covenantor shall have an estate for life and so the law makes in that case fractions of estates as the case of the Lord Seymor Dyer 96. seems to accord with this and besides those two books he said he could not finde any book which will warrant that and for that reason he held those two books to be no law for if I Covenant that my son shall have my land after my death this will not raise an estate to me by implication for life and an estate to my son and so by such means to change my estate in fee for an estate for life without more words for the word covenant in his proper and native signification is only obligatorie and yet it had been alwayes conceived sufficient to raise an use to him who is not partie to that as if I covenant with a stranger that I will stand seised of my land to the use of my son this will raise an use to my son and yet neither my son nor the covenantee may have an action of covenant but an use will very well arise to my son as if a man bargain and sell his land in consideration of 100. l. paid by I. S. though in this case the consideration ariseth from a stronger yet that will pass the use to the bargainee and in case of covenant it is not this word covenant only which creats the use but it is rather the agreement of the parties which is testified by the covenant for if sufficient agreement appears there will not need this word covenant as if I will agree and declare to stand seised to the use of my son by which it appears that the word covenant is onely declarative of the intentions of the parties and then in the principal case the covenant is not that the son shall have the land but that the land shall come remain and be to him and those words are incertain as 21. H. 7. redert come or discent and for that reason it is all one with the law of the same case and then void to raise any use for the incertainly and then when Andrew Buckley covenants that his son shall have his lands and no words to inforce his intention and for that reason the intention shall be lyable to an action of covenant and not to change his estate which he had in fee for an estate for life by this covenant but if he had expresly covenanted that in consideration of marriage of his son that he would hold his land for life and after this should be to his son this will change the estate which was in fee for an estate for life but in our case the covenant being general and left to the indifferent construction of the law the word covenant shall be taken in his proper and native signification and this is obligatorie and so he concluded that this covenant being at the first to grant a rent and was executory and the last part of that is executory for assurance and the limitation of the estate to the son being intangled between these two Covenants this shall be of the same nature and by consequence the covenant is obligatorie only and will raise no use to the son and so he concluded that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff and it was commanded to be entered accordingly Sparrow against Sowgate IN debt by Sparrow against Sowgate who declared that the Defendant became Bail for one Richard Sowgate in Banco Regis against whom the Plantiff had brought a Bill of debt of 77. l. and now the Defendant bound himself in a Recognizance of 77. l. upon which the action is now brought that in case judgement should be given against the said Richard Sowgate that he shall satisfie the said judgement or render his bodie to prison for in this case no part was impossible for after the judgement the principal may render himself in B. R. to the Marshal for the redemption of his suretie and that is the Common course there as he said but he agreed the case to be otherwise if a scire facias issue out of the Kings Bench against the Bail for there the death of the principal is a good plea for a scire facias doth not lie there till default is assigned in the principal in his not comming upon the capias ad satisfaciendum which may not be when he is dead Note that but yet before any capias it is clear he may have an action of debt Sir Robert Hitcham Serjeant of the King to the contrary and he alledged this to be the constant course in the Kings Bench that the Bail is never chargable till there is default assigned in the principal upon the recorn of the Capias ad satisfaciendum which may not be here for the principal is dead and he agreed the case of the other side that when a man is to do two things though the one is become impossible yet he ought to perform the other but when it is in the election of one to make either the one or the other then it is otherwise see Dyer 262. and so he concluded for the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice said that it is inconvenient that the Plantiff shall be forced to sue his Capias ad satisfaciendum against the partie before he have execution against the Bail for perchance he will sue a fieri facias or an elegit against him and that the Corps of the partie will not satisfie him and Browlow Prothonotary said that it had been adjudged in this Court that such plea is not good Winch the course of the Kings Bench is that default shall be assigned upon the retorn of the principal before the Bail shall be charged and though the Plantiff refuse to take his bodie after he had made his election to take his fieri facias or elegit he shall never more resort to the Bail which was granted by Hobert and Hutton as to that last point and it was holden by all the Court that if the principal render his bodie though the Plantiff refuse to take that yet that is a discharge of the Bail and also it was agreed by Hutton Hobert and by Winch that if the course of the Kings Bench be such that the Bail shall not be forfeit till there is a default assigned in the principal the same course also shall be followed here and per Curiam if the course of the Kings Bench be such that such Capias is necessary to be awarded that then a convenient time shall be allowed for the principal to render his bodie gratis and if the principal do die before such time the Bail is discharged but it was said by Winch if he die before convenient time and the Capias is awarded that such death shall not discharge the Bail note that Iones Iustice said that he thought in this case that it is necessary that the principal render himself gratis for when he is let to Bail the law supposeth him to be alwayes in custodie
recovery here the Term is saved and yet for the time the lessee was seised to his own use but because that the fine was Preparatory to inable him to suffer the recovery now in this case after the recovery suffered that will look back to the first agreement of the parties and so the Statute hath saved the Term and for that reason if the Statute do save a Term which is of small account much more a freehold and so he prayed judgement for the defendant see more after The case of Hilliard and of Sanders entred Mich. 20. Jac. Rot. 1791. HIlliard brought a replevin against Michael Sanders for the taking of Beasts in a place called Kingsbury and the Defendant avowed and shewed that Sir Ambrose Cave was seised in his demeasne as of fee of Kingsbury where the place in which c. is parcel and 14. Feb. 16. Eliz. granted a rent charge of 42. l. 8. s. 4. d. to one Thomas Bracebridg and to the heirs of Thomas upon Alice to be ingendred the remainder to the right heirs of Thomas and Thomas had issue John and Thomas died and then Iohn his son died having issue Anne the wife of the Avowant in whose right he avowed for the rent of half a year c. 21. l. 4. s. 2. d. due at W. in Bar of which avowrie the Plantiff pleaded that true it is that Sir Ambrose Cave was seised of the Mannor c. and he made the grant according and that Sir Ambrose Cave died seised and that the said Mannor descended to Mary his daughter as daughter and heir to him who was married to one Mr. Henry Knowles and shewed that he was seised and then shewed that the 12. Iac. it was agreed between the said Sir Thomas Bracebridg and Alice his wife Mich. 22. Jac. C. P. and the said Henry Knowles and mary his wife that for the extinguishment and final determination of the said rent that Thomas and Alice should