReland brought an Action upon the Case against Higgins for a Greyhound and counts that he was possessed ut de bonis suis propriis and by Trover came to the Defendant and in consideration thereof promised to re-deliver him It seemed to Yelverton that the Action would not lye and the force of his Argument was that a Grey-hound was de fera natura in which there is no property sed ratione fundi live Deer and Coneys and vouchd 3 H. 6. 56. 18 E. 4. 24. 10 H. 7. 19. for a Hawk for Hares are but for pleasure but Hawks are Merchandable This difference in 12 H. 8. is allowed so long as a Dogge is in the possession of a man an Action of Trespasse lyes detinue or replevin But no Action if he was out of his possession and so had not a property then there is no consideration which is the foundation of an Action Hutton to the contrary and said the whole argument consisted upon false grounds as that a Dogge is ferae naturae Which if it were so he agreed the difference in 12 H. 8. But he intended that a Dogge is not ferae naturae for at first all Beasts were ferae naturae but now by the industry of man they are corrected and their savagenesse abated and they are now domesticae and familiar with a man as Horses and a tame Deer if it be taken an Action lyes Rogers of Norwich recovered Damages pro molosso suo interfecto And 12 H. 8. So of a Hound called a Blood-hound And a Dogge is for profit as well as for pleasure For a Dogge preserves the substance of a man in killing the Vermine as Foxes And now is not an Horse for the pleasure of a man for a man may goe on foot if he will and an Horse is meat for a man no more than a Dogge Therefore an Action may lye for the one as for the other And for a Hawk he ought to shew that it was reclaimed for they are intended ferae naturae One justifies in 24 Eliz 30. for a Battery because he would have taken away his Dogge from him A Repleavin was brought for a Ferret and Nets and a Ferret is more ferae nat than a Dogge Seale brought 25 Eliz. Trespass for taking away his Blood-hound and there it was said to be well laid And then now if he has a property the consideration is good enough to ground an Assumpsit It is adjudged that a feme dowable The heir promises to endow her before such a day and the Action is maintainable upon that by the Court Intraturudic pro quer if no other matter were shewed by such a day Jenkins Case HE brought an Action upon a promise to the Plaintiff That if he marryed her with the assent of her Father she would give him 20. l. Adjudged a good consideration by the Court. 3 Car. rot 414 Sir Edward Peito against Pemberton SIr Edward Peito is Plaintiff against Pemberton in a Replevin and the Defendant was known as Bayliff to H. Peito and said that H. Peito the Grandfather had granted a Rent for life to H. Peito the Son to commence after his death The Plaintiff confesses the grant but sayes that after the death of Peito the Grandfather these Lands out of which the Rent issued descended to Peito the father who made a Lease for a thousand years to the Grantee and dyes The Avowant confesses the Lease but sayes that before the last day of payment he surrendred to the Plaintiff Vpon which there was a Demurer and the question was whether the surrender of the Lease would revive the rent Harvey If he had assigned the Lease to a stranger the rent had been suspended 5 H. 5. One grants a rent charge who had a reversion upon a Lease for life to commence immediately there the question was when the Lease was surrendred whether the rent now became in esse because that the Lease which privileged the Land from distresse is now determined in the hands of the Grantor himself Crook If the Grantor had granted reversion to a stranger and the surrender had been to him It was clear that the suspension had been for the term Hutton If a man seised of a rent in Fee takes a Lease of Lands out of which c. for years and dyes the
the Feoffees shall make an Estate of the same lands to all his Sons except H. And if all his Sons dye without issue that then the remainder shall be to an Estranger Hutton said That because H. was not excepted in the last clause that he had an Estate Tayl. The Maior and Commonalty of Winchesters Case THe Bishop of Winchester grants to the Maior and Commonalty of the same City That they might Edifie in the vacant places of the same City and inhabit there And that Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter and the Opinion of Hutton was That notwithstanding that Grant the soil is to the Bishop and by consequence the Houses Quia quioquid plantatur solo cedit solo And that grant does not enure but as a Covenant or Licence and not otherwise One Tomkins Case IT was said by the way That if a man be in Execution for the Debt of another man in the Fleet the King cannot take him into his Protection into his Wars out of Prison untill the Debt be paid because that he is in Execution for the said Debt and the letting him out of Prison is to let him out of the Execution which the Law will not suffer But if he was in Execution in the Fleet or other Prison for the Debt of the King there he may discharge him and take him into his Protection or into his wars for he may well discharge his own Debt Skore and Randalls Case THe Case was thus A Lease was made to Robert Chichester for 99 years to him his Executors Assigns or Administrators if Robert Chichester or John Bellew or James Bellew or any of them shall so long live yielding and paying therefore yearly and every year unto the said Randall his Heirs and Assigns the sum of 40. s. at the four most usuall Feasts and also yielding at or upon the death of Chichester Bellew or Bellew his or their best Beast in the name of an Herriot or 40. s. c. Provided that if Bellew or Bellew dye in the life of Chichester no Herriot to be paid after their deaths A Distress is taken upon Skore the Assign of Chichester for his own Beast Ashly The Question is whether his or their refer to Chichester Bellew or Bellew only or may refer to Executors and Assigns of Chichester the Lessée And so whether the Beasts of the Assignée may be taken for an Herriot And it séemed to him not for that that a Reservation ought to be taken strictly 27 H. 8. Comment 171. 21 H. 8. Dyer 45. So that if the words are words of Reservation or of Declaration which he will favour they shall not be extended further than the words c. Bing contrary And he conceived that the Lessee or his Executors before Assignment ought to pay the Herriot and afterwards the Assignee for he who took the benefit ought to sustein the burthen Sic transit res cum onere and none took the benefit but the Assignee or his Executors And that is so strange an intendment that in the Habend it is not named who shall yield or pay but it is intended he who had the land and that Herriot comes in in the render of the Rent and render does suppose a Prender And it is coupled with the reservation of Rent and it may be granted that the Tenant shall pay the Rent And then it immediately followes And also his or their best c. which then ought to be the Beast of him in possession Secondly The other Exposition should be impossible to be performed for none shall be charged but those that are either privy in contract or Estate and the Executors of Chichester are not privy to any and Bellewes are the persons only named by the limitation of the Estate and not any wayes privy It may be said that the Tenant shall pay the Beast of Chichester and so his Beast But no man may give the Beast of another And if it be said That he may buy him then the Property should be altered and it would be his own Beast Yielding his or their Beast It cannot be intended that Bellew or Bellew might yield but the Lease is granted to him his Executors or Assigns then his or their Lessee or their Executors or Assigns And you cannot have a forraign intendment of Bellew or Bellew Then the Exposition is good that the Herriot ought to goe with the Estate Hutton That Reservation is not of a thing that agrees with the Rent but it is of a collaterall matter and it is of a thing against common right and for that it ought to be taken strictly and to be the Beast of him that dyed for if it had been Yielding the best Beast of a stranger it had been good but thâ—…e is Election of the Herriot or of 40. s. Then by Assignment one part is become impossible for the Assignee cannot pay the Beast of Chichester but the Fourty shillings he may pay And because the Distress may be taken for the 40. s. therefore the Avowry is naught Richardson If Chichester dye Tenant then his Beast shall be paid And his Executors if the interest come to them shall cause that it be paid for Chichester made the Contract and that goes to his Executors but not to the Assigns And for the 40. s. that is demandable against the Executors of Chichester Yelverton The case is doubtfull but I incline that the Avowry is not good for the words in the Reservation of the Heriot are speciall If it had been said And also yielding after his and their death his or their best Beast There it would be the Beast of the Lessee his Executors or Assigns But also he had sever'd it from the Rent and had taken out of the course of the Estate for otherwise it concurred and went with the Rent But also he had made it collaterall for it is to be paid after the death of the stranger For his or their cannot be carried but to the persons named by the limitation And the Proviso explains that that it should not be payed after the death of the Assignee But if it had been rendring the best Beast after the death of the stranger It should be payed by him that had the Inheritance But he held for the 40. s. that the Executors shall not pay it Perryman against Bowden PErryman brought a Replevin against Bowden and Brown who made a Recognisance in the name of Bedle. And the Case was thus A rent is granted payable at Michaelmas and the Annunciation And if it be in arrear by 40 daies after any day of payment upon the demand at such a place he might distrain And it is not shewed that he demanded it And for that a demurrer Atthowe it is not requisite to shew a demand for the distress it self is a demand And it was adjudged in this Court If a Rent be granted and that he may without demand distreyn and good without demand And the words if it be
years or but for 7 years And it seemed to Hutton that the Lease was confirmed but for 7 years But Richardson was of the contrary opinion and took a difference where they confirm the Estate and where they confirm the Land for 7 years That Confirmation confirms all his Estate But where they confirm the Land for 7 years That Confirmation shall not enure but according to the Confirmation And that difference was agreed by Crook and all the Sergeants at the Bar. And afterwards Hutton said That that was a good Case to be considered and to be moved again Jacobs's Case A Man was indicted at Newgate For that he feloniously vi armis had robbed a man in a certain Kings foot-way leading to London from Highgate And upon that he was arraigned found guilty And having his judgment he prayed his Clergy for that he was a Clark And the Iustices of Gaol delivery doubted if he should have his Clergy or not Because the Statute if any man be taken upon Felony committed on the High way he shall not have his Clergy But the Indictment was in this case that the Felony was done in alta via reg pedestri So that the words are not alta via regia nec in magna via regia nec in via regia For if that word pedestri had been put out of the Indictment he should not have had his Clergy clearly Some of the Iustices were of opinion that that word added in the Indictment made that he should not have his Clergy The Lord chief Baron of the contrary opinion Perkins against Butterfield HItcham moved to the Iustices If one takes Beasts Dammage feasant and impounds them in an House and leaves the Door open So that the Owner may sée them and give them sustenance And afterwards for default of Sustenance they dye in the Pound Whether he who distreyned them shall be charged or not Hutton when one takes Beasts Dammage feasant in his Land It is at his Election if he will impound them in an open place where the Pound is or in some place in his own Land And if he impound them in the common Pound and the Beasts dye the Owner has no remedy But if they be impounded upon the Soyl where they did the Dammage or in the Houses of him who distreyned them and they dye for want of Food In this he who took them shall be charged For the Common Pound is common to all Persons so that they may come to give them food Otherwise in this case For there the Owner cannot have notice where he hath made his Pound Richardson of the same opinion And I believe that the Owner shall have an action upon his Case against the Owner for the recovery of the value of his Cattell For trespass does not lye For the taking of them and the impounding was lawfull And it is reason that he should recover the value of them by an Action For if the Owner had come to have given them food the Terre-tenant would have an action against him Hitcham The taking of them is made a Trespass ab initio when the Beasts dyed in Pound Wimberly against Taylor et alios VVImberly had entred a Plaint in a Court Baron against two jointly for taking of his Goods And the Plaintiff had removed the Plaint by a Recordare joyntly as the Plaint is And now at this time the Plaintiff counts of taking of Goods severally So that it varies from the Plaint and the Recordare also And Ward moved that the Writ might abate And so it was adjudged by Hutton and the Iustices Wilkinsons Case IT was moved at the Bar If a Man makes a Lease for years to I. S. I. N. and I. D. If the aforesaid I. S. c. should so long live And now one of the Lessées is dead If the whole Lease should be determined or not was the Question And Hutton and Harvey said That it was without doubt that the Lease was determined by the death of one of them But if the words had been generally If the Lessées should so long live and had not named them Then perchance it should have béen more doubtfull The Executors of Tomlins's Case ATthowe demanded this Question of the Iustices A Lease is made for years the Lessée grants over his Estate and reserves to him and his Heirs during the term a certain Rent If the Executors or the Heir of the heir shall have that Rent And it séems to me that it shall enure to the heir well enough As a Grant made by the Grantee of the estate of the same Rent So the Heir shall take by the Grant Harvy May the Heir take Chattel as Heir to his Father And this Rent is but a Chattel And in the Book of Assise there is a Case where Lands are given to I. S. et uni haeredi suo et uni haeredi ipsius haeredis tantum And that was taken to be no Fee-simple Nor no such Estate that the Heir might claim as Heir to his Father But I am in doubt of your Case truly For which I will advise Hitcham Vpon that I have seen a Diversity Where Lands are given to I. S. et haeredi suo et haeredi haeredis I. S. In that Case he shall have a Fée-simple Otherwise it is where Lands are given to I. S. et haeredi suo There no Fee-simple passes Richardson There no Fee-simple passes in any of the Cases And it was said in the Argument That Lessee shall not have Trespass vi et armis against his Lessor Whiddon's Case A Man devises by his Testament to his Daughrer Jane all his Land in D. habendum sibi et haered de corpore suo legitime proc And by the same Testament he devises to his Daughter Anne all his Land in the tenure of I. S. in the County of Hertford Whereas in truth D. was in the County of Hertford and parcel of the Lands were in the tenure of I. S. Whether Jane shall have the Lands in D. in the tenure of I. S. by the first words Or Anne shall have them by the last words Harvey The Testator had given them by his first words to Jane Wherefore he cannot revoke his Gift and give it afterwards to another Daughter But all the Iustices were of the contrary opinion A Case of Executors IF Executors come to the Ordinary for to prove the Will He ought to prove it ex communi jure And that he may do without great examination of the Witnesses But if other Executors come afterwards to prove a later Will Then the Ordinary ought to be circumspect in the probation of that Will and to do it by proofs For that is de mero Jure And it is the better and of more effect by Atthowe Challoner against Ware A Man makes a Lease for years reserving a certain rent payable at the Feast of St. Michael And for default of payment at the said day and by the space of 40 daies after That
charged be to the value of 40 l. per an that will be a good condition and the Obligation shall be forfeit If the condition was that the Land was then of such a value it was presently a breach of the Condition The second matter was whether the breach was well assigned or not And Richards Yelvert held that the breach is not well assigned There are two things in the Covenant one of the Estate another of the value Here may be a breach to be assigned upon the Estate but then it ought to be general For the grant out of all his lands and tenements in Watchfield is not a conclusion to him who had lands and tenements in Watchfield then the Obligation is forfeited As if one be obliged to make a Feofment to I. S. of all his lands which he had by descent in D. If he had no lands there it is not a forfeiture So here But if the rent was granted out of particular land as out of the Mannor of D. There the grantor is included to say but that he was seised of the Mannor of D. which was granted As to this diversity the word praedictis had relation to lands and tenements in Watchfield for no lands were named But the material thing is the value c. And if praedict goes to all the Lands then the breach goes to more than the Covenant and then it is not met with But admit that it goes to all yet it is all one For the intention of the parties was that the value of 40 l. joynture per annum shall be mentioned But the Plaintiff does not mention the value And it is sure that the word praedict may goe to all the lands in Watchfield or to lands of 40 l. And if the Defendant had rejoyned he might have rejoyned generally scil That he was seised of lands in Watchfield in Fee simple and he is not forced to shew his particular estate in the lands And admitting they had gone to tryal upon that issue what might the Iurors find And if they had found the value it is nothing to the breach That is more than was in their charge and so void But Hutton and Harvey on the contrary and said that the breach is well assigned And Hutton took this difference That if the Covenant was that he was seised of such particular lands of such value The breach ought to be assigned in particular also but where it is that he was seised of lands of such a value the breach is now well assign'd here it is a recital of lands of the value of 40 l. per an to that predict has relation And it does not appear to us if he had more lands in Watchfield than of 40 l. per an But these things were agreed by all First that the antient pleading in the time of H. 6. is now changed and the general pleading of all Covenants in the Indenture in form although that the affirmative is good And the Plaintiff ought to shew the particular Covenant broken c. Secondly in the principal Case if the Plaintiff had replyed that he was not seised of lands and tenements in Watchfield in Fee-simple without praedict or deque fuit seise de nullis terris vel tenementis praedictis in Watchfield of the value of 40 l. in modo forma secundum formam conventionis is a good assignment of the breach And the Defendant forced to shew the particulars The Plaintiff discontinued the principal sute and begins again but that he might not doe without the license of the Court as they said Because that they might agree afterwards to give Iudgement Taylors Case TAylor was Plaintiff against Waterford in debt upon an Obligation and the Defendant demanded Oyer of the Condition quae legitur ei in haec verba If the Defendant should pay such costs as should be assist at the Assizes without shewing for what the Obligation should be void And the Plaintiff replies that post confectionem Obligationis Pasch .. 4 Car. Com. Banc. the aforesaid words were written upon the Obligation and the truth is that they were endorsed upon the Obligation by memorandum after the Delivery And Atthowe moved that the Plaintiff might not reply in that manner because that when Oyer of the condition was demanded that was entred for a condition and so was admitted by the Plaintiff And for that he is concluded to say the contrary But Serjeant Davenport replyed on the contrary And said first that the words of themselves will not make a condition It is Litletons case That some words doe not make a condition without a conclusion as what is contingent 39 H. 6. And admit that the words will make a condition yet they were written after delivery 3 H. 8. Kellways reports Hutton If there be an Obligation made of 20 l. if it be written upon the back of the Obligation before the sealing and delivery The intent of this Bond is to pay 10 l. for such costs That is no good condition Which Iustice Harvey only being present agreed And if any thing may be part of the condition it ought to be written before the sealing and delivery But it is no condition if it be written after And by them here is no conclusion but that the Plaintiff may plead that the words were written after sealing and delivery Termino Pasch Anno 5. Car. Regis Com. Banc. Mericke against King IN evidence to the Iury he who had purchased the land in question It was said by the Court he shall not be a witness if he claim under the same title Richardson said that the conveyance may be proved by other circumstances And the same reason was also agreed by the Court That if a Feoffment be made of a Mannor to uses that if the tenants have notice of the feoffment that although they have not notice of the particular uses their attornment to the Feoffees is good For the Feoffees have all the estate And Harvey said that so it was agreed in one Andernes's case Sir Richard Moors Case IT was said in evidence to the Iury. The case was that a man prescribes to have common in 100 acres and shews that he put his cattel in 3 acres without saying that those thrée acres are parcel of the 100 yet good And Hitcham said that so it was adjudged in this Court. And Richardson said it was an Huntingtonshire case Where a man alleged a custom to put his Horses c. And the custom was for Horses and Cows And adjudged good Hutton said there can be no exception to the Witness who is Cozen to the party to hinder his evidence in our law To which all agréed Clotworthy against Clotworthy THe case between Tenkely and Clotworthy was cited One grants an Annuity for him and his heirs to be paid annually at two usual feasts for 30 years which was to begin after the death of the grantor And it was agreed by all Richardson being absent that