levie a fine to Henry and Mary of the said lands and Tenements aforesaid by the name of the Maniior of Kingsbury 300. Acres of land and of divers other things but no mention was made of the rent and this fine was upon Conusance of right as that which they had c. and also they released all the right which they had in the land to Henry and to Mary and then shewed that after the death of Mary this land descended to two daughters one being now married to the Lord Willoughby the other to the Lord Paget under whom the Plantiff claimed to which the avowant said by protestation that there was no such agreement and for plea that the rent was not comprised and upon that it was demurred in Law and now Serjeant Attoe this Term argued for the Plantiff and the substance of his argument was in this manner Attoe said the case was Tenant in tail of a rent charge agreed with the Tenant of the land to extinguish that and that he would levie a fine of the land to the land Tenant which is upon Conusance of right and upon release which fine is levied accordingly whether this cuts off the tail of the rent and I hold that it will and I do not finde any opinion in all the Law against this but only the opinion of Thornton in Smith and in Stapletons case in Plowden which I do not esteem to be a binding authoritie and the case is Tenant in tail of a rent disseised the land Tenant and levied a fine with proclamation of the same fine to a stranger now said Thornton this shall not bar the issue in tail of the rent because the fine was only levied of the land and he cited this to prove another case which is Tenant in tail of land accepted a fine of a stranger as that which he had c. and he rendered to him a rent and he said that his issue may avoid that rent and this case I grant because the rent was not intailed but for the other case I openly denie that and there is much difference between those two cases for a fine levied of the land may include the rent as well as the land but it is impossible that a fine of rent should include the land and our case here is pleaded to be of the land and of the rent and a fine of the land may carry the rent inclusively because it is a fine of a thing intailed yea it is not a new thing that rent should be carried inclusively by way of extinguishment in the case of a feofment and then á fortiori in a fine which is a feofment upon Record and especially when it is levied on purpose to extinguish the rent and the Statute of fines is more strong for that is of any lands Tenements and hereditaments any wayes intailed to any person c. but this rent is an hereditament intailed to the person who levied the fine and this which is carried inclusively is within the Statute nay if a man had nothing in the land yet if it was intailed to him who levied the fine this shall bar the estate tail for ever as if Tenant in tail made a feofment to G. S. and after that he did levie a fine to a stranger of the same land that in this case the issue shall never avoid this and yet neither the Conusor nor the Conusee had any thing in the land and see for Archers case Cook 3. where the issue in tail levied a fine in the life of his ancestor and a good bar and yet there he had but a possibilitie and so was the case of Mark-williams Mich. 19. Jac. Rot. 763. C. B. where all the distinctions were made for Henry Mark-williams was heir apparant to his Mother who was Tenant in tail and he levied a fine in the life of his Mother and died without issue and then his Mother died and it was ruled that this did not bar the sister heirs because she may have that and never make mention of her brother but in our case if the rent had been granted in fee it had been no question but that a meer release will extinguish that and I think a fine with proclamation is as forcible to extinguish a rent which is intailed as a release is for a rent in fee another reason is this is a fine directly of the rent though this is by the name of land and also this is upon Conusance of right c. and also in that he released and remised to the Conusees all his right in the said land but a case out of Bendloes Reports may be objected Tenant in tail accepted a fine of the land and rendred that for life ruled the issue is not barred but first I do not allow this case to be good law but if it be good law the reason is because he accepted only a fine of the land and for that it only extends to that and not to the rent as if a man is seised
Kingsmil agreed to this In evidence to the Iury in a replevin brought by I. S. against one Bennet for the taking of beasts and the Defendant made Conusance and he said that Mr. Potts was seised of 6. acres of land and granted a rent charge out of that to one William Pots his son in taile and for rent behinde he avowed and the issue was that the rent did not pass by the grant and Hobert said that in this case the avowant ought to prove that the grantor was seised of 6. acres or more and not of 4. or 5. acres if he will maintain his issue in this case Action upon the case for words he innuendo the Plantiff stole the Tobacco out of his Mrs. shop Finch moved the declaration was not good because he had not averred that there was a communication concerning him before and where the person is incertaine there the innuendo is void Hobert and Winch held that to be good but then Hobert moved that the declaration was not good because he said the Tobacco in his Mrs. shop and had not averred that there was Tobacco there to which also Winch agreed but if he had said that he had stolen Tobacco out of his Mrs. shop such declaration without any averment is good but here the words the had altered the sense and so there ought to be an averment and Winch said that if he had said that he had stole 2 or 3 pound of Tobacco out of his Mrs. house this had been good without any averment for the certainty appears and it was adjourned Trin. 19. Jac. Sir George Stripping in Wast SIir George Stripping brought an action of waste and an estrepment was awarded to the Sheriff of Kent to prohibit him to make waste and the Sheriff returned the writ executed accordingly and now there was an affidavit made to the Court that since the estrepment he had cut down certaine Willowes which grew upon the bank of the River by which a bank fell down and a meadow adjoyning was overflowed and upon this affidavit Davies moved for an attachment against the Defendant for it appears by this affidavit that waste is committed for the cutting of willowes in this case is waste because that they support the bank as if they grew neer a house Hobert and Winch being only present that this is a waste in law but yet no attachment shall be awarded because that this appears only by affidavit and is only the collection of the party and this doth not appear by pleading or by the recorâ— of the Sheriff and Brownlow said that in this case he ought to have a Pond which was granted Maior against two Bayliffs ACtion of false imprisonment was brought by Major against 2 Bayliffs of a corporation who pleaded not guilty and at the nisi prius the Plantiffe was nonsuite and now Serjeant Richardson moved upon the Statute of cap. 5. 7. Iac. for double costs and that upon the very words of the Statute and the question was whether the costs ought to be taxed by this Court or by the Iustices of Assize Hobert said that upon the nonsuite the Iustices of Assize might have commanded the Iury to have taxed the single costs and then the same judge might have doubled them and that within the words of the Stat. but if the judge grants this then upon his certificate the double costs shall be assessed for otherwise the party shall be without any remedy and Brownlow ch Prothonotary agreed with that as to the certificate that this Court shall assesse the Costs and Brownlow had a president according Mich. 19. Jac. Grice against Lee. GRice against Lee in an action upon the case and the Plantiff declared that he being long time before and still is seised in fâ—e of certain messages and lands in Layton Buzard in the County of Bedford and that to these messuages he had a common appendant time beyond memory c. in 600 acres of waste called Layton Heath and had common in 600 acres of wood in Layton aforesaid and that the Defendant had made certaine conney borroughs and which the aforesaid couneys where he had not made any mention of any conneys before eat up the grass and that the Defendant had inclosed the said wood by which the Plantiff had lost the profits and the Defendant as to the digging of the heath for coneys said that E. 3. granted to the Dean and Cannons of Windsor that they and their successors haberent in omnibus terris dominicalibus liberam Warrennam sibi tunc et successor et in posterum conferendam And that the 20. E. 4. the Duke of Suffolk and his wife granted to them the said Mannor of Layton whereof the said Heath is parcel and said that 22. E. 4. it was enacted by Parliament that all charters made by King E. 3. to the Deane and Canons of Windsor shall be good and that the said Deane and Cannons of Windsor being so seised of the Mannor of Layton and of the Heath in the 3. H. 7. erected a free warren and that by mean conveyance the said D. and C. conveyed that to the Defendant and so justified the making of the said coney borroughs by vertue of the charter of E. 3. and as to the 600. acres of wood he justified by the licence of the father of the Plantiff who then was seised of the common and upon these pleas in barre the Plantiff demurred and Serjeant Richardson took exception because that it is not expressy alleadged that hee was seised of the house and land to which the common is appendant at the time of the making of the conney borroughs for he only said that a long time before the erection of the conney borroughs and yet he is seised which immplies that he was seised before and after but not at the time of the warren made and for this he cited the Book of entries where waste was brought and he counted of a lease for life to the Defendant and a grant of the revertion and an attornment of the Tenant and that the Defendant had made waste and ruled to be evil because he had not alleadged that this was after the attornement and so in Stradlings and Morgans case and he cited a judgement 5. Iac in C. B. Adkinson brought an action of trespass against I. S. and declared quod per multos Annos jam preteritos he had exercised marchandize and that the Defendant such a day said of him that he was a Bankrupt and it was adjudged that the declaration was evil because he had not alleadged that he exercised marchandize at the time of the speaking of the words and he said that the cause of the judgement was entered upon the roll and the same case he could shew to the Court and Hobert desired to sâ—e that for he doubted much of the law of the same case to which Winch and Hutton agreed and Richardson said that as to that which may be said that a fee
after his death it shall remain to his son and his wife in fee and the book is that this Covenant will raise an use also if this Covenant and agreement will not amount to raise an use then it is not to any use or purpose at all and by consequence the consideration of the marriage is void also and an action of Covenant will very well lye without any such consideration of marriage and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant adjourned Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. Johnson against Norway IOhnson brought an action of Trespass against Norway of Trespass made in a piece of ground and the Defendant pleaded that 14. H. 7. Roger Le Strange and Anne his wife were seised of the Mannor of D. and one Giles Sherington Abbot of C. was seised of an acre of land in fee and held this of the said Roger Le-Strange as of the Mannor of D. aforesaid and that the 22. H. 7. the Abbot and all the Monks died by which the said land escheated to Roger c. and the Mannor discended to his son and heire after his death who conveyed the Mannor of which the acre is parcel after the escheat by mean conveyance to Hobert in fee and that Hobert 12. Eliz. infeoffed one Wright of the Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and so justified by a conveyance from Wright to the Defendant the Plantiff replied by protestation that the Abbot was not eligible and for plea he said that the aforesaid Hobert 10. Eliz. infeoffed I. S. of the said acre of land absque hoc that he infeoffed Wright of the sad Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and upon this the Defendant demurred generally And Serjeant Attoe argued for the Plantiff that the Plea of the Defendant is evil and then though the replication of the Plantiff is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement and he cited Turners case Hobert it is true Cook 8. if the replication be meerly void then it is as you had said but if the replication be the title of the Plantiff and that be insufficient there the Plantiff shall not have judgement though the plea in barre was evil Attoe agreed that if it appear by the Plantiffs own shewing that he had no cause of action and that he had no title he shall not have judgement but here he had made a good title by the lease of the said acre of land and though our traverse is evil and sounds in doubleness yet the Defendant had demurred generally and so he had lost the advantage of the doubleness or of the negative pregnant for if a maâ— plead double matter this is only matter of form and not of substance and therefore after verdict it is good as hath been adjudged but he proceeded in his argument and he said that the barre of the Defendant is not good for by his own shewing this acre of land is not parcel of the Mannor for by the dissolution of the Monastery by the death of all the Monks the land shall go to the founders and donors and not to escheat to the Lord of which that is holden as appears 2. H. 6. 7. and 5. H. 7. if an annuity or rent be granted to an Abbot in fee and the Abbot and all his Monks do die the annuity or the rent is extinct and shall not escheat see the Deane of Norwiches case Coo. 3. agreed that by the death of the Abbot and his Covent the corporation is dissolved and then the possession shall go to the founders and shall not escheat to the Lord of the Mannor of which the Land was holden and he said that this point is proved cleerly by the Statute of the 27. H. 8. and 31. H. 8. of Monasteries in which Statutes there is an express saving to all persons except to the donors and to their heires and no mention is made of the saving of the right of those of whom the land was holden and that proves cleerly that if the makers of the Statute had thought that the land had escheated to the Lords they would have excepted them in the saving of the act as they had excepted the Donors and Founders for if otherwise the lands and possessions shall escheat to the Lords of which the land was holden they are within the saving of the Statute and then it will follow that after the death of all the Monks as at this day that the Lords shall have the land by escheat which the Sages of the Law never dreamt of who made that Statute that any thing may accrew to the Lord and therefore they provided only for the title of the Donors and Founders which is an argument that they thought that upon the dissolution of the Monesteries that the lands shall go to the Founders and the same he thought concerning a corporation at this day as of Suttons Hospital c. and so he concluded that because in the barre of the Defendant he claimed to hold from the Lord to whom he supposed the land to escheat and did not claim c. by his own shewing the barre is not good and though our replication and traverse is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement But admitting that the barre is good yet the replication and traverse is good and then judgement shall be given for the Plantiff and the case is the Defendant pleaded a feofment of the Man 12. Eliz. to Wright after that he had shewed the escheat of an acre the Plantiff replied that the 10th Eliz. the Feofor infeoffed C. of the acre of land absque hoc that he was infeoffed of the Mannor of which the acre is parcel and Attoe argued that the traverse is good and he alleadged 38. H. 6. 49. the same traverse and here when the Defendant had pleaded that the acre escheated and had alleadged a Feofment of the Mannor and had not expresly alleadged a Feofment of the acre the Plantiff may traverse that which is not expresly alleadged because this destroyes the very title of the Defendant and he cited for that 34. H. 6. 15. a writ of priviledge in trespass as a Servant to an auditor of the exchequer the Plantiff replied that he was servant to him in husbandry absque hoc that he was his servant to waite and attend upon him in his office and it was holden a good traverse and yet that was not expresly alleadged by the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice said that the traverse is not good for by the Feofment which was made the 12th Eliz. he had confessed and avoyded the Feofment which was made 10th Eliz. and so there needed no traverse and therefore he said the great doubt of the case will be upon the barre of the Defendant whether by the death of the Abbot and the Monks the land escheat to the Lords of whom that was holden or whether that shall go to the Donors and to the Founders and he thought that the land shall escheat to which