the Civil Law And it was resolved First that the King by his Charter deprives the subject of his Liberty and Priviledge of Tryal As he cannot by his Letters Patents alter the nature of Gavelkinde Land but by prescription he may alter it in particular places As 9 H. 6. 44. In corpus cum causa to the Chancellor of Oxford was certified that the prisoner Pro extensione detentus fuit convictus And an exception was taken for that that he should have been indicted and convicted and it was answered that it was Mos Universitatis And by Hutton Iustice That custom was to be intended to be by prescription But so the Charter is confirmed by Act of Parliament it is as good Secondly that there is a good cause of action in the Chancellors Court. For Wilcocks who is one of the parties is a Scholar and the Charter was only made for the ease of Scholars that their Studies might not be interrupted by Sutes in other Courts But then he ought to be a Scholar resident in the Vniversity at the time of the Sute commenced there And he ought to be only one of the parties And for that if another be joyned with him he shall not have the priviledge or benefit of the Charter as it is 14 H. 4. 21. and by Richardson chief Iustice that is not a priviledge which may be waved for every person may Recusare jura introducta pro se But that it was an exempt Iurisdiction and differs where the priviledge goes to the person As if a Clerk in his Court will sue in another Court or suffer himself to be sued that is a Waver of the Priviledge Thirdly that a Proeedendo shall not be granted for that the Charter is not pleaded for the Iudges give Iudgement of the Record and the cause of their Iudgement ought to appear by pleading of the Record And also a prohibition is granted where by Demurrer or by Pleading and not by verbal surmise there ought to be a discharge And in the case of a prohibition It is not like the Case of 35 H. 6. 24. Where Conusans is one time allowed by Charter shewn and another Record there should be allowed without demand without other shewing But Yelverton Iustice to the contrary That it might be remanded upon pleading of the Charter And he said that there was a difference where the suggestion was upon matter of Fact as prescription c. Where an issue may be taken there it ought to be pleaded in writing which appears fully by the mean of the Court and not by suggestion Fourthly it was resolved that a prohibition may be granted in case where the Court cannot give other remedy for the ease of the Subject who is the party as it was adjudged in the Court of Requests Vpon the custom of London concerning Orphans a prohibition was granted and yet no remedy at Common Law was afterwards to be expected Trin 5. Car. Fawkner against Bellingham FAwkner against Bellingham in a Replevin The Avowry was for that that the Defendant was Lord of a Mannor and of Lands which were Chauntry Lands and held of him by Rent and other Services And after coming to the Crown by the Statute of 10 E. 6. cap. 14. Who granted it then over by Letters Patents c. And now the Lord distreins for Rent and avows that he had not seisin within fourty years And whether seisin was requisite for him who made the Conusans was the sole question in the Argument First for that that it is a new Rent created by the Statute of 1 E. 6. For when that Land is granted to the King by Parliament yet the King hath operation upon it and may dispose of it Secondly that the Land passed from the Priest and others by their assent confirming it And it is a Grant of the Seigniory by the Lord himself unless the saving hinder it But so by the Grant the Rent is extinguished And the saving is so a creation of a new Rent 1. rep 47. Altomeoods Case And there is diversity between a Rent-service viz. where the Tenant grants Land to the King and he grants that over He cannot distrein upon the Patentee for it is distinct from a Rent charge Stamford prerogat 75. Mich. 20. E. 3. 17. And so it is ordered by the Statute de Religione when he enters by Mortmain that he ought to revive the Services Stam. 27. If the King enters upon my Tenant there a Petition of Right lies Dyer 313. 10. rep 47. By the saving in the Statute of Wills c. A primer Seisin is given to the King de novo where he ought to have it before And then being a new Rent no Seisin is requisite Secondly the second reason is for that there is a new remedy and then no matter whether it be old Rent or new Rent Finchden A Rent granted out of White-acre and a distress out of Black-acre the Rent yet remains and there is one thing part of the Rent another of the remedy Because the Rent is only altered in quality Dyer 31. There our Case directly Now the Statute of Limitations is a Statute for the good of the Common wealth to settle inheritances and possessions And it should be expounded liberally Then if a scruple be of the Act it ought to be expounded benignly And so it is of all other Statutes which settle possessions Always shall be expounded favourably for the ease and benefit of the Tenant and Lord. And for that adjudged That a Copy-hold and Leases for years are within that Statute And the Statute of 32 H. 8. 11. rep 71. binds both King and Realm because it is for the publick good Owen against Price before BRamston argued for the Defendant I agree that Lease to be a Lease in remainder and I admit also that that Lease is warranted by the Statute 10 Eliz. For that that he is not punishable of waste And the case admits two questions whether it be a void Lease at Common Law And First In respect of the limitation Secondly there is not any Livery in the Case Wherefore first of all it had been said a Frank Tenement cannot pass from a day to come in case of a Grant 38 H. 6. 34. 8 H 7. Claytons Case 5. rep It had been agreed that a Livery made the first day by himself or by his Attorney should not be good And moreover if by his Attourney after the day if his Grant may be granted the same day it is not good And then I hold that the date of the Grant of Attourney is not material Trin. 43 Eliz. rot 402. Conibar It was resolved in such a Case as that is That the Livery is not good And the reason was that the Livery had not relation to the Deed which was void in Law Bucklers and Binsluns Case The release was made 1 May as this and executed by Attourney and by Attourney authorised the same day the second of May. And it was adjudged
demanded are material Because it is demandable in a Collateral place out of the Land charged Crook Grant of a rent and that I pay it at Michaelmas allwaies if it be demanded at my House there ought to be a demand And suppose it was to be demanded in such a place upon the Land I conceive the demand ought to be made accordingly Yelverton A Lease was made rendring a rent payable at such a day upon Condition that if the rent be not paid at such a day without demand That the Lessor may reenter And adjudged that no demand is now requisite For modus et conventio vincunt legem c. Sed adjurnatur Wolfes Case before THe Plaintiff was an Attorney who sued by attachment of Privilege And now the Court would not permit the amendment Because there was a material Error for it is to the disadvantage of the King For if the party be non-sute or a verdict passes against him the King shall have a Fine for false clamour and may recover them against the pledges But now where it is the Act of the Court or of the Clark or Attorny and not the party himself there may be amendment As warrant of Attorney may be entred after the Record removed And although that pledges were entred upon the Issue roll where it ought to have been upon the Imparlance roll But not on the contrary For the Issue roll is the inferiour Harvey If a Sute be by Bill as an Attorney being Defendant there are alwaies pledges entred in the Bill But if by Attachment also as so Then the Declaration is the Original Crook 12 Eliz. Dyer There Iudgement was reversed for want of Pledges And although that Case was before the Statute of 8 Eliz. yet that Statute does not ayd substantial Errors And in one Husseys Case in the Kings Bench That was adjudged for Error Wilknsons Case CRew moved that two were bound in a Statute and one dies his Heir within age That the extent shall demur Because that usura recurrit contra haeredem infra aetatem existentem And he cited 17 Ass 24. by Mawbrey And so it was agréed by the Court. And Richardson said That in that respect the Statute is an ill assurance Quod nota Waddingtons Case AYlâ—ff moved for a Prohibition for one Waddington for that that he was executor and was sued in the Councell of York upon an Obliligation for the payment of a Legacy And he alleges that a Lease which was put in the Inventory was aliened to him by the Testator in his life time And so the Question will be whether that should be Assets which ought to be tryed at the Common law And therefore prayed a Prohibition Richardson said The Councel of York have power of all Obligations And therefore having Iurisdiction of the principal they have Iurisdiction of the accessary Davenport It is seen that they may proceed upon an Obligation of all sums If they procéed Suo genere as in the Court of Equity But if a thing tryable at Common law as Assets or not Assets come they cannot proceed c. Richardson If a Sute be there for a Legacy and payment be pleaded they may try that But if they meddle in matter of Title then a Prohibition shall be granted Hutton There hath been many motions upon these Ecclesiastical Obligations for Prohibitions and allwaies they were denied And so it was in this Case Comins Case IN one Comins Case it was agreed by the Court That a Subiect may have a Forest But cannot have a Iustice Seat But he may have a Swanmark Court and the other Courts and a Commission to execute them Then a Forest in the hands of a Subject shall pay Tithes And it was agreed that in the hands of the King it is privileged And by Henden Davenport and Atthowe Sergeants It is only his personall privilege which extends to the Lessee of the King But not to the Feoffee And it was agréed That where the right of tithes comes in Question between a Parson and the Vicar who are both Ecclesiastical persons It shall be tryed by the Ecclesiastical Court But Richardson said the Books make a doubt Where it is between the Servant of the Vicar and the Parson But it seemed to him to be all one Margery Rivets Case before RIchardson Hutton and Harvey said That the Devastavit ought to be to Margery for Necessity sake For it cannot be intended otherwise For none can satisfie the Debt but Margery And the intention of the Replication was to charge her de bonis prop. for waste and no other can be intended to waste And the Case put of I. S. so being seised feoffavit There it is good without praedict I. S. But for the thing it ought to be Feoffavit inde 21 H. 7. There if W. S. be named again It shall be intended the same W. S. if there be not quidam I. S. and then otherwise and also it is much mended by the Replication For there it is ipsa Margareta non devastavit But Crook and Yelverton on the contrary according to their reasons before that no Issue is joyned And then the Statute does not ayd it For there is not any Nominative Case to which it may referre If it had been quo die Margery habens bona devastavit had been good But being bona habuit no Grammarian can make Construction of it And the Replication or Declaration ought to be certain to all intents 27 H. 6. 3. Wrotesleys Case In an information of Tithes It was said That the Defendant cognoscens him to be in sute being ruled that Congnoscens is not positively an affirmation but it ought to be cognovit And Iudgement was had upon it and yet after for that fault reversed 1 R. 3. There the Case was After verdict was entred that the Iury appeared et electi triati dicunt super sacramentum suum There it was reversed because it was not lurati and yet that was implyed by sacramentum strongly But Implications ought not to be allowed in Replicatious then we should introduce so many incertainties But by Crook Iudgement shall be given against the Plaintiff upon his own Replication For that that the waste is supposed after the Son came at full age and then the Administration that determines And Iudgement was given for the Defendant Roberts and others ROberts and others in East Greenwich were cited in the Spiritual Court to pay mony that the Wardens had expended in reparation of the Church And the Inhabitants alleged That the tax was made by the Church-wardens themselves without calling the Free-holders and also that the monys were expended in the re-edifying of Seats which belonged to their several Houses And they never assented that they should be pulled down And now that allegation was not allowed but sentence was given against them And then they appealed to the Arches where this allegation was also rejected And for that he prayed a Prohibition And the Court agreed That the
said Goe not to such a one c. it is actionable without question Slander of one in his Trade will bear an action And so all being connexed alike it ought to be intended that he killed him in respect of his skill In Cases of Defamation Sir George Hasting's Case Thou didst lye in wait to kill me with a Pistoll were actionable So if one touch another in respect of his skill in that that he professes it will maintain an action c. And Yelverton to the same purpose for there is a difference between a Profession and a particular Calling As if words are spoken of one that is a Iustice of Peace he ought to shew that he was then a Iustice of Peace for he is removable and may be changed every Quarter Sessions But as to a Calling the Calling of every man is his Free hold 43 E. 3. Grant of an Annuity to one pro consilio and he professes Divinity Physick and Law there the grant is pro consilio generally for Physick if that be his usuall Profession And it is intended that a man alwayes dyes in his Calling If he said to I. S. Thou art a murtherer it shall not be intended of Hares for the Iudges are not to search so far for construction Loquendum ut vulgus intelligendum et sapiens If one sayes of a Merchant Put not your Son to him for hee 'l starve him to death These words are actionable for that that it comes within the compasse of the disgrace of his Profession And so of a School-master Put not your Son to him for hee 'l come away as very a dunce as he went Harvey If one sayes of a Iudge He is a corrupt Iudge it cannot be meant of his body to be corrupt but it shall be intended of his Profession Peitoes Case before HEnden for the Defendant the Case is thus A Rent is granted for life out of Lands which descend to the Heir and he makes a Lease of parcell of the Land to the Grantee for years who surrenders the term Whether the Rent shall revive or suspend during the term And it was said by him it shall revive First For that that it is the act of him who is lyable to the Rent to accept the surrender And there is a difference where there is a determination barely by the act of the party there it shall not be revived For the first 21 H. 7. 9. Tenant in Tayl of a Rent is infeoffed of Land and he makes a Feoffment of Land with a warranty to B. with Voucher as of land discharged of that Rent And so it is 19 H. 6. 55. Ascue put this Case Grantee of a rent in Fee and Donee in Tayl of Land infeoffs the Grantee who grants that over and afterwards the issue in Tayl recovers in a Formedon yet the rent shall not be revived But if it had been the joynt act of the parties as so by surrender it should have been revived First It is clear that if a Chattell personall be suspended by Sute it shall be gone for ever As if a Feme marries the Obligor 11 H. 7. 25. unless suspension be in anothers right if it be by the act of the party there it shall be revived As if a Feme Executrix marry with the Obligor and he dyes the suspension is determined and they are revived against the Executors 7 H. 6. 2. In one Gascoines Case Lessee surrenders to the Lessor upon condition the rent be suspended but if the Lessor enter for conditions broken the Rent is revived Which in effect is our case A rent is granted to the Daughter and the land descends to her and her other Sister who make partition The Rent is revived for it is the joynt act of both parties Plow 15. If a man had a Rent and disseises the Tenant of the land and after the Disseisee re-enters Where there is a revivor of the land there is a revivor of the Rent for the disseisin was the cause of the suspension and that now is gone Secondly Because that when the Lessee for years surrenders the term is determined to all purposes and the Lessor is in of his Estate is Fee and there is a diversity of surrender in respect of a stranger for to a stranger it may have Essence after surrender But as to himself it is otherwise extinct And he cannot say that it had any Essence 5 H. 5. 12. But in respect of a stranger it ha's continuance as if an Executor surrenders yet it shall be assets And all acts done upon Lessee for ltfe before surrender shall have a continuance after And so he prayed Iudgement for the Avowant But more after Wakeman against Hawkins IT was said That if an Executor was sued in this Court by Originall he shall not put in Bayl. But if he be arrested in an inferiour Court and removed by Habeas corpus he ought to put in Bayl. Stamford and Coopers Case STamford and Coopers Case was thus I. S. acknowledges a Statute to Cooper the 22 January and afterwards he confesses a Iudgement to Stamford the 23 of January next ensuing the Statute And it is extended And Stamford brought a Scire fac against Cooper to wit now because he ought not to have the land by Elegit And the Question was whether the Iudgement by relation shall defeat the Statute And it was resolved That the Iudgement shall have relation to the Essoin day which is the 20 day of Ianuary for that is the first day of the term legally and the fourth day after is the first day of the Term open Dyer 361. Pla. 10. A Release was pleaded after the last continuance and it bore date the 21 of Ianuary which was after the day of Essoin de Octab. Hil. And for that nought because that it came late for it ought to have been after the last continuance and before the last day c. 33 H 6. 45. Nisi prius was taken after the day of the return and before the fourth day after and adjudged nought because that the day of the return which is the Utas is the first day of the term and the fourth day after but a day of Grace and that is the difference If a man be obliged to pay money the first day of the Term he shall not pay it but upon the fourth day after for that is the first day in all common acceptance But in all legall proceedings the first day is the Essoin day And so it was adjudged 16 Eliz. And in the Kings Bench it was in one Williams Case A Iudgement was given the 20 of Ianuary and a Release of all Errours the 21 Ianuary and adjudged that that bars the Iudgement given the 20 Ianuary although it was not entred the fourth day after A Iustice in the Kings Bench examined an Infant upon inspection the Essoin day and found him to be under age and would not permit him to confess a Iudgement although that he would