Harvey and Blacklock in this Court where the Defendant pleaded such plea in all points as here as to the Fettering for the Defendant fettered the horse of the Plantiff because he was so fierce and so wild to one of his own horses and so continued till he delivered him to the Plantiff and because the horse died within the year the Plantiff brought his action and upon this plea pleaded by the Defendant it was demurred in law and judgement was given for him for Cook who was then chief Iustice said that a horse may be of 40. or 100. l. price and it shall be intollerable to allow such Nusance and secondly he had not made proclamation and so trespass lies against and so in our case Harris Serjeant to the contrary for when the Lord of a Mannor takes an estate he had some kinde of property before the year is expired and for that reason he may detain the estray against the owner till amends is made to him 44. E. 3. 14. 29. E. 3. 6. by Knevet 20. H. 7. by Vavasor and Frewick and if he had property against the owner himself he may use that with moderation to make some benefit of that especially in case of necessity as 22. Assise 5. 6. a man may justifie the beating another if he be in a rage and 6. E. 4. 8. one may justifie the felling of a tree in the ground of another in case of necessity and here is no other way to restrain this Savage Colt and so the justification is good but in this case it was resolved by Hobert Winch and Hutton Iones being in the Chancery First when a beast comes within the Mannor of another Lord this is a trespas but after the seisure for an estray it is a possession of the estray in the Lord and the beginning of property as Hutton used the term so that he may have an action of trespass against any stranger which takes that out of his possession and if he estray into the land of another he may him retake Secondly it was resolved that if the Lord make not proclamation in convenient time that this possession became tortious for the law necessarily imposeth it upon the Lord of the Mannor that he make Proclamation because that otherwise the owner may not come to the knowledge of him Thirdly that the estray within the year is as a pledge in the Custody of the law till amends be made to the Lord and for that reason the Lord may not work him no more then he can work a distress Fourthly it was resolved that if the estray goe into the Mannor of another Lord and the last Lord claims that as an estray the first Lord had lost that but not before claim Fifthly Hutton and Winch agree that he might Fetter the Colt being so fierce and wild for he is answerable for the trespas and wrong which he makes in the land of his neighbours and also to the owner if he lose him and therefore it is unreasonable that he may not keep him safe for his indempnity and that is not like to the case 27. Assise which was urged of the other side also they said fettering is the usual way in the Country to restrain wild horses and therefore if it be in an ordinary manner as he Fetters his own there is not any remedy against the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice was against that last point for the Lord may not hold him in arcta custodia as a prisoner because he had rather the keeping of an estray the the property and for that if the estray go into the land of another Lord the first may not take him again if the other claims him as an estray for the possession was rather in regard of his Mannor then in regard of himself and therefore he shall not answer for the wrong which he doth in the lands of others for the possession is in regard of his Mannor and his Fettering is an abuse and he may not neither use nor abuse an estray and he said over that the Defendant had not well pleaded for another reason because he had not shewed that he proclaimed him in the next market Town within convenient time which convenient time ought to be adjudged by the Court and he said the Lord may not keep him else where within the year then within the Mannor Winch Iustice said the Defendant ought to proclaim an estray ut supra if the year be past for by that he gains an absolute propertie but here where no property is devested he needs not to proclaim him within the year and Hobert commanded this case to be moved again see the last case but one in the book Ruled that after imparlance in debt upon an obligation the Defendant shall be admitted to plead alwayes ready though the 13. Eliz. in Dyer was urged to the contrary Hill 21. Jac. C. P. Hillary Term in 21 year Iac. C. P. Trehern against Claybrook TRehern brought an action of debt against Claybrook upon a lease for years and upon nihil debet pleaded and a special verdict the case was to this effect the Grandfather of the Plantiff was seised of lands in Southwark and he made a lease for years of that to the Defendant at London rendring 45. l. rent and after he devised the reversion to the Plantiff in fee and in his will he set forth that his intent was that his Executors shall have the reversion during the Term upon condition that they enter into bond to pay 34. l. per annum at 4. usual Feasts during the Term and he further devised that this bond shall be made by the advise of his overseers and he limitted all this to be done within 6. moneths after his decease and if his Executors refuse his will was that his overseers shall take the profits upon the same condition and appointed that both obligations be made to the Plantiff and the devisor died and the Executors within 3. moneths shewed the will to the overseers but no obligation was offered to be made within the 6. moneths and the Plantiff required the Executors to enter into the obligation and to pay the rent which was not done and he claimed the reversion and brought his action afterwards in London where the lease was made and not in Southwark where the land did lie and this case was twice argued by Councel at the barre and now it was argued by the 3. Iustices Hobert being absent And Iones Iustice moved a point which was not moved at the barre viz. that the Plantiff is devisee of the reversion and so is privie in estate only and for that reason the action ought to be brought in Southwark where the land lies and not in London where the contract was made but the lessor himself had liberty to bring the action where he pleased in regard of the privitie of estate and contract and so was it adjudged in the Kings Bench between Glover and Humble and here though this be