it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to reenter without any demand of the Rent The Rent is in arrear by 40 daies after the Feast of Saint Michael and no demand of the Rent made by the Lessor Whereupon the Lessor entred If that Entry were lawfull was the Question And by Hutton it is not For a demand of the Rent is given by the Common law between Lessor and Lessée And notwithstanding the words without any demand it remains as it was before And is not altered by them But if the Rent had béen reserved payable at another place than upon the Land There the Lessor may enter without any demand But where no place is limitted but upon the Land otherwise it is Richardson to the contrary For when he had covenanted that he might enter without any demand The Lessée had dispensed with the Common law by his own Covenant As the Lessor might by his Covenant when he makes a Lease Sans impeachment dl waste He had dispenced with the Common law which gives the Action of Waste Harvey of the same opinion If a Man leases Lands for years with a Clause That if the Rent be in Arrear by forty daies after the day of payment That the term shall cease If the Rent be in arrear by the said forty daies after the day of payment The Lessor may enter without request Conyers's Case ONe Thompson makes a Lease for forty years to Conyers by Indenture and in the same Indenture covenants and grants to the Lessee That he shall take convenient House-boot Fire-boot and Cart-boot in toto bosco suo vocato S. wood within the Parish of S. And those Woods are not parcel of the Land leased but other Lands Atthow I would fain know your opinion if that Grant of Estovers out of an other place than was the Lease be good Also what Estate the Grantée of House-boot and Fire-boot shall have by that For the words are from time to time and hath limited no time in certain And lastly If the Lessée be excluded to have House-boot and Fire-boot in the Land leased or if he shall have in both places Also if the Executors by that Grant to the Lessee shall have House-boot and Fire boot And it was agreed by Hutton and Harvey That that Grant was good and that the Grantee shall have it during the Term. And that that grant does not restrain him But that he shall have house-boot and fire-boot in the land leased also Atthowe If there be no great Timber upon the land leased and the houses are in decay if the Lessor ought to find and allow to the Lessée sufficient Timber for the making the reparations or if the Lessée at his own costs ought to find the Timber for the reparations of the house Hutton said That the great Timber shall be at the costs of the Lessor if no Timber be upon the land leased nor no default be in the Lessee in suffering the great timber to go to decay or to putrifie And it was agréed if the Lessor cut a tree and carry it out of the Land That the Lessee may have an Action of Trespass And if Stranger cut a tree the lessee shall have an action of Trespass and recover treble dammages As the lessor should recover against him in an action of waste Wakemans Case A Man seised of a Mannor parcell demesn and parcell in service devises by his Testament to his wife during her life all the demesn lands also by the same Testament he devises to her all the services of chief Rents for 15 years And moreover by the same Testament he devises the same Mannor to another after the death of his wife And it was agreed by all the Iustices That the devise shall not take effect for no part of the Mannor as to the stranger untill after the death of the wife And that the heir after the 15 years passed during the life of the wife shall have the services and chief Rents Jenkins against Dawson IN a Formedon the Demandant makes his Conveyance in the Writ by the gift of I. S. who gave it to ◠D. er haeredibus de corp suo legitime procreat And shewes in the Writ that he was heir to the Son and heir of I. D. Son and heir of W. D. the Donee And Hitcham demanded Iudgement of the Writ for this Cause And the Court said that the Writ was not good for he ought not to make mention in the Writ of every heir as he does here But he ought to make himself heir to him who dyed last seised of the Estate Tayl as his Father or other Ancestor Also that word procreat ought not to be in the Writ but Exeuntibus But the Court thought that it might be amended And Harvey said If false Latin be in the Writ it shall be amended as if in a Formedon the Writ be Consanguineus where it should have béen Consanguineo Hutton and all the other Iustices said that that might be amended by the Statute Saulkells Case IN an Attaint the grand Iury appeared and the petit Iury and the parties also and one Rudstone Master of the Servant in the Attaint came to the Bar and there spoke in the matter as if he had been of counsell with his Servant Crawley said to him Are you a party to this Suteor for what cause do you speak at the Bar And he answered that he had done this for his Servant And if he had done any thing against the Law he knew not so much before Hutton You may if you did owe any mony to your Servant for his wages give to his Counsel so much as is behind of it and that is not maintenance Or you may go with your Servant to retein Counsel for him So that your Servant pay for his Counsel But that that you have done is apparent maintenance And the Kings Sergeant prayed That he may be awarded to the Fleet and pay a Fine And Hutton upon advise sent him to the Fleet. Wiggons against Darcy DArcy was in Execution upon a Statute Merchant and his Body and Goods were taken And the Conisee agreed that the Conisor should go at large and he went at large Atthowe moved If that were a discharge of the Execution or not And Richardson said it was For his imprisonment is for his Execution And if he release his imprisonment he releases his Execution And so if two men be in Execution for one Debt and the Plaintiff releases to one of them That is a release to both And so if one had two acres in Execution and the Plaintiff release the Execution of one of them It enures to both Harvey on the contrary opinion Yet I will agree That if a man be one time in Execution The Plaintiff shall not another time have an Execution For after a cap. ad satisfac an Elegit does not lye But in the Case where the Conisee does release the imprisonment only and not the Execution for it is
not but a liberty given by the Conisee to the Conisor to be at large That does not release the Execution Dolbins Case IN a Replevin the parties were at Issue and the Plaintiff sued a Venire f. c. returnable such a day at which day the Sheriff does not return the Writ Wherefore the Avowant by Ward prayed a Venire fac with a proviso for him And it was granted by the whole Court Fossams Case A Man after the Statute of 27 H. 8. makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for term of his life and after his decease to the use of I. S. and his Heirs The Feoffor does waste And I. S. brought his Action of Waste And now if his Writ shall be general or special was the Demur in Iudgement And Hutton and the other Iustices were clearly of opinion That the Plaintiff ought to have a special Writ And so it was adjudged afterwards Doswell against Iames. IN Debt brought upon an Obligation Iames shews that the Obligation was endorsed with a Condition to perform all the Covenants comprised in an Indenture and he pleads that all the Covenants were fulfilled And does not shew in certainty the Covenants nor how they were performed And Hitcham said that the Plea was not good For there is a Diversity when one pleads in the Affirmative and when in the Negative For if in the Affirmative he shews in the certainty how the Condition or Covenants were performed And there is no diversity in my opinion between the Conditions which were upon the dorsed Obligation and the Covenants in the Indenture And it is to be thought that he who knows more of the Truth should shew it in his Plea And therefore he who pleads the Affirmative shews how the Conditions are performed Because it lyes much in his knowledge Whether he hath performed them or not But where he pleads in the Negative otherwise it is For there he is not to shew the certainty And yet I will agree that if one brings an Action of Debt upon an Obligation indorsed with a Condition The Defendant may plead the Conditions performed generally But otherwise it is of Covenants in an Indenture And in an Obligation with a Condition endorsed if he pleads the Conditions performed and he shews what thing he hath done If it be in the Affirmative he ought to shew the certainty of it also So that for that cause the Plea will not avayl Also it is incertain and doubtfull to the Iury. For if in that Case we are at Issue upon such a general Plea Although it shall be tryed by the Iury Yet it would be strange to enquire of such general things Wherefore c. Gerrard against Boden AN Annuity was brought by Gerrard against the Parson of B. And the Plaintiff counts That the said Parson granted an Annuity of 40 l. pro bono consilio suo imposter impenso for term of life of the said Parson And for 30 l. of arrerages this Action was brought Finch thought the Count not to be good And first it is to be considered If that Annuity might be assigned and granted over or not And as I think it cannot For an Annuity is not but as a sum of mony to be paid to the Grantee by the Grantor And not at all to the realty if the Land be not charged by express words in the same Deed. And to prove it If a man grant an Annuity to me and my Heirs without naming of my Heirs If the Annuity be denied it is gone Because my Person is only charged with the Annuity and not the Land So if a man grants to you the Stewardship of his Mannor of D. and to your Heirs you cannot grant that over And so of a Bayliwick But peradventure it may be said That an Annuity may be granted over in this Case Because in the Habendum It is said to the Assignees of the Grantee But that is nothing to the purpose as I think For I take a difference when a thing comes in the Habendum of a Deed which declares the Premises of the Deed For there it shall be taken effectuall but otherwise not As if Lands be given to a man and his Heirs habendum sibi haered de corpore suo procreat That is a good tayl But if a thing comes in the Habend which is repugnant to the Premises of the Deed and to the matter of the thing which is given by the Deed Then the Habend is void for that parcel As in the Case at Bar it is meerly contrary to the nature of the Annuity to be assigned over to another And there is no remedy given for it but an Action and it is Common learning that a thing in Action cannot be assigned over unless it be by the grant of the King Also by their Declaration they have acknowledged it to be no more than a chose in action Then a Rent seck for which he had not any other remedy but an Action after Seisin For he said that he was seised in his Demesn as of Franktenement of the Rent aforesaid Then it ought to be a Rent-seck For of no other Rent can a man be seised in his Demesn because they lye in prend As of Advowsons common for years and of Estovers And I will not agree that difference put by Littleton in his Book to this purpose For of such things which lye in manual occupation or receipt A man shall not say that he was seised in his Demesn as of a Rent Because it lyes in the prend Pasc 4 Car. Com. Hanc And in the 21 E. 4. The Case is doubtfull And Crawley of the same opinion Hitcham of the contrary And at another day Hutton said that the parties were agreed Hitcham We desire to have your opinion notwithstanding for our learning Hutton said We are agreed that the Annuity may be granted over and it is not so much in the personalty as hath been argued by Finch And in some Books it is said that a Release of personal Actions is not a Plea in a Writ of Annuity Groves against Osborn THe Case was thus A man makes a Lease for life the Remainder for life upon Condition that if the second Lessee for life dye in the life of the first Lessee That the Remainder in fee shall be to another And it was said That that Remainder might commence upon that Condition well enough It was said by Atthowe That where a Remainder depends upon a determination of another Estate So that none shall take any Estate by the Remainder upon Condition then the Remainder is good As if a man give Lands to A. for life upon Condition that if I. S. pay me 40 s. before such a day That the Remainder shall be to him That is a good Remainder But when an Estate is to be defeated by a Remainder depending upon that Then the Remainder is not good As if I lease Lands for life upon Condition That if the Rent be in
of the Demand cannot be made parcel of the Issue 31 Eliz. rot 1137. Com. Banc. Dennis Varneys Case There the Book was agreed If it be to be demanded generally it may be at any time if it be tunc petit otherwise For otherwise it would be a Rent-charge at one time and a Rent-seck at another And the Distress it self is the Demand As it is in Lucas Case If one be obliged to pay mony upon Demand The Action brought is a sufficient demand And Barkley Sergeant He shews in the Avowry that such a one was seised of 20 acres and grants a Rent out of them and others by the name of all his Lands in Rustock and Ollerton For that he said that Ollerton is not charged Because that it is not pleaded that he was seised of that But the whole Court on the contrary And that it is an usual manner of pleading And that it shall be intended that he was seised of Ollerton First the words are per scriptum c. he granted a Rent and then he pleads that per scriptum suum he gave a power to distreyn And then it shall be taken that it was not made by any other Deed and the Distress given by the second Deed shall not make the Rent a Rent-charge And he cited Buts Case Then if it be a Rent-seck and the Distress gives a nomine paenoe There ought to be an actual Demand and that upon the day as it appears by Maunds Case And Pilkintons Case 5 Rep. 5 Eliz. Dyer If it was a Rent-charge the Distress it self serves for a Demand As it was many times adjudged Secondly The words are If the Rent be in arrear any day of payment or 14 daies after The last instant of the 14th day is the legal time for demand of it And the words existent legitime petit ought to refer to the daies expressed immediately before As 39 H. 6. A man obliges that his Feoffees shall do such an Act si quisuerunt Those words shall have reference to the Feoffées And Dockwrays Case If a Man be obliged that his Children which he now hath so also existent Being words of the Present tence refer to the days now mentioned and otherwise there would be a great inconvenience For it cannot be intended the same tenant to be alwaies upon the Land Barrows Case 20 Eliz. A Feoffment upon Condition to re-enfeoff upon demand at such a place It cannot be demanded without notice to the Feossée For that that he shall not be compelled to be there alwaies expecting And the same inconvenience alwaies would follow If the demand should not be upon the day of payment by which c. Richardson If the Rent had béen granted out of 20 acres in Rustock and then he had granted by another Déed that he should destreyn in other Lands being in the same County or not and is the same That that is but a Rent-seck 10 Assise 21 Ass And the Distress is not but a penalty And if that Rent is granted by one Deed and the distress upon the Land by another Deed If it be not delivered at the same time then there shall be a Rent-charge and there shall be also a Rent-seck And when also it is said that ulterius he grants per scriptum suum and does not say praedict It shall be intended another Deed then without averment that it was delivered at the same time It shall be intended at another time But admit that it be a Rent-charge and that it issue out of Ollerton where the demand of it was Yet he ought to maintain that actually In Maunds Case The distress is a sufficient demand For it is not but to inable him to destreyn and that is where the demand is limitted generally But if a Rent be granted and if it be demanded of the person of the Gruntor he may destreyn Then there may be an actual demand that was adjudged As in the Court 15 Jac. Com. Banc. Iackson and Langfords Case and in one Armerys Case And in another upon the same point So if you will grant a Rent-charge demandable at a special and particular place If it was at another place than the Land charged Without doubt there ought to be an actual demand So if it be upon a special place from the Land charged or demanded for the distress ought to be pursued as the Grant is And that is upon such a demand But where it is restrained by the words of the Grant And the same Law is where you will limit the time of the demand If the Rent be granted payable at such a day and grants over that ad tunc being demanded there a legal and general demand will not serve But there ought to be an actual demand And also it is as much although not in express words for the sence and meaning carries it If it be arrear at such a day existent petit The demand ought to be at the day mentioned before If I be bound in Obligation the Condition to pay mony at such a day being demanded There ought to be a demand at the day of payment or there shall not be a forfeiture And now then there is not a demand at the time so no cause of distress And although the Verdict be found if it be collateral matter yet it will not help For when it appears upon the whole matter that there is not any Title to distreyn the Tryall will not help it And so Iudgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Hutton Harvy and Yelverton agreed That if it was a Rent-seck and the distress a penalty there ought to be an actuall demand at the time limited But in case of a Rent-charge although the demand is limited to be made upon parcell Yet they all held that a generall demand will serve And that shall be at any place at any time For Harvey said There is no oddes whether it is limited to be demanded generally or to be demanded upon Dale If it be material it ought to be observed in the one Case as well as in the other Stanleys Case IN one Stanleys Case in an Action of Battery Sir Thomas Crew moved for mitigating the dammages Where the Iudgement was given upon a non sum informatus and afterwards a Writ of enquiry of dammages But the Court said That in such Cases they never will alter the dammages And Crook said that he was once of Councel in an Action of Trespass pedibus ambulando in the Kings Bench in such a Case upon a Writ of enquiry of dammages 10 l. was given That he could never have a mitigation by the Court c. Outlary NOte it was said That an Outlary in the same term for error may be reversed in the Common Bench Or in any term if it be void upon any Statute As for want of Proclamations c. And an Outlary was reversed for that the Writ was praecipimus tibi where it should have been vobis to the Sheriffs of London
up a Chamber but that was the knavery of the Inne-keeper he being then in contention with an Inn-keeper in the Parish and that in divine service he thrust open the door of Wrights seat and said that he and his wife would sit there in disturbance of divine service And for that a prohibition was prayed and granted for the high Commission cannot punish non-residency nor breaking the seat in divine service And the other were things for which he shall be bound to his good behaviour and the complaint ought to be to the Ordinary c. Hall and Blundells Case before DAvenport said This Parson being presented by Simony is disabled to this Church for ever and cannot he presented to this Church again although another avoidance As it was adjudged in the Lord Windsors case But it was said by Richardson if he had said absque hoc that he was in ex praesentatione of Sir George it had béen good Which was granted Henden Two exceptions had béen taken First that the Incumbent does not shew what estate or interest the King had to present him which does not need if the King brought a Quare impedit then it is a good answer to say That he is in of his presenting But if it be brought by a Stranger then he ought to shew the title in his presentment And he alleged the Statute of 25 E. 3. Which inables the Incumbent to plead by writ of the Law 41 Eliz. There was a Quare Impedit brought for the Church of Danel A presentation was pleaded by the King without making a title and it was admitted good And in many cases it is more safe not to make a title Secondly Because that he pleaded a presentation by the King he is disabled As to that he said that before he be convicted of Symony he may be presented But by Crook in Sathers Case That if he be presented before conviction yet it is a void presentment And it was so agréed by the Court and they resolved the plea was naught because he enswers nothing to the Symony for the protestation is not any Answer Wherefore judgement was given for the Plaintiff Denne against Burrough DEnne against Burrough alias Spark in a prohibition it was agréed by Yelverton and Crook the other Iustices being absent If a man makes his will and makes his wife Executrix and devises the residue of his goods after debts and legacies payed to his Executrix His wife dies before probate that now because that the Executor had election to have them and dies before he did so All the Goods belong to the Administrator of the first Testator But otherwise by Henden If there was a Legacy of a particular thing Quaere what difference Newton against Sutton RIchard Newton and Iames Elliot against Sutton in debt upon an Obligation to perform Covenants in an Indenture There was a Covenant that the Defendant ought to do such an act thing or things as the Plaintiff or his Council learned should devise for the better assurance of certain Lands by himself to the Plaintiff and said that a Counsellor advised him to have a Fine And upon the Declaration there was a Demurrer And upon the opening the Case Crook and Yelverton being only present agreed That it ought to have been pleaded that a writ of Covenant was shewn and the tender of the note of the Fine is not sufficient But the breaking of the Covenant ought to be laid after the Dedimus potestatem sued by the Plaintiff And upon their advise the action discontinued without costs Sacheverills Case before ATthowe said that the action lies For a Lease made by Tenant for life is a Lease derived out of all the Estates and not as a Lease made in Remainder But he who made the Lease had a Reversion in possibility of a Reversion and for that he might joyn with him who had the Inheritance in that Action 27 H. 8. Tenant for life and he in Reversion joyn in a Lease for life And Tenant for life the place wasted and he that had the inheritance the treble dammages And in this Case had but a possibility of the Reversion and yet for that possibility they joyn in waste And it is all one whether there is but a possibility of reversion or a reversion If Tenant for life and he in remainder in fee make a Lease for years they joyn in waste and the reversion does not hinder Because that the Lease is derived out of both And the Lessee shall make attendance first to one and then to the other 13 H. 7. 17. And if it be upon such a Lease or Covenant which is not collateral but goes with the Land the Tenant for life shall have the benefit of them during his life and the other after But if one makes a Lease for life rendring a Rent and grants the Reversion to one for life the Remainder to another in fee Where the lease issues out of the whole reversion Yet the division by reversion being by the party himself they shall joyn in an action 22 H. 6. 24 b. Tenant in fee makes a Lease for life and their grants the reversion to A. and B. and the Heirs of B Waste is committed and they joyn in waste And yet this Statute which comes to our Case is made after the Lease And in this case if he who had the Inheritance his Son and the Survivor should joyn in waste For the Law makes the division of the reversion If Baron seised in right of his wife and they joyn in a Lease for years or for life rendring a Rent the wife dies the Husband being intitled to be Tenant by the courtesie it is now his Lease and he shall have the Rent And the Book séems that he and the Heir shall have an Action of Waste For the Law makes that division If Tenant in fée makes a Lease for years and takes a wife and dies and the Feme recovers Dower That Lease is not dispunishable with the devision by the Act of Law and that Lease is derived out of all the Estates and it is all one as if they had all joyned Admitting that the words were that the said Henry had Authority to make Leases for lives And that that makes it as effectual and as good as if all had joyned Then it will be agreed that it is the Lease of all As if I give Authority to make a Lease of my Land It is my Lease and ought to be made in my name and so the Authority is good against all those And if the Covenants had not béen collateral Iacinth shall have benefit of them For although they are not parties to the Lease yet the Law makes them so And as they shall have those benefits which grow by the Reversion so they shall have the waste also It will be objected this Lease by Henry is derived out of the first Fine and the Conusees shall stand seised to that use I agree if it be meerly without
the principal case Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Iohn Costrell against Sir George Moor. JOhn Costrell and Ioan his wife brought an action upon the Case against Sir George Moor and declares That whereas the said Iohn and Ioan were seised of a Messuage and lands in right of his wife Ioan A man having land in right of his wife in trust they cannot both joyn in the action but the Husband only and that the said Iohn and Ioan and all their predecessors time out of mind c. had common in such a waste which is the soyle of the Defendant pro omnibus a veriis levantibus cubantibus c. and the Defendant had inclosed 20 acres of the said waste and made a fish pond of it there so that they could not take the profits as before with their cattel Vpon the general issue pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And Crawley moved in arrest of Iudgement For that the prescription is ill made and that the Husband and wife cannot joyn in this action but the Husband might bring the action only And also where it is said that they cannot take the profits with their Cattel when the wife cannot have Cattel during the Coverture Richardson said the prescription is good and it would have been better if he said all those whose estate the wife had But this tantamounts and is as well in substance for that goes meerly to the estate of the Wife Trin 5 Car. Com. Banc. which was granted But for the second I doubt if the Wife may joyn in this Action If a man be seised in right of his Wife he may have Trespass for Trespass done upon the Land there the Wife shall not joyn for she cannot have the dammages if she survive And there is no difference between this Case and the principal Case It is Trespass on the Case and for the personal and temporary trespass and such for which the Wife should have the Action after the death of the Husband unless that the Defendant continue the Pond c. I agree if Battery be done to the Wife they both shall joyn for the Wife might have had the Action if she survived And so it was resolved in the Cooks of Grays-Inns Case they might joyn For the wrong was done to the Wife But here the Husband only lost the benefit of the Common and the wife could not take it with her Cattel For she had not any Cattel during the coverture And Yelverton also was of the same opinion But Hutton said In a Quare impedit the Husband and Wife shall joyn And yet the avoidance goes to the Executors of the Husband Hitcham In an Ejectione firm or ravishment of Ward the Feme joyns quod concessum fuit Yelverton said that in 4 E. 4. it is express that the Wife shall not joyn in trespass done upon the Land of the Wife for dammages shall be recovered in lieu of profits Moor against Everay MOor and his Wife brought dower against Everay To parcel he pleads non tenure and to the other parcel ne unque seise de dower which goes to the tryal and there the Tenant makes default and upon that a petit cape is awarded and now at a day in bank one Lumbard prays to be received upon the Statute of Gloucester to save his term c. But Henden alleged to the contrary First That Statute is not to this purpose in force by the Common law Tenant for years cannot falsifie 6 Rep. Periams Case Then because it was hard that a recovery should be had by Covin and the Lessee for years without remedy for his term the Statute of Gloucester was made which gives a receipt for the Lessee for years after the Statute 21 H. 8. was made which gives the Lessee power to falsifie The Common experience of the Court is If an habens facias seisinam issue there is not any saving of the term of Lessee for years Hil. 39 Eliz. in Bests Case A receipt was moved and denied For if the Lessee had a good term he might have trespass for entry upon him Littleton though says in his Chapter of Tenant for years that he shall be received Hutton The Statute of Gloucester aids them only who knew and had notice of the Recovery 21 H. 8. aids them who had not notice of it And it is better to prevent mischief than to remedy it after and as to that a final Bar. I was of Counsel in some Cases where the Lessee was received And if the Lease be not good the Lessor may avoid it by Plea scil Traverse or Demurer And I remember the issue taken upon the Term and found against the Termor And it was Mr. Fulhams Case against Sergeant Harris Sed adjournatur Fawkenbridges Case IT was moved he having Iudgement before to have costs where the Court doubted because that it was a special Verdict and the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 15. says That where a Verdict is found against the Plaintiff But in a special verdict it is neither found for or against But it may be said that when it is adjudged against the Plaintiff then it is found against him And 4 Iac. cap. 3. which gives costs in an Ejectione firmae had the same words if any verdict c. But it may be answered That as in Demurrer no costs shall be recovered no more in a special verdict For that the Plaintiff had a Prohibition causam litigandi And the Statute may be intended of vexatious Sutes c. But Brownlowe said that he had many times given costs upon the Statute of 4 Iacob For that the Prothonotaries were commanded to search Presidents The University of Cambridge THe Vniversity of Cambridge claimed by their Charter to be Clarks of a Market and that they had power by their Office to make orders and execute them And they made an Order that no Chandler should sell Candles for more than 4 d. ob the pound And because that one R. sold for 5 d. he was imprisoned and a Prohibition granted But it séemed that an Habeas corpus was more proper For he was not presented First For that they could not imprison without course of Law Secondly Because that as Clarks of a Market they have nothing to do with but Victuals and Candles are not Victuals The Sheriff of Surrey against Alderton THe Sheriff of Surrey returns a rescous against one Alderton That whereas there was a Iudgement had against B. and a fieri facias awarded upon that by vertue of his Warrant directed to R. to take the Goods of B. By vertue whereof such a day the said R. diversa bona catalla ipsius did levy and had them in his custody No rescous can be of Goods and one Alderton rescued them from the Bayliff contra voluntat ipsius Rich. The return is naught First For that that it is rescued from the Bayliff Secondly It is of Goods whereof a rescous cannot be returned Yelverton contrary in
himself from all rights as concerning himself yet the Donor shall by force of this Statute which at the Common law he could not And if the Donor will release all his right in the Land to the Donee after a discontinuance by Feoffment his release though it will extinguish no right to the very Land yet it will extinguish Rents which proves that the Donee by his Feoffment cannot dismiss himself of all his right but that by the Statute of West his alienation is disabled as to that but that the Donor may avow for the Rent But wheresoever Tenant in tayl suffers a Recovery or levies a Fine the Rents together with the entayl ceases And the answer as to that is imperfect to resemble it to the Case of tenant in see simple doth alien and yet the Lord may avow upon him for the Cases have no resemblance for as Littleton well distinguisheth when Tenant in fee hath departed with his whole Estate he is no more Tenant to the Lord to avow upon though the Lord if he Will may avow upon him for the arrerages and if the Lord after future alienation release to him all his rights in the Land the Release is void to release the Rents and Services in all which it differs materially from the other Case and it is an equall proportion of the Law That when the Lord aliens his signory the Tenant is to he acquainted that all Arrearages may be paid that he may have no after-reckonings for after notice and the Arrerages paid the avowrie vanisheth Now for the Heir in tayl claiming from his Ancestor after his Feoffment by descent from him thereby allowing a right to remain in him against his Feoffment The Case is more difficult because during the Feoffor there can be no motion of that right neither by the Feoffor who hath hard himself nor his Issue because his Right is not yet come yet let me put this Case upon the Statute 11 H. 7. upon the opinion of Mountague Chief Iustice If Tenant in tayl Iointress make a Feoffment the person to whom the land doth belong after her death may enter and hold it according to his right Now till such Entry there is a discontinuance but when the Issue enters he is an Heir intayl et quasi eins per discent But now generally when Tenant in tayl hath made a Feoffment and dies the Heir shall bring a Formedon in the Discender and shall count that descendere debet from that Ancestor that made the discontinuance performam doni and therefore the Writ saith discendit jus it is as much devenit jus It is true that regularly a Feoffment bars all former rights and future rights yet respect to be had to Estrangers Albanies Case 2 Rep. Archers Case 1 Rep. 66. 9 H. 7. And therefore in Archers Case Lands were demised to one fore life remainder to his first Heir male Tenant for life made a Feoffment in fee and died his next Heir was barred of his right for ever by the Feoffment A man seised of Land by right of his Wife makes a feoffment in fee and then the Estate is made back to the Wife she is thereby remitted and her Husband shall never be Tenant by the Courtesie and therefore well resolved if Tenant in tayl discontinue and levy fine with Proclamations is no bar to the Estate tayl Now this Case is irregular because it standeth by Act of Parliament which is able to make the same Act good to one purpose or person and void or voidable to another as the Statute of Ecclesiastical persons and binds the party but is void or voidable against the Successors and shall nevertheless when they enter be in by succession And that there is still a right remaining in the Tenant in tayl appears in that he hath still in him a power to bind it more finally and totally by fine and recovery if he pursue them rightly and therefore note Cuppledikes Case If Tenant in tayl with divers remainders over make a Feoffment and Feoffee vouch not the Feoffee Tenant in tayl in possession but the first in Remainder by the Statute the Feoffees are not bound but are remitted and Maunsells Case there is cited where one recovery is a bar to 3 several Intayls with double voucher And this is called jus extinguendi which he could not extinguish and discharge if not in him and in his power and therefore there is no cause to frame Abeyances needless and in vain but the Law allows not nor admits not but in Cases of necessity as in the vacancy of Bishops Parsons and other Ecclesiastical persons or the like Remainders to right Heirs upon Freehold abeyances are not allowed but where the original Estate required them or where the consequences of Estates and Cases do require them As for the first in Case of single Corporations Bishops Deans and Parsons which must dye and a vacancy of freehold or a Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. yet living Or Secondly in Case of congruity as if a man gives a Warranty and die his Heir in ventre sa mere may not be vouched but if there be Heir he may be vouched and a Vouchee may take and plead a Release quasi tenens or may lease a Fine to the Defendant of the Land in Question But for Estates that of their own nature and origination creation are perfect and intire as this Estate entayl is the Law permits not vain affected abeyance or fictions by the voluntary Act of the party as this to no good which should preserve a right to serve the Heir and to defraud the King which was one of the principal reasons for the making the Statute 27 of H. 8. for the transferring of uses into possession Vses being but a kind of abeyance and shift to kéep the profits to the use and defraud the King and Lords of their Escheats and them that had a right to know against whom to bring their Actions Littleton was confounded in himself when he made an abeyance of totum statum suum and yet made an Estate for life which is condemned in Walsinghams Case by the Iudges Again though fictions take place amongst common person the King is not bound by fictions and therefore the King is not bound by his remainders by recompence feigned upon a common recovery warrant collateral binds not the King but warranty with real and actual Assets nor the King is not bound by Estoppels of his own recitall certa scientia as it is in Altenwoods Case And I hold plainly that as the Land in possession is distinctly and literally given to the King so the right is as literally directly and plainly given to the King by discharge of that ancient right whereof formerly it was bound for when the Statute saith that the King should have the Lands saving the right of all persons other than the Offenders and their Heirs and such as claim to their use it is plain that the eye of the Statute was not