because this is for Merchants and the Statute was made for their securitie and by intendment they are men of forraign imployment and so have the less occasion to know the Law and these Statutes of traffick are to be cherished and not be pared to the verie quick and we all agree that every substantial matter ought to be pursued but not circumstances and then the question is whether this be substance or circumstance and we also agreed that there ought to be a time certain when the money shall be paid and that is either an actual time or a legal time and for the material points that ought to be acknowledged before an officer and in the Statute of Acton Burnel this word Maior is in that and no other principal officer and yet there is no doubt but that this may be taken before another who is a principal officer of a corporation though he be not a Maior Secondly this ought to be also before the Clark Thirdly it ought to contain words obligatorie Fourthly there ought to be a person bound Fifthly this ought to contain a summe but it may be a doubt if an action of debt will lie for that Sixthly it ought to be under the seal of the partie Seventhly it ought to be under the seal of the King Eightly the inrolments is also necessarie and this Statute is such a remedy as the Common Law never gave to the King himself so all assurances in this kind are to be made to the Merchants and certainly in our case the day is not so material but the time which the law will take notice of for the ignorance of the Maior must not make any Statute void and I do not grant the case that if this was to pay 10. l. after the death of S. P. this will not make that void but if the Statute be to pay at several dayes then then it is a quere in law whether it be payable till all the dayes of payment be past as of a bond and for the writ it is but to proportion our actions according and to do after this way or manner and so upon the whole matter I conclude that the Statute is good and that the audita querela doth not lie and judgement per Curiam was commanded to be entered against the Plantiff The case of Giles Bray was moved again in arrest of judgement and Hendon said that the Plantiff had declared of a waste made after the death of the said Edmund Bray the Grandfather which was to his disinheritance c. and the Iury did finde the original lease and assignment and they found that the waste was made before such a day which was before the death of the Grandfather and now he said that because it is found generally that before the death of the Grandfather the waste was made and this was found precisely and it is not found precisely that at the time of the waste made he was termor in possession and that is not good for it may be that he made that before the assignment and then it is not punishable of waste and if the waste was made in the life of the Grandfather he ought so to have declared for otherwise it was not immediately to his disinheritance nay the Grandfather might have during his life released or confirmed to the Tenant and so have determined the waste and then he in reversion shall not recover like to the case where an Abbot declares of the waste against the lessee of his predecessor and declares of waste generally this is not good for if this was made in the time of his predecessor then he may not punish that and so in our case perchance the Grandfather had released and then he in reversion may not recover but as to the first exception the Court seemed that because the Plantiff shewed expresly that he was possessed by vertue of the lease and he being so possessed made waste the finding of the jury shall be agreeable to that and so this exception was over ruled and for the other the rule of the Court was that whether this waste was committed in the time of the Grandfather or after his death this waste was to his disinheritance and the Grandfather by his release might not by any means discharge that waste for he may not transfer that priviledge and so the judgement was given for the Plantiff The residue of Trinity Term 22. Jac. C. P. NOw the case of Sir Robert Napper and Sir Thomas Earsefield was moved again in which the Plantiff assigned the breach because that after Sir Thomas and his wife did live asunder the land was not open nor subject to distress of Sir Robert Napper and upon the opening of this to the Court the Court conceived that this rent was granted to be paid immediately and to distrain for that but afterwards there is a clause that it shall not begin in point of payment till Sir Thomas and his wife did live asunder and then it shall be paid the first day which was limited after and Crawley Serjeant said that the intent was that it should begin presently and that it should be subject to distress and therefore to make that an entire covenant is against the very intentions of the parties for covenants in nature are several also if they shall be construed otherwise the partie shall be without the remedy which was intended S. a distress but the Lord Hobert and Winch were of opinion that if Sir Thomas Earsefield had received his estate truly that he had but a reversion expectant upon a term for years and then had made such a grant and such covenants then in this case the covenant had not been broken and then the meaning would be that he should not have any rent till he had one to grant but it doth not appear here and therefore is a difference and the covenant is broken and Winch said that the intent was that the wife shall have that for her maintenance when they did live asunder so that then it shall be paid to the use of his wife for this was in trust for her and for that reason they ought to be several covenants of necessitie for the state of the Mother of Sir Thomas Earsfield did not appear in those indentures and then he ought to take that as it is at this time and the appearing of that now is not material and if any other construction shall be made then the parties to the indentures shall be deframed Hutton of the same opinion that they are several covenants in the intent and meaning of the parties and they are of several natures for the first covenant is in the affirmative the second is in the Negative and the third is in the affirmative and it is all one as if the word covenant had been to every clause in express words for he did not say that this should be alwayes open and lyable to distress according to this estate for then it had been but
Plantiff in Hammond which indenture rehearseth that King Henry the eight was seised of this land in his demeasne as of fee in the right of his Crown from him conveyed that to Ed. 6. who in the 7. year of his Raign by his letters patents bearing date at Westminster he granted that to one Fitz Williams to Hilton in fee as by his letters patents may appear they being so seised by indenture which bore date c bargained and sold that to Henry Hoskins and to Proud also recited that Proud releaseth to the said Hoskins all his right as by the said release may appear and conveyed that to Iohn by discent and so the said Iohn being seised he and his son Peter made this conveyance to the Plantiff upon a good consideration in which they did covenant with the Plantiff in this manner and the said Iohn and Peter for them and there heirs do Covenant and grant to and with the Plantiff c. that they the said Peter and Iohn Hoskins according to the true meanâ—â—ing of the said indenture were seised of a good estate in fee simple and that the said Iohn and Peter or one of them have good Authoritie to sell that according to the intent of the said indenture and that there was no reversion or remainder in the King by any Act or Acts thing or things done by him or them and the Plantiff laid the breach that neither Iohn nor Peter had a lawful power to â—â—ll the Defendant pleaded that Iohn had a good power to sell that according to the intent of the said indenture notwithstanding any Act or Acts made by him or his faâ—her or by any claiming under them and upon that the Plantiff demurred and the case was now argued by the Court and Iones Iustice began and said that his opinion was that the Plantiff shall be barred the case being upon construction of covenants and the sole question is whether they are several covenants or only one covenant and I held that they are all one covenant and those words for any Act or Acts do relate to the two other precedent sentences and so it is all but one covenant though this stand upon several parts for if these words were placed in the fore-front there had been no question but that this had been but one covenant and this made no difference when it is set before and when it is set after and the repeating of that had been toutalogie for if I covenant I will build a house at Dale Sale and a vale of Brick here Brick shall refer to them all because it is tied in one entire sentence and covenant and so if I covenant with you that I will goe with you to Canterbury to Salisbury and Coventrie here the word goes relates to all 3. as in the case of Sir Henry Finch the rent was granted out of the Mannor of Eastwel and not of the Messuage lands and Tenements lying and being in the Parish of Eastwel or else where in the same Countie belonging thereto and resolved that land which is not parcel of the Mannor is not charged with the rent because it is all but one sentence and one grant and cited the case of Althams case and Hickmots case where special words will qualifie general words where they are all in one sentence and so I conceive they are but one covenant Cook 8. 