open Pound if they dye the Distreyn is chargeable 75 A demand before a Distress if the Demand is out of the Land if not then see 86 Where Damages shall not be mitigated 93 Where a Demand ought to be certain and where not 109 On a Devastavit a Writ de bonis propriis issues 110 If a Debtee mary Debtor what becomes of the Debt see 120 In what Cases A must declare tam pro domino rege quam pro seipso 122 Double delay not allowed 126 E DElay in arrear of Error not hinder Execution 17 If a Sheriff remove his Prosoner out of the County without command It is Escape 34 Where he permits him to go for his pleasure Escapes lies ibid. Ne unque Executor found against him upon a Scire fac shall be only de bonis testat 48 Eject firm lies against Tenant at Will if he leases for years 73 If the Conisee permits the Conisor being in execution to go at large be an Escape 79 Excommunication to strike in the Church 86 If an Executor dies before probate the Goods belong to the Administrator of the first Testator 105 A Rent upon Condition reserved to the Executors goes to the Administrator 115 If a devise be void if no Executor be made 118 Ejectments do not lie of a Mannor 146 In Ejectment he ought to shew the certain quantity of Land 176 Antient Demesn is a good Plea in Ejectments 177 F A Franktenement cannot pass from a day to come 29 Feoffment to the use of a Stranger ought to be tendered to him 56 Denyal of the Rent a Forfeiture 6 A Subject may have a Forest but not a Justice Seat 60 No Clergy for Felony committed upon the high way otherwise upon the foot way 75 In a Formedon he ought to make himself heir to him who died seised last of the E-Estate tayl 78 Felony to take Pidgeons out of a Dove-coat 149 Fieri Facias no Bar to the Capias although part of the debt be satisfied 159 I INdictment quassavit for incertainty 35 Upon a Judgement if the Money be paid to the Attorney it is good but otherwise of a Scrivener 48 Inne-Keeper ought to say in his Action transiens hospitavit 49 If Land be descended to an Infant the Sheriff shall surcease his extent 54 59 Iudgement had against an Infant may be reversed 65 Judgement reversed for want of Pledge 59 Imparlance roll may be amended 143 Infans habeat eandem actionem possessoriam qualiter antecessor 160 An issue mistaken cannot be amended 164 K IF the King enters upon any Tenant a Petition of right lies 29 The King cannot take a man in execution out of Prison to his wars causa vid. 57. L VVHether a Lease to two be determined by the death of one 85 Whether a Grant of Estovers out of another place than was the Lease be good 78 Libell for the Seat in a Church 94 Where upon a Lease the Heir shall be estopped and where not 91 Libell for Tithes of two pecks of Apples 100 M VVHat things go to the making of a Feme sole Merchant 9 Where inter-mariage is but a suspension of a promise 12 An action brought in consideration of a mariage 50 How a Lord shall recover in a Writ de valore maritagii 55 O FOr what Causes an Outlawry may be reversed 93 P IN Partition no dammages are to be recovered 34 Prescription for Sallery of a Vicar is tryable at Common law 33 Prohibition where the thing might be tryed and proved at Common law 15 Where Prohibitions shall be granted and where not 19 27 28 49 50 51 60 68 69. Parson cannot discontinue 88 Prohibition upon words 94 A Protestando is no Answer 104 Symony a good suggestion for a Prohibition 116 Whether a Prohibition may be without alleging a Custom 117 Per minas pleaded 121 R VVHether the word Successive so makes a Limitation of a Remainder good matter and Cases thereupon 22 23 24 25 26 If a Feme sole Executrix of a Term mary him in reversion and dies the Term is not drowned 36 Release of Actions and Sutes substantive bars Debt 15 Nul tiel Record replyed where Recusancy convict is pleaded by the Defendant the Record must be shewn 18 Where a Reversion passes without Attornment 73 Where one Request may serve for several Debts 84 Whether on a Rescous the Action shall be brought by the Plaintiff against the Rescousor or against the Sheriff 95 Where no averment against a Record 107 Where a Feme shall be remitted and what makes a Remitter 110 No Rescous can be of Goods 145 Arrerages for rent upon an Estate for life cannot be forfeit for Outlawry 164 S TO grant a Supersedias there must be execution erronice emanavit alleged 30 Surrender determines the Interest of all parties but a Stranger 51 In Case of Symony the Statute makes the Church void 51 No fee due to the Sheriff for the executing of a cap. utlagat 52 That he might arrest the Kings Servant upon this Writ ibid. Quicquid plantatur solo cedit solo 57 T TRover and conversion brought for a load of wheat 22 A discharge of Tithes by the Parson for years runs with the Land and not with the person 31 Where toll ought to be pleaded in Trover and conversion 49 Trespass against Baron et feme dum sola fuit both shall be taken 53 If Part and Portion a like make joint tenancy or tenancy in Common 55 Trespass brought by Baron and Feme they must not say ad damnum ipsorum otherwise of Jointenants 2 Tithes of Fish due meerly by Custom 13 Tithes where due by the Common law of the Land no Prohibition ibid. Tithes of Limekills 14 The word Equally makes Tenancy in Common 64 No Trespass lies against a Disseisors Lessee 66 Where Tithes of young Cattel 85 93 Tithes for hedging Wood. 18 A Term evicted on Elegit is grantable upon a Statute Merchant or Staple not tithes for milk of Calves 100 No Composition for tithes for life without Deed. 107 No tithes for Estovers burnt in an House 110 V A Special Verdict may be amended according to the notes given to the Clark 52 A Verdict finding matter repugnant or which cannot come in question binds not the Court. 4 If a Scrivener not the party reserve more than just interest no Usury 11 Where the Visne and the return differ it is not good 83 If Defendant dies between Verdict and Iudgement Iudgement will be stayed 90 Whether Beer Brewers are within the Statute and intent of Victuallers 101 W VVAste committed by a Stranger the Lessee dies no remedy against the Seranger 97 Tenant for life and he in remainder may join in Waste 105 The Warden of the Fleet nor Westminster never may take Obligations for Dyet 146 REPORTS AND CASES TAKEN In the third fourth fifth sixth and seventh years of the Reign of the late King Charles c. Ralph Marsh against John Culpepper RAlph Marsh brought an action upon the
good and it shall be intended that the Parson is alwaies resident in his Parsonage as a Surrender or an Attournment shall be intended upon the Land and it is not requisite to name any place And it seemed to Harvey that the Arbitrement was good although that all the Parishioners had not submitted to it Because that these were bound for them 18 E. 4. 22. 1â—… 1. And Iudgement was afterwards in the next Term given for the Plaintiff Iohn Paston against William Manne IOhn Paston brought an Ejectione firm against Manne and a special verdict was given to this effect scilicet Edward Paston was seised of the Mannor of Bingham parcel whereof was the Land in question grantable by Copy And he by his Deed indented in consideration of a Mariage to be had between Tho. Paston his Son and the Daughter of I. S. covenanted with I.S. to stand seis'd of the Mannor to the use of his Son for life and after to Mary the wife for life the remainder to the first Son between them in tail with divers remainders over The Mariage was solemnised and they found moreover that there was a Custome that the Lord might have liberty of fould course for 100 Sheep throughout all the Copiholdland lying in the East and North field the Customary places and Lands in these Fields not being inclosed from the Feast of St. Michael to the Feast of the Annunciation if the grain was carried in by that time Or otherwise from the time of the carrying in to the Annunciation if it be not sowed with seed again and that those 15 acres in question be in the Corn-field And that Thomas Paston granted that Copihold to the Defendant in Fee and that in 14 Iacobi the Defendant enclosed the Land without Licence of the Lord and if Licence was obtained then he ought to have paid a Fine which the Lord would have assest And if any of the Tenents inclose without Licence they find that they have used to be punisht and pay those penalties which the Lord would assess And they also found that that incloser by the Copiholder was with a Ditch of six foot in breadth and 3 foot in depth and that the land which he digged out was but to make a Bank upon the Land upon which a hedge of quick thorn was set and that four gaps were left in the inclosure of nine feet in breadth And they found that the Defendant did not at any time compound for a Fine And then they find that the Copiholders which before this inclosed without Licence were amerced and commanded upon a pain before a certain day to throw up their inclosures And now for this inclosure Thomas enters for a forfeiture and dies his Wife makes a Lease of it and the Defendant ejects the Lessee Atthowe held that he had forfeited his Copihold for that inclosure is against the Custome of the Mannor which is found For the Custome is the life and soul of a Copihold as it is in the 4 Rep. 31. Brownes Case The breaking of that is a forfeiture and make the Copiholder have an Estate at will meerly whereas before he had an Estate not meerly at the will of the said Lord but secundum volunt domini And so by the inclosure the Lord cannot have his fould course and so the custome is broken 42 Ed. 3. 25. For not doing the services the Lord may enter and have the Emblements If a Copiholder makes a feoffment it is a disseisin for which there may be an Assise of novel disseisin de libero tenement of Lands whereof the profits or of the Rent issuing out of the Land there is a forfeiture And Littleton said that a rescous Replevin Enclosure and denying the Rent is a Disseisin And what is a Disseisin of a Freehold is a forfeiture of the Copihold Rescous by a Copiholder is a forfeiture for all the books say that a denial of a rent is a forfeiture And it is held that if a Copiholder brings a replevin it is a forfeiture and the Lord may enter presently But if he avow then perchance he hath dispensed with it And an inclosure is more strong than a denial 11 E. 3. Assise 88. cited in Taverners Case 4 Rep. The heir cannot have an Assise before entry but if the Defendant menaces him or stops up the way it is a Disseisin 14 Ass plac 19. 8 E. 2. As 374. A stopping up of the way is a disseisin but if he can go another way he can have nusance 29 Ass 49. But it will be objected that the Lord had another remedy for he might have an Action of the Case And for that not enter for a forfeiture But an Action of the Case does not restore him to the Freehold but give dammages only And if an Assise be brought it affirms the Disseisin and makes forfeiture and that agrees Taverners Case That where several Copiholds were granted by one Copy a rent denied of one forfeits that and not the others But admit it is a forfeiture if the leaving the Gaps dispence with it And it seem'd that not for he loses the profit of the Fould-course for 500 Sheep would tear their fleeces by such a narrow passage and the inclosure is an impediment to hinder their spreading in their feeding And so every one also may inclose and leave gaps and the Lord perhaps compell'd to put and remove the Shéep ten times in one day and so the Sheep worse at night than in the morning c. Secondly if the Lord had given Licence then he would have had a Fine but he would so be his own Carver And the Lord had no remedy for a Fine upon admittance after Surrender 4 Rep. 46. He had no remedy there by Action of debt nor by Action of the Case without promise to the Admittance c. Lord grants a Copihold Escheat he ought to improve his Fine before or he hath no remedy for he is not compelled to grant the Copihold again and therefore he shall have what Fine he will And it is not found also who may inclose paying his Fine A Lord admits a Copiholder for life with remainders the admittance of Tenent for life was the admittance of the remainder but he shall have his Antefine 4 Rep 23. And if they may inclose paying a Fine then the Lord had an Estate at the will of the Tenents Thirdly when it is found that the Lord amerced and commanded upon pain c. that is no mitigation or dispensation of the forfeiture For ruinous Houses pull'd down is a forfeiture without Custome to the contrary Because no waste lies against a Copiholder as against Lessee for years And yet the Lord in favour may amerce such a Copiholder if he will and that is no dispensaition but an affirmation of the forfeiture And so because the Lords were conscionable and would not take the forfeiture that does not prove that it is a Dispensation Fourthly the making of the gap and hedge of
by the Court that where a Servant of a Bayliff of a Franchise was sworn to serve a Process and by deputation from the Bayliff he ought not to have served a Process but to such a sum And he serves a Process of a greater sum without any warrant and after levies the money and parts with it That the Bayliff shall be chargeable Quod nota Beare against Hodge BEare was Plaintiff against Hodge for taking of his Cattel The Defendent was known as Bayliff to Thomas Wise who was seised of twenty acres c. whereof the Land in question was parcel in Fee And that it was Leased to Harris for 99. years if he and his two sons should so long live and rendring a Rent at the four usual Terms in the year and the best beast at the death of every one of the three in the name of an Herriot or 5. l. at the election of the Lessor And now for Rent arrear at Michaelmas and for an Heriot after the death of Harris he avowed c. The Plaintiff confesses the Lease and reservation and as to the Heriot he demurred But for the Rent he said that he tendered the Rent upon the Land toward the latter time of Michaelmas day and that none was there to receive it And that afterwards he tendered it to the Lessor himself out of the Land and he refused it And that after that time no demand was made but that he after the tender alwaies was and yet is Tenent c. and brings the mony into Court And upon that he demurred Henden said The Avowant may distrein without any new demand and that Case had been adjudged in this Court before For although that the Rent be tendered yet it remains due notwithstanding and then he is able to distrain 15 Iac. in this Court rot 710. Crowley brought a Replevin against Kingsmill who avowed For that the Plaintiff held of him by Fealty and 10 s. rent And for the Rent he distreyned the Plaintiff And that at the day he tendered the rent upon the land none was there to receive it as it is said c. And upon debate it was adjudged that he may distrein without demand 7 rep 29. Maunds case you may see that a Rent-seek shall not be distreined after tender without demand For if by his demand he is intituled to his Action then there ought to be a new Demand 21 E 4. 17. 7 E 4. 40. 20 H. 6.1 cited in Pilkintons Case If you will be excus'd of the Distress there ought to be a tender of the Arrerages at the time of the Distress Richardson Hutton and Harvey all agree That the Distress is good to have the Rent but not to recover Dammages because he does not all he might do And Richardson said That 2 H. 6. 10 H. 6. 20 E. 4. 10 E. 4. and the Case in the Assise and the whole current of Books was to the same purpose Harvey Iustice said that if a tender be upon an Obligation at the day he saves the penalty but if another Demand be afterwards and he refuses to pay he cannot plead unque prist And Iustice Crook cited a Case in the Kings Bench 16 Eliz. betwéen Cropp and Hambleton where a Rent upon a Lease was reserved to be paid at Michaelmas And if by forty daies after c. And in the mean time after the first and before the last the Lessee tenders to the Lessor himself And adjudged that it saves the Forfeiture For it is for his ease that he ought to tender upon the Land And by the same reason also when he hath tendered it to the Person himself and said that it is uncore prist and will demur upon that and not take advantage of his non-tender at the Distress the Dammages are saved But Yelverton was against that For it is agréed that a Distress is locall so then we cannot sever Dammages when the Law hath coupled them and made incident to the Distress Sed adjournatur c. Tithes ONe libells for Tithes of Fish which is due meerly by Custome And the Defendant pleads that time out of mind c. they have paid no Tithes of that And Henden Sergeant moved for a Prohibition And Richardson replyed and said it is méerly a Customary Tithe as Rabbits c. Whereof no Tithes are due by the law of the Land and a Prohibition shall not be granted But all the other Iustices affirmed that there shall be a Prohibition granted because that the Custome ought to be tryed by the Common law and they make a difference betwéen modus decimandi which is also Customary and where there is a Tithe precedent due and that modus converts it into another Duty There no Prohibition shall be granted But it shall be tryed in the spiritual Court whether there be such a modus decimandi or not And that Case in the Custome makes the Duty it self But he alleged the modus to be for two pence and the Parson for thrée pence shall be tryed by the Common law And they said that so was the opinion in the grand Case of lead ore And Hutton said that so it was determined in the Case of one Berry for tithes of Limekills which are as Minerals and are not tithable by the Commmon law But when the Custome is tryed then they in the Ecclasiastical Court may proceed upon it Hartop and Tucke against Dalby HArtop and Tucke brought a Quare impedit against Dalby as Incumbent and the Issue betwéen them was Whether the Church of Essenden was appendent to the Mannor of Essenden or in gross And the Plaintiff to prove the Appendancy gave in evidence that H. 6. seised of the Mannor and Advowson grants to Margaret his Wife the said Mannor habendum una cum advocatione for her Ioynture c. It was said that if the advowson was in gross it could not pass so not named in the Premises But of an advowson appendent otherwise it is As it was agréed in 38 H. 6. 36. Abbess of Syons Case which was granted by the whole Court. Henden to disprove that evidence alleged That the Advowson being made any time in gross It can never be appendent again And he shewed also how H. 3. was seised of that Mannor with the Advowson and that he granted the Mannor to I. S. for life excepta advocatione By which Grant it seem'd to him that it became in gross And said that the Iudgement of the Case in 38 H. 8. 38. was for that cause and that they did not ever find it contradicted And so totis viribus be maintained that to be in gross But all the Iustices were against him And that that is not but a disappendency pro quodam tempore And so was the better opinions in 38 H. 6. as the Case is in Dyer 33 H. 8. 48. 6. of a Villain If the King grants the Demesus of a Mannor for life After the death of the Lessée it is a Mannor again And if
an advowson appendent be granted for life After the Lessee it becomes an Appendent again And so if a Mannor with the Advowson descend to two Copartners And the Advowson is allotted to one and the Mannor to the other If there the Sister who hath the Advowson die without Issue it is then appendant and yet there was a severance in perpetuity And Yelverton went to the Iustices of the Kings Bench to have their opinions And they all agreed that it was but a temporal disappendency during the life without doubt Bramston said the Mannor is granted and the Advowson by E. 6. to the Lord Saint Iohn to be held by several tenures The Mannor in Chivalry and the Advowson in soccage which is a strong presumpsion that the Advowson was in gross But the Iustices agreed that there may be several Services and yet the Mannor and the Advowson nor severed And a Mannor may be granted parcel to be held by one Tenure and parcel to be held by an other Tenure and yet remain intire And afterwards verdict was given for the Plaintiff c. Viner and his Wife against Lawson VIner and his Wife libells against Lawson in the Councell of York for a promise to pay 600 l. to the Wife for her Mariage And suggested that they could not precisely prove it by one witness that they might have remedy at the Common Law But Lawson denyed the promise upon his Oath and yet they proceeded and Lawson prayed a prohibition and it was granted For if it may be proved by some witnesses then it is tryable by an Action of the Case c. And so the Iurisdiction of the Common Law is ousted Abrees Case MOre of the Case which you saw before c. Henden argued that that release is but special and that it extends only to errors And first for that the intention of the parties is principally to be regarded And ex praecedentibus consequentibus optima fit interpretatio The precedent clause is only a release of errors and then the consequent suits And in the last clause release all Actions and suits of error before Secondly a release is particular and may be by inference of other words have a general sense yet particular construction shall be made Nisi impediatur sententia or intentio partium For that also Suits in the middle of the clause shall have relation to the other words And to that purpose is 28 H. 8. Dyer 19. A Grant to the Lessee that he shall have the Rues for hedges by the assignment of the Bayliff of the Lessor and for necessary fuel to burn And the opinion of the Court was that he should have the fewel also by assignment 9 E. 4. 43. 6. A man submits himself to the Arbitrament of I.S. de omnibus actionibus personalibus sectis querelis And it was ruled that that word personal refers to all And the Case in question is the very Case as that in reason 10 H. 7. 8. A man grants the Custody of his Park and all the Windfalls c. And it seemed there that the grant of Windfalls is absolute for that that the intent cannot be otherwise Pasc 36 Eliz. banc Roy. Betwéen Pidgeon and Gibson Norff. The Case upon the special verdict was in Trespass and Pidgeon the Father makes a feoffment to his younger son by which he grants thus Omnia illa messuagia mea tenementa in East Bockham that late were Patris mei and since in the Tenure of N. D. and C. And it was adjudged that that land did not pass by that Feoffment For where particular words are in the end the middle shall never be taken general And so also 8. rep 150. Althams Case There it was resolved that where it had particular words there all shall be of the same nature c. Thirdly expende circumstantias intentio nihil intelligetur which may be intended also in Suits more than in actibus For will you have Action particular and Suits general And so the intention appears in the first word Errors and the subsequent are but declaratory And although that Suits is lastly put in the second Clause yet there it is not but a surplusage And that which is not released by the first Suit cannot be by the second For it is not but a repetition of that which was before Richardson the words are All Writs Actions and Suits by error Without question it shall be intended but errors Or if it be so And all Actions and Suits of error It cannot extend but to errors Hutton In that release there is not any word of debt and therefore it seemed that the intention was not to release other actions but errors And it was adjudged in this Court in a Writ of Annuity A release was pleaded that the Plaintiff acquitted him of one payment for half of the year and released to him all Actions Suits and Demands And adjudged that that release does not bar him but of the arrearages of a year A Quid juris clamat IN a Quid juris clamat The Tenant was adjudged to Attourne And the question was whether he might Attourne without being sworn in Court to do fealty to his Lessor And Brownlow chief Prothonotary said That all the Presidents are that he shall Attourne and do fealty by which the Tenant was sworn to do fealty and the fealty was taken for an Authority Beare and Hodges Case MOre of Beare and Hodges Case you may see before Davenport said that a man cannot distrein upon an actual demand which ought to be to the person upon the Land And for that the distress is tortious and damages by the Common Law are given to him who made the Replevin But to the Avowant damages are only given by the statute of 7. H. 8. cap. 4. 21 H. 8. 19. Now the Rent is not in question for it was taken to pay it but the dammages and the Tenant had done all that he can and it is not reason that he pay any damages And the diversity between a Replevin and debt for Rent after such a tender That a local tender excuses the damages appears H. 4.4 Tidthorps Case 38. E. 3. 13. Debt An Obligation is indorsed to pay the money at Easter and he tenders it at the day to the Obligee who refuses it because he lives at another place And now because that no place was named for the payment the tender was good and shall excuse him without any other demand of the damages Littleton said that a tender of Homage excuses until a new demand 21 E. 4.4 And there a difference seemed to some between fealty and homage But Bryan said that a tender of fealty also until a new request to his person excuses damages because that fealty may be done by Attourney 22 H. 6.31 7 E. 4.4 puts the case of Rent to the same intent Cook Littleton 7. 28. Maunds Case The third resolution is a ground for our Case There it is said if Terre-tenant
Executor shall have the Land and yet the heir cannot have the rent Harvey In this Court it was the case of one Asham who had a purpose to enclose a Common and one Tenant was refractory wherefore Asham made him a Lease of the soil in which he had Common and afterwards he surrenders it again And it was agreed that the Common was suspended during the term Crook A Lease for years is by the contract of both parties and the surrender may revive the rent but by the surrender the arrearages shall not be revived And suppose that the surrender was by Indenture and a recitall of the grant that is a grant and then it is expresse that by the surrender their intent was that the rent should be revived 3 H. 6. A surrender determines the interest of all parties but of a stranger But it is determined to themselves to all intents and purposes Crook It was one Cooks Case against Bullick intrat 45 Eliz. rot 845. Com. ban It was there adjudged and this diversity was taken If one devise Lands in Fee and after makes a Lease for years of the same Lands to the Devisee to commence after his death it is a countermand of his will if the Lease was to commence presently it is no countermand and the reason is In the first case both cannot stand in Fee the Devise and the Lease But when the Lease commences immediately he may outlive the Lease And this Case is put upon the intents of the parties But Henden This Case is also adjudged If two Tenants in Common are and one grants a Rent charge the Beasts of the other are not distreinable But if a Tenant in Common takes a Lease for years of another his Cattel are discharged again But Yelverton and Hutton doubted that Case and so it was adjourned to be argued c. Thomsons Case THompson libells for delapidations against the Executors of his predecessor and Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that Thompson is not incumbent for his presentment was by the King ratione minoritatis of one Chichley and the King had not any such Title to present for where the King mistakes his Title his Presentment is voyd and he is no Incumbent 6 Rep. 26. Greens Case And Sir Thomas Gawdys Case where the King presented jure praerogat when he had another Title and the present Action was adjudged voyd and whether he is incumbent or not that shall be tryed But by the Court a Prohibition was denyed because that he was now incumbent And the Iudges would not take notice of the ill Presentment of the King But in case of Symony the Statute makes the Church voyd and then the Iudges may take notice of that and grant a Prohibition if the Parson sues for Tythes But if a quare impedit be brought and appears that the King had not cause of Presentment then a Prohibition may be granted which also was granted by all the other Iustices Richard Youngs Case RIchard Young was Demandant in a Formedon and admitted by Prochein amy and the Warrant was allowed by a Iudge and it was certified and entred in Gulstons Office in the Roll of Remembrance but it was not entred in the Roll as the course in the Common Bench is and after Iudgement is given for the Plaintiff And for that Formeden the Defendant brought a Writ of Errour and removed the Record and assigned it for Errour And before in nullo est erratum pleaded And Davenport moved that it might be mended for he said that there was a difference between that Court and the Kings Bench as it is in the 4 Rep. 43. Rawlins Case for the Entry of the Roll was Richard Young came et obtulit se per atturnat suum where it should have been proximum amicum And the Entry in the Remembrance Roll was That he was admitted per Gardianum Richardson said that all the Books are That an infant ought to sue by Prochein amy and defend by his Guardian and so is a Demandant But the Court agreed That that should be amended according to the Certificate As a speciall Verdict should be amended according to the Notes given to the Clerk And Davenport said that he would venture it although it was by Guardian for he held it all one if it were by Guardian or by Prochein Amy. See afterwards more of this The Vicar of Cheshams Case THe Earl of Devonshire had a Mannor in the Parish of Chesham in Buckinghamshire which extended to Latmos where there is a Chapell of Ease and the Vicar of Chesham Libells for Tithes against one of the Tenants of the Mannor And Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that the Earl prescribed that he and all his Tenants should be acquitted of all the Tythes of Land within Latmos paying 10. s. per. ann to the Chaplin of Latmos And he said that such a Prescription is good as it was adjudged in Bowles Case And a Prohibition was granted Wildshieres Case IT was agreed by the whole Court That for Executing of a Capias utlagatum or for a Warrant to Execute it or for a return of it no Fee is due to the Sheriff c. It was afterwards agreed upon an Habeas corpus sued by Wiltshiere who was imprisoned being under-Sheriff by the Lord Chamberlain for arresting Sir George Hastings Servant to the King upon a Cap. utlagat That he may well doe it upon the Servant of the King for it is the Sute of the King himself and he is sworn to serve it and there is no cause of the Commitment returned but only a recitall of the Commitment unless he was released by the Lord. And the Iudges took exception to that and said that it ought to be unless he can be released by the Law and said if no cause be returned they ought to dismisse the Prisoner And they ordered the Keeper to inform the Lord Chamberleiâ— and that their Opinion was and so was the Opinion of all the Iudges of England That he who procured the Commitment of the under Sheriff ought to pay all the Charges and Expences Quod nota Wentworth against Abraham THe Lord Wentworth brought an Action upon the Case against Abraham upon an Assumpsit and declares that the Defendant 1 die Maii Anno Dom. 1625. in consideration that the Plaintiff would permit the Defendant to re-enter in a Messuage and Croft in which the Defendant had dwelt before promised that he would pay to him 30. s. yearly during the time that he should enjoy it And that he permisit ipsum reentrare and that he should enjoy it a year and an half which ended at Michaelmas 1626. And for that he would not pay 45. s. he c. And upon non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Davenport in Arrest of Iudgement for that that the Assize is to pay 30. s. Annuatim then before the Action be determined nothing is due and the Plaintiff cannot divide the
Rent 5 R. 2. Annuity 21. Debitum Judex non leperat Then when it does not appear that the Action lyes for the 15. s. for the half year and the Iury assessed Damages intirely it is voyd as 10 Rep. 130. Osborns Case And it appears that by his computation of time it is not a year and an half from the time of the Assumpsit made Richardson said That it is not secundum ratum for then he might divide the Rent and no day is limited for the payment of it for if a Lease be made for two years or at will paying annually at Michaelmas 30. s. and the Lease is determined after half of the year although that it be by the Lessee himself he cannot make any Rent But Yelverton said that that is not a Rent but a collaterall sum And debt does not lye for that And in the Declaration it is said Quod permisit ipsum reentrare and does not say what time which was nought by all but Hutton And it ought to be also that he did de facto re-enter Hutton said There being it is said So long as you shall occupy the Land you shall pay annually c. That he may demand half of the year But the whole Court against him and so Pro hoc tempore judgement was stayed Grange and his Wife against Dixon A Lease was made by Baron and Feme and another Feme and the Lessee Covenants by the same Indenture to find sufficient mans meat and horse meat to the Baron and Feme and to the other Feme or to their Servants at their coming to London at his house in Southwark The Baron and Feme dye and the other Feme takes an husband The Opinion of the Iustices was that he was not bound to find sustenance for the husband but only for the wife or for her servants and not for both at one and the same time because the Covenant was in the disjunctive But it was doubted if he shall find them Victualls for one meal only at their coming or for all the time of their staying there Johnson against Williams and Uxor IT wad said If an Obligation be made by a Feme sole and afterwards she takes an husband and an Action of debt be brought upon that Obligation against the Baron and Feme and they deny the Deed the Baron shall be taken for the Fine as well as the wife for the wife had nothing whereof to pay the Fine And so in Trespasse against Baron and Feme dum sola fuit and they are both found guilty both shall be taken for the Fine which the Prothonotaryes agreed Jeakill against Linne IN a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiff counts upon an Indenture of Lease of the Parsonage of Dale by which the Defendant Covenanted to pay him the Rent the which he had not payed And the Defendant said that before any day of payment of the said Rent incurred one A. Ordinary of the same place sequestred the said Parsonage for non payment of the first fruits Iudgement If an Action c. And by the Court that is not a Plea for he does not shew that any Act was done by the Plaintiff himself in his default Nor he does not confesse and avoid the interest of the Lessor as to say that the Lessor was a disseisor and made a Lease to him after that the disseisee re-entred and so he might confesse and avoid the Lease notwithstanding the Deed indented But he cannot say that the Lessor had nothing at the time of the Lease made And if the Defendant had been bound in an Obligation for the payment of the said Rent in debt brought upon that that should not have been a Plea for he had bound himself to pay the said Rent And the occupation is not materiall where the Lease is for years or for life But otherwise of a Lease at will Davies against Fortescue IF a man it was said be seised of a Mannor whereof there are divers Copy-holders admittable for life or for years and he Leases the Mannor to another for term of life the Lessor may make a Demise by Copy in reversion to commence after the death of the first Copy-holders and that is good enough But the custome of some Mannors is to the contrary and that is allowed Doyly an Infants Case A Man seised of Lands makes a Feoffment in Fee by Deed indented rendring a Rent with a clause of Distresse and afterwards he is bound in a Statute and the day is incurred Vpon which an Execution is awarded to the Conusee and upon the Extent the Sheriff returns that the party was dead and that he had extended the said Rent And the heir of the Conusor being within age because the Rent was extended during his nonage brought an Audita querela and Hutton said That it is maintainable enough because there is an Exception in the Writ of Extent That if Land be descended to any Infant that the Sheriff shall surcease to extend And although that Writ issued against the party himself who made the Conisance yet when it appears by the return of the Sheriff that he is dead the Infant shall be aided by an Audita querela or otherwise the Extent shall be void which is made upon the possession of the Infant Jeffryes Case IN a Formedon the Plaintiff counts of a gift to his Father and to his heirs of his body ingendred during the life of I. S. and makes the descent to him during the life of I. S. And Yelverton seemed that the Writ is good enough for a Tayle may be made so determinable as well as a Fee simple And if a man Warrant Lands to the Feoffee and his heirs against him and his heirs during the life of I. S. That he had a Fee simple in the Warranty determinable upon the life of I. S. So here Warberlyes Case IN a Writ De valore maritagii it was moved by Henden If the Lord shall recover his Damages according to the value of the Land held of him only or according to all his Lands held also of others And Hutton and Crook said that the value of the Marriage shall be accounted as well in respect of the lands held of him as of other lands held of other Lords by Posteriority or in Soccage for there the woman by the Marriage to him shall be more advanced And the better the advancement is the better is the Marriage of the heir and the person more to be esteemed Norbery against Watkins ONe Devises the Mannor of S. to two and their heirs betwéen them to be equally divided so that they shall have part and portion alike If by that they have a Ioynt-tenancy or a Tenancy in common was the Question because there was an Act to be done for making the division And if the words had béen equally to be divided by I. S. it had béen clear that they had béen Ioynt-Tenants But Harvey said That upon such a gift made to them if the
one of them dyed before partition yet their heirs should hold severally according to the intent of the Will for otherwise the Surviver should hold place which against the will of the Devisor Northens Case A Man seised of a Mannor having all the Goods of Felons de se within the same Mannor and makes a Lease for years of parcell of the same Mannor to a man and afterwards makes another Lease of the same Lands to commence after the determination surrender or forfeiture of the first Lease The first Lessée was a Felo de se the Lord Lessor of the Mannor enters into the lands Leased as forfeit and the second Lessée ousts him and it séemed to Crook that the Entry was lawfull enough Harvey said That the Lessor to whom the Frank-Tenement belonged entring into the land the Frank-Tenement drowned the lesser Estate and the Lease for years is extinct in the Frank-Tenement And it was said That therefore the first Lease extinguisht But if before that the Lord had aliened the Mannor saving to him the liberty and after had entred for the Forfeiture the second Lessée could not enter for it is not any determination of the first Lease Crook said That if the Lessor infeoffed the first Lessée of the Mannor that is a determination of the first Lease and the second Lessée may enter The Bishop of Winchester against Markham THomas Bishop of Winchester brought an Action upon the Statute of West 1 cap. 4. de scandalis magnatum against Markham for that he preferred a slanderous Bill against him before the President of the Councel surmising that he was a covetous and malicious Bishop And the Opinion of the Court was That the words were sufficient to maintain the Action A man seised of a Mannor held in Chivalry devises two parts of it to two men in severalty and all the Remnant he devises to his heirs in Tayle the remainder over in Fée Hutton said It seems to me that the devise is voyd for the third part to the heir for he might devise the two parts by his Testament and he had done all that he could doe by the Statute and then the devise of the third part is out of the warranty of the Statute for it is not reason that by the limitation of the third part the which he could not doe that the devise of the residue which was one time good shall be defeated which Harvey granted but Crook to the contrary for although the two parts were devised by the premisses of the Testament and the third part in the end of it yet in operation of Law the one part is not before the other but the will is intire and took effect in all its parts at one and the same time by the death of the Devisor By which it seemed for the benefit of him in the remainder that he shall take the third part devised to him for if a man seised of three Acres of land held in Chivalry and devises them severally to three severall persons in Fee the heir shall have the third part of every of the three Acres and not the Acre last devised which Hutton granted So also for the benefit of a third person he ought to be judged in the third part as a Purchaser and not of an Estate by descent and so is the better Opinion in 3 H. 6. But if he had devised the Tenements to his Son in Taile without limitation over of the remainder there he might choose to be in of the Estate limited by the Devise or as heir Hutton I doubt of that for the Book is not agreed 3 H. 6. Wilkinsons Case THe Baron seised of lands makes a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff him and his wife for life the remainder over to a stranger in Fee Atthow demanded if the Feoffee shall be bound to make the Feoffment before request made by the Baron Hutton and Crook thought that a request ought to be made by the husband And because the particular Estate which is the foundation of the remainder limited to the stranger ought to be made to the husband who is party to the condition and it is his will to take the Estate for life or refuse it and the Feme is at his will But if the Baron dyes then it behooves him to make the Feoffment to the wife without request because she is a stranger to the condition by Act in Law And so where she dyes also before the Feoffment the Estate ought to be made to him to whom the remainder is limited without any request Yelverton But if the condition was to re-enfeoffe the Feoffor and a stranger there it behoves the Feoffee to tender the Feoffment to the stranger for he had not notice of the condition and he ought to be party to all the Estate And by the Livery made to him the Feoffor shall take well enough Waterton against Loadman VVaterton makes a Feoffee to the use of Loadman in Fee to the use of another in Tayle the remainder to his right heirs in Fee Cestui que use in Tayle dyes the first Feoffees enter for to recontinue the use Crook said That when Tenant in Tayle in use makes a Feoffment nothing passes but for his own life For it had been agreed where cestui que use pur vie makes a Feoffment in Fee for it was not a Forfeiture of his Estate because nothing passed but for his life then when the Feoffee dyes during the life of cestui que use in Tayle that cannot be any descent of the Fee but as an Estate for life the which determines by the death of cestui que use in Tayle And all the Iustices were of the same Opinion for the descent was when he had not any Title of entry for by the Feoffment he had a Title during the life of cestui que use in Tayle Wherefore during his life they could not enter nor make continuall claim But if the descent had been after the death of cestui que use in Tayl then otherwise it shall be for they had a Title to enter before the descent and by their laches they are told of that Hutton seemed That the Feoffees cannot enter in that case for they cannot have the same Estate that they had before the alienation of cestui que use in Tayl for by the Feoffment the Estate of the Fee simple which was to their right heirs passes clearly and it is lawfully in the Feoffee Wherefore if they enter to re-continue the use in Tayl where they shall he seised of another Estate where they shall be seised of a Fee simple also and so there shall be two Estate of Fee simple of the same land which is inconvenient But the Iustices said That cestui que use in Tayl had no other remedy unless by the Entry of the Feoffees Harris against Marre A Man seised of certain lands in Fee makes a Feoffment in Fee to his use and afterwards makes his will by which he devises That