9. especially in the intents of the parties and upon the intents of all the parties of the deed for when a deed is doubtful in construction the meaning must be gathered from all the parties of that but yet that is tied with two cautions that it be not against any thing expressed by the said indenture but only in case where it is doubtful Cook 2. 5. so Cheineys case and Baldewins case a habendum will destroy an implied premisses Cook 4. but not an expressed and so in Nokes case an express particular covenant qualifies the generalty of the implyed covenant like to the case which was 32. Eliz. in the Court of Wards between Carter and Ringstead Cook 8. where Carter was seised of lands in Odiham and of the Mannor of Stoy and there covenanted that he would Levie a fine to his son of all his lands in Odiham in tail and for the Mannor of Stoyes that should be to the use of his wife now these subsequent words drew that out of the tail according to the intent of the parties and so in our case and I also take an exception to the form of the declartion for he conveyes that to Fitz Williams and to Proud and Hoskins by the name of all his lands and Tenements which were in the tenure of Anne Parker and did not aver that these lands for which the Covenant was made were in her hands and for that it is not good and for these reasons I conceive the Plantiff shall be barred The argument of Hutton Justice HUtton to the contrary I hold that they are 3. several Covenants and yet I agree the cases afore cited and the reason is they are all included in one sentence for it is the care of the Purchasor that he had an owner of the land before he purchase for that which is the ground of assurances that he is seised in fee and hereafter that the Covents that this is free from incumberances made by him and that he had good title to alien which strikes at the very root of assurances and my first reason is because here are several parties and they covenant that one of them is seised of a good estate and that they or one of them had power to alien that for it may not stand with the intents of the indentures to buy of him who had no title and might not sell and also the last Covenant is meerly in the negative that they have made no Act or Acts by which the reversion shall be in the King and that is all one as if the word Covenant had been added in every clause of the sentence and Covenants in law may be qualified by express Covenants but if a man made a lease for years upon condition to pay 20. l. in this case an entrie by the law is implyed for default of payment but yet if it added that if it be behinde he may enter and retain till he is satisfied of the 20. l. now in this case this had taken away the implyed Covenant and condition but every express Covenant must be taken most beneficially for the Covenantee and in Nokes case it is said that an express Covenant controuls an implied one but he may use either of them at his pleasure and election and I grant Henry Finches case to be good law for there is not any clause or sentence till after the Alibie but yet in Dyer 207. they are distinct sentences and shall receive several constructions and so here the matter being several they shall receive divers constructions and he Covenanted that
of Tithes and good because they are a spiritual bodie 65 In a Prohibition upon a suit for a Legacie the Executor shewed he had not assets to pay the debts and the spiritual Court would not allow that allegation yet no Prohibition 78 Prohibition to the Marches of wales because a Legatee sued there for 500. l. good before a decree but not after 78 Prohibition see Court of equitie c. 79 Prohibition to the Marches of Wales for requiring an accompt of an Administrator 103 Proces against two Obligors by several precipes and thereupon several Executions whether the writs are well awarded 112 A parco fracto where it lies against the Lord of the Soil and where not except the Cattle come out 80 81 Prohibition to the delegates a pardon not allowed of there 125 Q IN a Quare impedit adjudged that nothing ought to be questioned after induction the spiritual Court there 63 R TEnant in tail sells to I. S. in fee who sells to the heir of Tenant in tail being of full age the father dies if the son be demitted 5 A replevin c. the Defendant saith that all those c. had used to have pasturage in c. when it was not sowed the Prescription is good 7 In a return of Rescous there needeth no addition 10 Replevin for rent issuing out of six acres the avowant must prove that the grantor was seised of 6. acres or more 15 Replevin in the Plantiff claimeth propertie without that the propertie was in the Defendant the Traverse not good yet judgement for the Plantiff because after verdict 26 In Return of an extent by the Sheriff surplusage hurteth not 27 Replevin the Defendant avowed for homage and shewed not how it was due if good 31 Replication although evil where the Plantiff shall have judgement if the Defendants plea be vitious 37 A Riotous quarrel about an arrest between the Sheriffs Bailiffs and the Bailiffs of the Marches of Wales 72 Release an avowrie not good without pleading it by deed 72 A Rent-charge granted and a Covenant if it happen to be behinde then the land to be alwayes open to distress whether this be a distinct covenant or not 74 87 Replevin for rent the Defendants say that the land was parcel of a Chaunterie which came to the King by the Statute wherein the right of others was saved the Plantiff replies that the land is out of the fee of the Defendant no good plea but he might have Traversed the Tenure that at the making of the Statute the land was not holden of him 77 A Record amended where the bargain and sale and deed of uses were by the right name but the writ of entrie was of another name 99 100 Rent granted in fee by Tenant for life and him in remainder in tail levied a fine a good grant 102 Rent-charge whether it be extinct by a fine of the land to the Ter-tenant and a release unto him 109 110 111 121 122 S SCire facias the Defendant pleads a feofment the Plantiff traverses and the jury found a feofment to other uses whether this shall be intended the same feofment which was pleaded 32 Scire facias by an Executor upon a judgement for the Testator the Defendant cannot plead the Testators death between the verdict and judgement but he must bring a writ of error 48 Simonie a grant of a next avoidance for monie the Parson being readie to die is Simonie 63 A Sheriff by force of a Capias utlagatum to inquire what lands c. cannot put the partie out of possession 78 Statute-Merchant if good in regard no day of payment is limited largely and learnedly argued by the Court 82 83 c. Servant taken away See Trespas T TIthes See Prescription Trespass the Defendant saith that I. S. was seised in right of his wife and that she died seised and that he as heir c. the Plantiff replied that she died not seised he ought to have said that she died not sole seised 7 Trespass in Yorkshire Justification in Durham without that that guiltie in Yorkshire good because it is local 7 A Traverse to a presentation where good and where not 13 14 Tenure where it is Traversable and where the seisin 18 Tithes not due of Cattle for the diarie 33. Trespass for Beasts taken in London Justification upon a lease of land in Kent Replied that the Defendant sold them in London no good plea to bring the trial out of Kent 48 Trespass for taking ones servant lieth not upon a private retainer