the Issue Ganfords Case ONe Ganford was bound in an Obligation of 200 l. to Char. Rogers to pay him 100 l. But that was in trust to the use of Mary Watkins during her life and after to George Powell Powell cannot release that bond neither in Law nor Equity during the life of the Wife For then it destroys the use to the Wife As it was agreed But if it was to her benefit solely The Release is good in Equity Woolmerstons Case ONe libells against Woolmerston for the herbage of young Cattel â—…cil for a penny for every one And Hitcham moved for a Prohibition And said that he ought not to have Tithes If they are young Beasts brought up for the Cart or Plough And so it hath been adjudged As if a Parson prescribe to have Tithes for hedgeing stuff he cannot Because that he preserves the Land out of which he had Tithes And then a Parson libells for Tithes of an Orchard for that that it was a young Orchard And the Custome of the place was to pay 4 d. for an Orchard Hitcham said There is not any such difference between old and new Orchards For if the Custome be that he shall pay 4 d. for every Orchard It will reach to the new Orchard And then he libells for a Harth-penny for the Wood burnt in his House Hutton said the Harth-penny c. is more doubtfull For it is a Custome in the North parts to give an Harth-penny for Estovers burnt For which he prescribes to be free of every thing which comes to the Fire And in some parts by the Custome they had pasturage for the Tenth Beast or the tenth part of the Gains which is barrain for the time But he and Yelverton who only were present That no Tithes are due for them without Custome Hitcham they also will have Tithes for a thing before it comes to perfection which would be tithable afterwards But I agrée If he sells them before they come to perfection then the Parson will have tithes But by Hutton and Yelverton There may be a Custom to have every year a penny for them Sed adjournatur c. Viner against Eaton VIner against Eaton Where a Sute was betwéen them in the Spritual Court for striking in the Church which by the second branch of the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 4. It is excommunication ipso facto By which he surmised him incidisse in poenam excommunicationis And being granted if c. And Ashley shew'd cause why it should not issue viz. There ought to be a Declaration in the Christian Court of the Excommunication before any may prohibit him the Church Richardson said That their procéedings are not contrary to the Statute But stood with the Statute And it was said by Yelverton It is seen that there ought to be a Declaration in the Spiritual Court But the difference is where it is officium Judicii or ad instantiam partis they will give costs which ought not to be Hutton and Richardson If the party will not follow it none will take notice of it And they proceed to give costs Then a Hrohibition may be granted And if he be a Minister he ought to be suspended for an offence against that Statute And it ought to be first declared and so to excommunication And that cannot be pleaded if it be not under Seal Dyer 275. And after all these were agreed by the Court and no Prohibition was granted Fox against Vaughan and Hall SIr Charles Fox was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Sir George Vaughan and Iacob Hall for taking of his Beasts in Rustock The Defendant was known as Bayliff of Tho. Vaughan at the day quod William Vaughan was seised of the place quo c. And being seised the 9th of Maii 10 Iac. by Indenture granted to Thomas Vaughan a Rent of twenty Nobles per annum out of the place in quo c. to commence after the death of Anne Vaugham for life payable at the Feasts of St. Michael and the Annunciation And if the Rent be in Arrear at any day of payment or fourteen daies after the demand at a place out of the Land scil his Capital Messuage in Orleton Then it should be lawfull for him to distrein And he shews that twenty Marks were in arrear And that 22 Iac. 22 Octob. He demands it at Orleton c. And the Plea in Bar was That the Grantor was not compos mentis at the time Vpon which Issue was taken But it appeared upon the evidence that at the time of the Grant Gaudebat lucido intervallo Whereupon it was found for the Defendant And Sergeant Barkley moved in arrest of Iudgement For that the Demand appears to be after the 14 daies And he took a difference where the Demand ought to be made upon the Land But there it may be demanded at any time And the Distress it self is a Demand As it was adjudged 20 Iac. in Skinners Case But otherwise it ought to be out of the Land Henden objected because the Issue was joyned That cannot be shewed Richardson Although there was Issue joyned Yet it appears that you cannot distreyn without demand if there be not actual demand of the Distress alleged It is illegal And for the matter he cited Maunds Case 7 Rep. 28. And he doubted if such a difference would hold Berkley This difference was taken by me before cited But lecto recordo the Demand is not ex tunc petito But if it be in arrear and required at the Capital Messuage upon which he demanded it does not refer to any place Richardson If there be a nomine poenae then it ought to be demanded strictly at a day And when it is to be demanded upon the Land it may be at any time For that that Littleton sayes That a Tenant is intended alwaies present upon the Land But when the Demand is to be made at an other day it is only to give notice and so it is demandable upon the Land Hutton by that exposition if he does not hit the demand upon the day he shall lose his Rent Richardson He had lost his Distress by that day only but not his Rent For if he demand it after upon the Land he may have an Assise Hutton you would make that partly a Rent-seck and partly a Rent-charge Harvey If the Rent be not gone but that he may have an assise Richardson It is a Rent-charge generally by the clause of the distress And for that he may have an Assise which is a remedy for a Rent-charge as well as a Distress Hutton If you may make it a Rent-seck you have lost the Rent-charge for ever If a Grantee of a Rent-charge or Rent-seck brought an annuity Richardson If he proceed to Declaration he had lost the Rent-charge Et adjournatur Note It was said if one comming upon an Attachment in any Court And the other does not put in Interogatories against him He shall be dimissed with costs and may
rescous there is no remedy against him as it was adjudged And the difference is that when he goes to make execution it is at his peril if he does not take power enough with him so that he may do it And if the Gaol be broken it is no excuse for the Sheriff Also if the party taken before he come to the Gaol is rescued there is no remedy against the executors of the Sheriff If debt be brought against the Sheriff for an escape and in that a recovery the Plaintiff shall never take the party again And so also if he brought an action against the party and recovered the Sheriff may plead that And for the book in Fitzh Nat. brev cited it remains doubtfull Hutton a Stranger commits waste and the Lessee dies yet no remedy against the party who committed the waste for the Lessee is charged of waste And so also the Sheriff of an escape But after as it was told me by one who was present Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Humbertons Case IT was said by Richardson and agreed by Hutton That a term evicted upon an Elegit is grantable but upon a Statute Staple or Merchant not And Richardson said That Fillwoods case in the 4 rep 66. if it be well observed will prove that difference Isham and Lawnes Case NOte in evidence to the Iury in an Ejectione firm betwéen Isham and Lawne It was said by Richardson and Hutton and by divers Serjeants at the bar and not denyed by any If a Son disseise his father and levy a fine with proclamations to a Stranger upon whom the Father enters and dies The son may re-enter against his own fine Allen against Westley IN evidence to the Iury betwéen Robert Allen and Isaac Westley upon the 5. Eliz for perjury Richardson there remembred that there was one charged with perjury and it was layed that one swore that he drew his dagger and beat and wounded another And it was found to be with a staff and it was agréed not to be perjury for the beating was only material It was one Styles's his case and it was agréed by the Court in that case that although a witness swears the truth yet if it be not truth of his own knowledge as if he shews how one revoked a will by paroll in his hearing when the words were spoken to another in his absence he does not swear truly and it is a corrupt oath within the Statute And it appears in the case in which this perjury was supposed to be committed which was between Allen and Westley also that these words were good words of revocation of a will I utterly renounce and detest that Will and will make a new one But if they were That Will shall not stand I will make a new one they are not For the first shews a present purpose of revocation the last a fortiori but more afterwards Thomas and Kennis's Case before DAvenport argued for the Plaintiff And the Question here is Whether there was any Estate in Edward and Walter setled at the time of the Fine levyed Or their Estate was only in contingency Because that Richard was then living For I agrée that if at the time of the Fine levyed Edward and Walter had not any Estate setled or vested but all in contingency That then the Fine destroyed all the Remainders For it is clear when Tenant for life is and the Remainder in contingency levy a Fine That is a forfeiture and destroys all the contingent Remainders 1 Rep. 131. I hope that they will agrée that if there be an Estate setled in them that Tenant for life levies that Fine Although that they in the Remainder do not enter within 5 years after the death of Tenant or after the estate escheated And that was adjudged 21 Jac. Tooker Lawns Case in the Kings Bench. But the Case was Mich. 33 34 Eliz. The Question then is whether Edward and Walter having any Estates setled in them two Estates are so limited to them joyntly for their lives so long as Richard and Anne shall have issue male of their bodies living Secondly The Estate to them was to their own use and that was not joyntly but successive And if any of those uses were in esse at that time of the Fine then they fall out clearly with the Plaintiff I conceive that both their Estates were in them First concerning the first Remainder limited to their joynt use in which it is to be considered Where the not setting forth of the Lands makes it contingent It is a strange Case That if the directions for the setting out had been observed that then there might have been a present Estate setled upon a subsequent Condition and not upon a precedent Condition Where it ought to be agréed when the Indenture is made with a Covenant to levy a Fine That no use will rise before the Fine Coment 302. Then although some things ought to be done before the uses will rise If those things had been done the use ought to be raised For certum est quod certum reddi potest 17 E. 4. 1. When contracts are upon incertainties when the thing uncertain is become certain when the Indenture was sealed that made a contingent use in the limitation but when the thing had been done it shall make a perfect use in the limitation But now it is become impossible by the non-performance c. It had been urged that so there shall be a double contingent which is concerning the Houses c. I say there is a great difference between a Collateral use which does not depend upon the other Estates and an Estate limited in course of a Remainder I agree if they be contingent Remainders the Fine will destroy and overthrow them but if there be a collateral clause by which a use is limited As if there be a Proviso that if such mony be not payed it shall be to such an use That contingent use is not destroyed by Fine 1 Rep. 130 134. Chidleys Case where the difference is directly taken If a Feoffment be made to the use of the Feoffee for life with divers contingent Remainders over If Tenant for life makes a Feoffment all the contingent Remainders are destroyed But where the contingent came in by a collateral Clause and not by way of Remainder otherwise it is As a Feoffment to the use of a man and his wife which shall be a Remainder over That is a good use to the wife and cannot be destroyed by feoffment Dyer 274. and Bracebridges Case cited in Chudleys Case 133. It was adjudged accordingly In the third branch here it is If he dies then she should have the Houses during widdowhood But the course of the Remainder came in the fourth clause And that had relation to the first And as to the second as it is shewn that at the time of the limitation it was not the intent that the Remainder shall be contingent to Edward and Walter
If I grant to a man that if he mary my Daughter he shall have my Mannor of Dale for years the mariage ought to be before he shall have any thing in the Mannor But if it had been that he should have had my Mannor for 7 years if he mary my Daughter Then the mariage is conditional subsequent that if he does not mary I shall have my Mannor again 10 E. 3. 44. The Abbot of Bosneys The difference is there put by Brerewood Trin. 4 Car. Com. Banc. 36. H. 6. An Annuity granted untill he was promoted to a benefice That is conditional from the Defeasance But if it was that the Grantée did such an Act that he should have an Annuity And ex vi termini there is a perfect Estate before the if and the former if is well explained by the last That if there be not issue male then the Estate shall cease 10 Rep. 41. A Condition in its nature is not to precede an Estate As if the Lands be given to a woman for years si tam diu vixerit 35 Assise plo 14. The Case in point of a Remainder which comes to our Case and conteyns both the parts of that difference As it is in Colthursts and Binshams Case The Prior and Covent of Bath leases Land for life the Remainder to W. Si ipse inhabitare et residens esse velit infra praedict terram And if it shall happen that the said W. should mary before H. Then the Remainder to P. And the Question is whether it is a Condition precedent or subsequent Resolved that the second is precedent For that that the Si precedes and for that makes the Estate contingent But for the other Si after the Estate limited Si ipse inhabitare vellet They were the very words of Mountague Chief Iustice It cannot be denyed but that it is subsequent and then goes in Defeasance and the other ought to shew the non-performance of it And that Case is more strong than our Case is For that Estate is by way of Livery not by use For in Case of Livery there he ought to have a time to do the thing And our Case then he should have for life determinable upon the Si c. And that construction of Vses shall be clear by the intent which appears that there ought to be a present Estate Where uses are by Indenture if by one construction the Intent is frustrate and if by another upheld That ought to be taken ut res magis valeat c. The Lord Sturtons Case Where a Lease was made of a Mannor to two Hubbards to have to them and to two others for their lives the first two dye And it was ruled that it was good but to the first two for their lives and not for the lives of the four Because they shall take but in point of Estate See more after Termino Trin. 4 Car. Com. Banc. The King against the Bishop of Canterbury THe King brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Canterbury Sir John Hall and Richard Clark for the Church of Marleborough in Northamptonshire And declares that Richard White was seised of the Mannor to which the Advowson belonged And the 6 Iac. by Indenture he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his wife for their lives and to the Heirs of Richard White And after White presents one Boynton and dies and his wife maries with Sir Iohn Hall The first of Iune 6th Iacob by Deed grants proximam advocationem to two to this intent that he might receive of such a Parson that he presented all mony as should be agréed betwéen Grantor and Grantee And that this was done Boynton lying in extremis And then the 26 Ian. 16 Iacob there was a corrupt agreement between Sir Iohn Hall and one of the Grantees That for 200 l. to be paid by the Clark Blundell That the other Grantee should present him And the first of February Blundell pays Sir Richard the mony and the second day he was presented instituted and inducted accordingly And that upon this it appertained to the King to present The Bishop pleads but as Ordinary Sir Iohn Hall makes a Title and traverses the corrupt agreement The Incumbent pleads by Protestation that there was not any corrupt agreement as it was alleged and not answers whether the mony was paid or not But that he is Parson imparsonee of the presentment of But 16 Iacob after such an agreement scil 17 Feb. he was presented by the Letters Patents of the King to this Church and never answers to the Symony And it was held by the Court to be naught and only pleaded to hinder the Execution before the Iustices of Assise If the Tryal went against the Patron Upon a Prohibition ONe libells against another in the Spiritual Court for the tithe of two pecks of Apples and for feeding the Cattel upon the Ground And the Defendant for the Apples answered That there were two Pecks only growing in his Orchard and that they were stollen and never came to his use and for the Cattel that they were antient Milch-beasts and that they growing old were dry And that for a month they depastured with other Heyfars and that after they put them in a Meadow out of which the Hay was carried And afterwards he fed them with hay in his House Atthowe Because that the Answers were not admitted prayed a Prohibition Hutton If Appples are upon the Trees and taken by a Stranger shall the Parson be hindred of his tithe Yelverton If I suffer one to pull my Apples the Parson shall have tithes But if they be taken by Persons not known the Parson shall not have tithes of them Which was granted For they are not tithable before plucking And for that if he suffer them to hang so long by negligence after the time that they are imbessed By Yelverton he shall pay tithes For the second matter it was agreed by the Court and for the depasturing in the Meadow and for the Hay with which they were fedd afterwards tithe shall not be paid Because that the Parson had tithes of them before But if the Question is for the tithes when he went with the other Heyfars By Crook that is no cause to excuse the tithe Harvey If I have ten Milch-kine which I purpose to reserve for Calves and they are dry The Parson shall not have tithe for their Pasture But if I sell them by which it appears I kept them for fatting There tithes shall be paid Hutton agreed That although that there was so small time yet when they went with the Heyfars he shall pay tithes for them Goddard and Tilers Case GOddard against Tiler in a Prohibition Tiler sued for tithes of Milk and Calves upon which modus decimandi surmised A Prohibition was granted viz. That every Inhabitant should pay 4 d. for every Cow and 2 d. for every Calf which they proved that there was never tithe paid in specie But
upon twenty matters Crook Admitting that all the offence was committed after the pardon yet you may suggest it to be before Henden and Bramston That so it was Pas 50 Eliz. In one Prat and Husseys Ease One that had a benefice took another but was not inducted Yet that was the irregularity upon which he was deprived and a prohibition was prayed upon the general pardon And it was concluded That if the libel contained that the irregularity was before any pardon and it appears also that it continued after yet a prohibition shall be granted Crook the offence is layed 1621 1622 1623 c. in one or every of them Now for a prohibition there are two clauses in our case Although it be that the offence was before and part after pardon yet we ought to grant a prohibition for that which was before is involved 5 Iac. Conveys case He and his wife after the death of Sir Blunt were sued before the high Commissioners for that that his wife committed Adultery with Sir Richard Blunt and he himself was the Pander And a prohibition was granted for two causes The one for that Adultery was not inquirable there the other because it was pardoned And although the word Adultery be in their Commission yet that does not give them Iurisdiction They cannot meddle with Alimony was one Condiths case upon the Canons in 1 Iac. Which gives to the Parson jurisdiction to appoint the Clark of the Church There was a custom there that the Parish should appoint it and several Clarks being appointed they set several Psalmes in the Church to the disturbance of it And a prohibition was granted to the high Commissioners for medling with it Richardson objected divers things with much earnestness but so apparently contrary to Law that I have omitted it Yelverton said she ought not to put in security to obey the sentence For if it be averred that all was before the pardon then there was no cause of sentence and if no sentence then the prohibition ought to be for all Crook The sentence is to pay a fine and to make submission and to be imprisoned until she found security to obey the sentence That is void Richardson said That they had not any means to make the party to pay the fine and if she would pay it presently she might be discharged But by the other Iustices the High Commissioners cannot demand the sine But they may Estreat it into the Exchequer At another day it was said Sir Wil. Chamcer before the high Commissioners was by sentence fined and imprisoned and by the opinion of all the Iudges of England They may proceed by fine and imprisonment and his case was for Adultery Hutton 44 Eliz. It was resolved that they cannot impose a fine but for Heresies Schisms and Errours c. Richardson The words of the Statute are that the high Commissioners may proceed according to the tenour and effect of the Letters Patents of the King Yelverton The sentence is the fine and the penance and there is the end of the sentence and when it is said she shall be imprisoned until c. That is no part of the sentence If it was that she should pay a fine do pennance and should be imprisoned three months Then all should be the Sentence Richardson said that they may procéed against other things than Heresies and Schismes upon that Statute de primo For there are the words Abuses Contempts Offences and Enormities Hutton The words in that Statute shall have exposition according to the meaning of the first intent It was that they had Authority to punish the Bishops and Prelates for Errors and Schisms and the change of Religion For that that they did not regard the power of the Ordinary But they had incroached many other things And if those words include any thing they might punish anything whereof the Gcclesiastical Court had Authority As working upon Saints daies But there was a Case of one that was sentenced there for such a Cause And the Fine estreated And upon Argument in the Exchequer their proceedings adjudged void Richardson The word Enormity contains a thing of lesser nature For quicquid est contra regulam et normam Juris is Enormity And therefore in Trespass quare clausum fregit et alia enormia ei intulit But Yelverton The word ought to be intended of a grand offence For so in common acceptance it imports Harvey The Fine being pardoned all is pardoned Richardson said that they should procéed by excommunication and not by fine and imprisonment No more at this time was said in this Case Humlocks Case A Man makes a Lease for 21 years reserving 20 l. rent per annum payable at two daies and if he fayl of payment that it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to enter At the day of payment the Lessor came and demanded the Rent by these words I demand my half years rent And it was moved by Atthowe If that demand was sufficient for the Lessor Hutton and Yelverton seemed that it was sufficient For the thing that he demanded is enough certain and known Crook on the contrary For although it appears by the circumstances how much of the Rent he demanded Yet the words are not so plain as they ought to be For if a man makes a Lease for years reserving such a Rent as the antient Farmor was wont to pay from time to time to this day When the Lessor comes upon the Land and says to the Lessee Pay me my Rent that is not sufficient or good because it is not certain in Terms And yet it appears by the circumstances And when a man pleads a demand He shall shew the Lease and the Rent reserved and shall say That he demanded redditum praedictum And as I remember it was adjudged very lately That such a Demand shall be certain Hutton I hold a difference between such things which lye in notice of the person to whom the demand is made and where not For in a praecipe quod reddat if there be a recovery by default and the Tenant brings a desceit and by examination of the Summoners it appears That they came to the Land and summoned him in the Land but they do not shew to him at what day he ought to appear So the Lessee knows well enough that the Rent ought to be paid for it is certain by the Lease to which he is party and privy But Crook said in the Case that Hutton put If the Summoners had read the Writ upon the Land and had summoned him to appear at a day comprised in the Writ It had been certain enough And so in this Case if he had read the Indenture upon the Land and after demanded the Rent as afore it had been Without question it appears to me it should be good enough And so in our Case also Leech against Watkins IN Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was that if the Obligor and his Heirs did or suffered
W. who died seised of the Lands which descended to his Vncle who was the Defendant Crawley Two things are required to maintain the action Whether the Defendant be heir Secondly who held lands by descent from the Obligor now is heir at Common law And now the heir by the Mannor shall be charged in debt as well as the Heir at Common law Dyer 228. All Brothers in Gavelkind shall be charged 11 H. 7. 12. The heir of the party of the mother shall be charged and so shall Bastardeign 4 E. 3. 14. Heir by Borrough-English And in this Case R. is not heir but by the Mannor Yet he shall be charged 32 Eliz. Dyer 368. by 4 the Iustices And the Defendant here had Lands by descent from the Obligor by which he shall be charged which was agreed by the whole Court But by Richardson It is not sufficient that he be heir in Blood and heir by the Mannor But he ought to have also Land to him by descent from the Obligor But here the Plea is that the Land descended to him immediately And for that you ought to have pleaded that the Obligor died and Lands descended to W. his Son and Heir who died without issue seised of the said Land which descended to R. his Vncle as Brother and heir to the Obligor Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Grays Case HEnden shewed cause that a prohibition should not be granted to the Ecclesiastical Court where the case was That one Brother had taken administration and the other would have distribution of the goods of the intestate And said that issues might enforce distribution of it And it is grounded upon Magna Charta cap. 18. Where there is a saving to the wife and the issues their reasonable part And upon the same reason that there may be a division between the issues so there may be between the Brothers but more remote degrees have no distribution And it is hard that one Brother shall have the whole estate and the others nothing And the Ordinary here is the most indifferent man to make distribution Hutton if the eldest son had lands descended to him and the youngest took Administration It is reason that the eldest shall have distribution And by him and Harvey a Writ de rationabile parte bonorum lies only where there is a custom And they said if it should be admitted that the Ordinary should distribute to the Brothers by the same reason he may to more remote degrees And he declared their opinions that many terms before they were against those distributions But they said That now the Ordinary would have an Obligation before they granted a Prohibition and they coloured their Obligation with the Statute of 31 E. 3. cap. 11. That an Administrator shall be count able to the Ordinary And Harvey said that be knew where a man that was rich died and the Ordinary had 600 l. to pious uses before he would grant administration But he said that in the time of Sir Iohn Bennet such an Obligation was questioned and they would not endure the tryal of it Hutton said that now for that that they could not distribute they might invent a new way scil divide the Administration As if the Estate be 400 l. they might grant Administration of the Goods of the value of 100 l. to the other But by him and Harvey That is illegally granted Doctor Wood and Greenwoods Case DOctor Wood libels against Greenwood in the Ecclesiastical Court for tithes of Wool Wood and Apples c. And he shews that he was Vicar there and that the 8 E. 1. there was a composition that the Parson should have the tithes of Grain and Hay praeterea the Viccar should have Alteraginum And for that that those tithes did not belong to the Viccar he prayed a prohibition And Henden objected that the Parishioner ought to set forth his tith and not dispute the Title of the Parson or Viccar But the Viccar ought to come in the Spiritual Court pro interesse suo but notwithstanding that and notwithstanding the Viccar refuses to claim those tithes that always within memory they have been paid to the Parson yet a prohibition was granted And in the end upon this Composition power is reserved to th◠Ordinary if any doubt or obscurity be in the composition to expound or determine it And if he please to encrease the part of the Viccar And there was not power of diminution As by Hutton It is also usual in such compositions And they say that the word Alteraginum shal be expounded according to the use As if wood had always been paid to the Viccar by vertue of this word so it shall continue otherwise if not And so it had been ruled in the Eschequer And upon that president it was ruled accordingly in this Court And by them wood is minuta decima as in the case of St. Albans it was ruled Sir Richard Dorrel against Blagrave SIr Richard Dorrell was Plaintiff in action of debt upon an Obligation of 400 l. against Blagrave who demanded oyer of the condition which was that if Blagrave fulfilled and kept all Covenants and agreements in an Indenture c. between him and the Plaintiff which on his part is to be performed and kept Then the Defendant pleads that he had performed all the Covenants on his part to be performed c. And the Plaintiff shews that Blagrave the elder by his Indenture granted a rent of 20 l. per annum to one that he intended to marry for her joynture which was to commence after his death And that it was out of all his lands in Watchfield And afterwards by the same Indenture he Covenants that he was seised of a good and perfect estate in Fee simple of lands and tenements in Watchfield to the value of 40 l. per annum And he assigns for breach that Blagrave was not seised of an Estate in Fée of the lands and tenements aforesaid in Watchfield Whereupon the Defendant demurred And Heidley moved two questions First that admitting the breach here well assigned yet the obligation is not forfeited And then when the Defendant is bound that he perform all Covenants on his part to be performed and not to the Covenants broken As if Lessee for years rendring a rent at Michaelmas and the Annunciation covenant to pay the rent at a day and afterwards he fail and then a Stranger is bound that he perform all Covenants c. That extends to the failer of payment which is past here in our case And by the whole Court not allowed For by such means all assurances of England should be deluded And now in this case the Indenture and the Obligation shall be sealed and delivered at the same time But if the Obligation had been sealed afterwards at another day yet it was allowed For by Richardson Suppose that the Condition of the Obligation recites the grant c. And the condition is that if the land
ought to be no remitter in this Case to the old Entayl and thereby I adde more that if there be a remitter it is but for a time By the Office following it is remitted and ended I must profess that whatsoever I have thought upon this Case and advised upon it with my self I have met with two strong affections Zeal and Indignation Zeal in the behalf of the King to preserve the antient Rights of the Crown and against the invasion of Rebells and Traytors Bigod that sometimes brought a puissant Army into the field to depose the King failing in that enterprize now to rise in Question against him that what he could not gain by the sword he might supplant by the Law for though Ratcliff bear the name of this Case yet I see nothing but the hand of Francis Bigod his Estate his Right his Title Land per descent that maintains it therefore let it not seem strange that I am warm in this Case for Zeal and Indignation are fervent passion and I do profess to give Prerogative to the rights of the Crown in my care and vigilancy and it is nobile Officium judicis debitum due by Oath of Office to watch for him who works for us ne quid detrimenti capit respublica and if Charity begins at it self so ought Iustice to do that the King who grants Iustice to all should not be wanting to himself Because I desire to be plain and clear in my Arguments I will make the Questions as single as is possible for multiplex judicii nunc parit consusionem et quaestiones quo sinpliciores eo laudiores ergo will I make this first point a single Question Tenant in tayl of Land in possession makes a Feoffment in fée Question whether any right of the Entayl remaineth in him still against his own Feoffment and to what ends and uses and what he may do or suffer by force of this right in this Question I take no exception at the validity of the Feoffment made by Francis Bigod at cestui que use in tayl by the Statute of R. 3. and not the then Tenant in tayl in possession yet notwithstanding taking the Case at the worst I am of opinion that this Feoffment gives away all the Estate of the Tenant in tayl and as concerning the Issue in tayl inheritable to that Entayl and to him in the reversion there remains still in the Issue a right to that Entayl by force of the Statute de bonis condi and it is confessed on both sides that there remains a right of that Entayl by force of the Statute for their use and good and whether it be for the Lessor himself sleeping till there be an Heir to claim it or in the preservation of the Law which is termed an abeyance or in nubibus is the Question by which it appears that the exact enumerations of Rights as jus habendi redimendi percipiendi possidendi recuperandi finendi inferreth that there was no right because it was none of these rights makes but a noyse for there is jus recuperandi when the time commeth but it is in the mean time till the person inheritable appear which may put this right in execution which the Lessor cannot do against his own Feoffment it is the only Question and upon this exact division of Rights they have left out one whole member of Rights such are the Rights to depart with an Estate and not to get or keep are omitted such are the Rights to give or release or jus extinguendi or jus renunciandi to renounce or disclaim of which kind this very right is That Tenant in tayl hath after the Feoffment which had not discontinued finally to Bar the whole Entayl for by that Right which is left after the Feoffment the Estate tayl may be recontinued again for the root of the Entayl is left alive still Now see the reason of this and let the Statute of West of Estates tayl and the pleading and practice upon that Statutes which are the expositions of Law judge the Statute recites the form of Fee-simple conditional which now are intayls and then sheweth 2 mischiefs that the Donces after issue had power to alien and disinherit their Issues and that the Donors were defeated of their reversions both being against the minds of the Givers and the remedy provided in these words It is ordained that the Will of the Giver according to the force of his Gift expressed in his Deed shall be from henceforth observed so that they to whom the Land was given under such Conditions shall have no power to alien but that it shall remain to their Issue after death and shall revert to the Donor after death and if a Fine be levyed of such Lands finis ipsi jure sit nuilus but if neither Fine or Feoffment be void for they are but voidable not as before when they bound both Heirs and Donors absolutely so that it appears whereas before the Statute the Donee had power absolute post prolem suscitatam and so totally and in a sort rightfully to disinherite their Heirs the Act being not against the rules of positive Law to bar to all purposes aswell his Issue as the Giver as also himself Now since the Statute that very power of Alienation remaining against himself not restrained by the Statute though he may still disturb and discontinue it against them by exposition which the Statute hath received which as Littleton saith Discountenance cap. 171. is a wrong to the Issue and the Giver So that upon this Statute I reason thus that the Tenant in tayl hath the whole Estate in tayl and all the right of it in himself and may finally and totally bar it as well against his Issue as against himself by Common recovery but by Feoffment or Fine he could not by reason of this Statute And that ergo summum jus or verum jus intayl though it be discountenanced is not barred by the Feoffment for it is not in his power by that kind of conveiance and a non posse ad non esse valet argumentum necessario negative so that the Argument stands thus What the Tenant in tayl had and hath not parted withall remaineth in him still but the main right in tayl he had and hath not parted ergo it remaineth in him still for qui non habet potestatem alienandi habet necessitatem retinendi If you say that he hath parted with it I deny it for the Statute hath taken from him that power by Fine or Feoffment only finis ipse jure sit nullus which before he could have done and the practice of the Law is answerable to this both towards the Donor and towards the Issue The Donor hath two things whereby he may be benefitted and prejudiced the one in his Rent reserved the other in his reverter but the Issue prejudiced only in his Descender Now for the Donor when the Donee hath made a Feoffment and hath excluded