otherwise if it were at the Sessions 51 Tithe giuen by the Pope to the Vicar and the Copie of the Bull only was shewed in evidence not good 70 Tithes cannot be appurtenant to a Grange except the Grange be the Gleab 72 73 Traverse where good and where not 113 U VEnire facias omitting part of the venue if good 34 Variance between the writ and Declaration where good 35 A feofment to the use of A. for life and after to the use of his daughter till B. pay her 100. l. here the daughter hath no remedie for this 100. l. without a promise 71 A Ventre inspiciendo awarded and returned but the Court would not agree that she should be detained from her second husband but attended by divers women till her deliverie 71 Variance between the venire facias and the Sheriffs return no judgement in that case 73 W IN Waste judgement by nihil dicit and upon an inquirie the jury found 8. s. damages what judgement shall be given 5 Wager of Law upon a Bill of Exchange 24 Writs a difference wherein there is an error in the original and where in the judicial writ that is amendable 73 Waste although for a time it is punishable yet after the action may revive 79 86 Writ against husband and wife as an Inheritrix the husband dies if the writ abate 102 Errata PAge 1. line 2. 27. for do read Doa p. 2. l. 4. r. lieu p. 4. l. 2. 22. r. 300. pa. 8. l. 36. r. Hendon and so throughout p. 12. in the Title r. Duncombe against the Vniversitie of Oxford p. 12. l. 14. r. 38. H. 8. cap. 39. p. 14. in the Title r. Sir George Savile against Thornton p. 15. l. 21. r. communication p. 16. l. 12. r. 7. Jac. cap. 5. p. 17. l. 47. r. Maines and l. 17. r. sic and also p. 17. 18. in the Margent r. Trin. p. 21 l. 51. r. 39. Eliz. p. 23. l. 9. r. till p. 26 l. 28 for writ r. Action and for Action r. writ p. 27. l. 12. for he r. they p. 28. l. 34. r. may not p. 29. in the Margent r. Easter p. 29. l. 33. for S. r. N. p. 33. l. ultim r. Moore p. 36. l. 43. r. Titterels p. 45. l. 20. r. demandable p. 50. l. 35. r. Bar p. 51. l. 22. r. a penalty p. 53. l. 16. r. may not p. 54. l. 44. r. Estate p. 57. l. 19. r. in our case p. 58. l 50 r. 16. E. 4. p. 68. l. 5. r. estray p. 71. l. 26. r. 12. Note in p. 72. l. 7. Wolseys case ought to have been printed by it self p. 77. l. 4. r. avoided p. 88. l. 4. r. Finch p. 90. l. 15. r. continuance p. 100. l. 21. for preservation r. perswasion and l. 34. for entire r. entrie p. 109. in the Margent for Trin. r. Mich. p. 112. l. 25. r. thought p. 114. l. 18. for interested r. interest
covenanted with Sir Edward Sackvil to levy a fine to him of that land before the fine acknowledged the eldest brother dyed and the question was whether the youngest shall be compelled to levy the fine and presidents were commanded to be searched concerning that matter Note that it was said that where a commission issued out of the Court of wards to 4 persons or to any 2 of them and one of them refuse to be a Commissioner and the other 3 sit as Commissioners and he who refused was sworn and examined by them as a witness and ruled that this is good for though he refused to be a Commissioner yet he is not excluded to be sworn as a witness In evidence to the Iury the case was that Tenant in taile bargained and sold his land to I. S. and his heires and I. S. sold to the heire of the Tenant in taile being of full age and Tenant in taile died and the heire in taile claimed to hold his estate and the doubt was whether he was remitted or no Hobert was of opinion that after the death of the Tenant in taile that the heire is remitted for if Tenant in taile bargain and sell his land the issue in taile may enter and where his entrie is lawful there if he happâ— the possession he shall be remitted Hutton and Warberton Iustices contrary For at the first by the bargain and sale the son had fee and then the estate of the son may not be changed by the death of the father he being of full age when he took this estate and this was in an Ejectione firme of land which concerns Sir Henry Compton and the Lord Morley and Mounteagle White against Williams VVHite brought an action of accompt against Williams as his Bayliff to his damages 100. l. the Defendant pleaded he never was his Bayliff and it was found against him and the Iudgement was given that he should render an accompt and at the day the Defendant made default Ideo consideratum est per Curiam quod Querens recuperet versus predict Defendent 42. l. 10. s. and upon that the Defendant brought a writ of error and assigned for error that the Court gave Iudgement of the value without inquiring of the value and it was holden by Gaudy and Fenner only present that the Iudgement ought to be given which the Plantiff had counted of Baron Altham contrarie for the Court may in discretion give a lesser summe Hill 43. Eliz. B. R. vide 14. E 3. Accompt 109. 20. E. 3. 17. Sir George Topping against King VVA st was assigned in the cutting of Elmes and other Trees to such a price and Iudgement was given for the Plantiff by nihil dicit and a writ of inquiry of dammages issued upon that and the Iury found to the dammages of 8. s. and upon this Davies the Kings Serjeant moved to have a new writ of inquiry and that the old writ shall not be returned for the dammages are too litle Winch said all is confessed by the nihil dicit Hobert The Iury here have found the value and presidents were commanded to be searched and Hobert said that if an information is for ingrossing of 1000 quarters of corn and Iudgement is given by nihil dicit and a writ of enquiry issues which findes him guilty of 100. yet this is good And not that at another day the case was moved again it was between Sir George Topping and King and it was said if a man recover in waste by nihil dicit and a writ of inquiry issues the Iury in this case may inquire of the dammages but not of the place wasted for this is confessed and so are the presidents according and Hobert said if the Defendant is bound by the nihil dicit as to the place wasted for what cause shall not he be bound as to the dammages and by all the Court if the jury finde dammages only to 8. s. the Plantiff shall not have Iudgement for it ought to be above 40. s. Hob. this is in the discretion of the Court in this case and it was also said in this case that upon the grant of all the trees and after the grantee cut them and new ones grow upon the slumps which in time will be trees that in this case the grantee shall have them also by Hobert Wetherly against Wells in an action for words VVEtherly against Wells in an action upon the case for these words thou hast stollen hay from Mr. Bells racks and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of Iudgement because he had not shewed what quantity was of that and perchance it may be of so little a value that it is not fellony and the rather because it is hay from the Racks but Hobert contrary that Iudgement shall be given against the Defendant for the Plantiff for it hath been adjudged lately in this Court that where a man was charged with petty Larceny to steal under the value of 12. d. that an action of the case will lie for the discredit is not in the value but the taking of that with a fellonious intent and yet it had been adjudged in this Court that where one said of another thou art a thief and hast stolen my trees that in this case an action will not lie but this is by reason of the subsequent words trees for it is said Arbor dum crescit lignum dum crescere nescit And Winch said that it had been adjudged actionable to say thou art a thief and hast stolen my corn and yet perchance not exceed 2. or 3. grains and Warberton said that it had been adjudged in the Kings Bench that where one said thou art a thief and stollest the corn out of my field that no action will lie The Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Devon NOte that in the case of the Earle of Northumberland and the Earle of Devon execution issued out for dammages recovered against the Bayliff of the Earle of Northumberland by the name of I. S. of D. and there was I. S. the father and I. S. the son and the father being dead the son issued his writ of Idemptitate nominis and he prayed to have a supersedeas and Warberton demanded of Brownlow if he had any such president to award a supersedeas in such case who answered no and Warberton and Hutton being only present said that they will advise of that Sir George Sparke Prescription IN a Replevin for the taking of a horse in 5. acres of land in such a place and the Defendant avowed as Bayliff to Sir George Spark and shewed that Sir George Spark and all those whose estate he had in the land had used time beyond the memory of man to have herbage and pasturage in all the 5. acres when that was not sowen and upon this plea the Plantiff demurred Ashley argued for the Plantiff that the prescription is void and this is not
plea for the Plantiff to say that he was seised till the Defendant disseised him absque hoc that C. enfeoffed him and for that reason he ought to traverse the feofment made by B. for the other was but a mean conveyance see Dyer 107. in Trespass the Defendant conveyed to the donee by 5. or 6. discents by dying seised of the estate taile in every of them the Plantiff confessed the intaile and conveyed to him by feofment made by the heir of the donee which was a discontinuance and took traverse to the dying seised of the same feoffor and ruled to bee evil for he ought to traverse the most antient discent 43. H. 3. 7. Secondly it is evil because he had confessed the seisin of E. 6. and the grant by the same King to Wyat and so had confessed and avoyded the seisin of the same King and then the Law will not suppose that E. 6. purchased that again and for that the traverse of his dying seised is evil when he had sufficiently confessed and avoided that before as Dyer 336. in Vernons case a discent was pleaded to the heire from his ancestor the other party said that the ancestor devised that to him absque hoc that this discended to him as son and heire and ruled to be evil for a traverse needs not when he had confessed and avoyded that before Vide 14. H. 8. Sir William Meerings case 26. H. 8. 4. by Fithzherbert but Brook in the abridgement of the same case said that if the traverse is evil then he had waved the plea before and all was evil 7. E. 4. by Littleton for hereby the representation of Queen Eliz. she had gained the inheritance to the Crown and then the traverse being evil he had waved the former plea which was good without traverse and this seisin in the Crown is not answered but by way of argument as here 14. H 6. 17. he ought to traverse absque hoc that he died in his homage 20. E. 4. 5. 35. H. 6. 32. Serjeant Iones to the contrary and as to that which hath been said that the presentment is alleaged to be in jure coronae and the confessing the presentment is a plea by way of argument to which he answered that the record is not so but the seisin of the advowson is alleadged by discent to Elizabeth Queen by force of which she was seised in jure coronae and Iones argued that the traverse is good for every plea in barre ought either to be traversed and denied or confessed and avoided and here that ought to be traversed Dyer 208. 312. in avowry for a rent charge and seisin was alleadged in the grantor of the land in fee and the Plantiff said he was seised in taile he ought to traverse that he was seised in fee and a good traverse Hill 2. Iac. in C. B. Rot. 1921. Edwards against D. it was pleaded that such a man was seised in fee of a rent charge and the other confessed that he was seised in fee and that a long time before he enfeoffed one I. S. there he ought to traverse that he was seised at the time of the grant see the new book of Entryes Tavener and Gooches case in a Qu. Impedit And a note by the Lord Cooke also he said that after the grant there may be an usurpation and so the dying seised in the case of an advowson in gross ought to be traversed â—e 21. E. 4. 1. 20. E. 4. 14. and as to that which hath been said against the protestations he answered it ought to be traversed and for that the rest ought to be taken by protestation and in some cases the conveyance is traversable see Cromwels and Andrews case And so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Plantiff Note that he said that it was adjudged in that Court 2. Iac. in the case of the Bishop of Winchester that two usurpations gaine the advowson from the King And the reason was because the King by an usurpation may gaine an advowson in him out of a Common person and if the King Vsurpe and the right patron present he is remitted Hobert by such usurpation the possession is gained from the King but not the right and note that upon the argument in the principal case by Bawtry and Iones it was ruled by Hobert Warberton and Hutton that if the Defendant do not shew better cause by such a day judgement shall be given against him and Hutton said that he had studied the case and found no doubt but that the traverse is good Winch was absent in the Chancery M. 19. Iac. C. P. IT was moved for a prohibition by Harris Serjeant to the Court of Audience because that the Plantiff was sued there for saying to one thou art a Common Quean and a base Quean and Harris said that a prohibition had been granted in this Court for saying to one that she was a piperly Queen and it was the case of Man against Hucksler and Finch said though the words are not actionable in our Law they are punishable in the spiritual Court for the word Quean in their Law implies as much as whore but Hobert said that this word Quean is not a word of any certain sense and is to all intents and purposes and individuum Vagum and so in certain see more after Note that it was said by Justice Warberton that it was adjudged in the case of one Ablaine of Lincolns Inne that if a man made a lease for years rendering rent and the lessee or a stranger promise upon good consideration to pay the rent that in this case no action upon the case will lye for it is a rent and is a real thing and Hutton Justice being only present agreed this was upon the motion of Finch Serjeant Mic. 43. Eliz. in the Kings Bench in an action upon the case he declared how he let certain land to the Defendant for years in consideration of which the Defendant promised to pay him for the farm aforesaid 20. l. and Hitcham moved that the action will not lye because it appears to be for a rent for which an action of debt lyes but by Gaudy Fenner and Clench it is not a rent but a summe in gross and for that reason because he promised to pay that in the consideration of a lease cleerly an action upon the case lyes but Sir John Walter replyed that a writ of error was brought of this case of Simcocks in the exchequer chamber and the matter in law was assigned for error and it was ruled that no action upon the case will lye for Walmsley said this was a rent for of necessity there ought to be supposed a commutation between the lessor and lessee and that the lessor demanded of the lessee how much he would give for that and then he answered 20. l. this made an entire contract and for that reason an action of debt lyes and not an action upon the case and Savil and
simple shall alwayes be supposed to have continuance if the contrary is not shewed to that he answered that is not so for the book of the 7. H. 7. 8. if in barre of assise the Tenant said that I. S. was seised and gave this is not good because he had not shewed quod fit seisitus existens dedit c. which being in a plea in barre is more strong then in a declaration to prove that a fee shall not be intended to have continuance without an express allegation and so he concluded that the declaration is naught but by Hobert Winch and Hutton it is very good notwithstanding this objection and Winch cited the 13. Eliz. in Ejectione firme where the life of the person was not cleerly alleadged but the declaration only was that the lessor was and yet is seised which was a sufficient averment of the life of the person and so the declaration is good and another exception was taken to the declaration by Hitcham Serjeant because that the Plantiff had declared that the Defendant had made conney borroughs and with the aforesaid conneys had eat up the grass where he had not alleadged any storeing of the coney borroughs before with coneys and then it is impossible they should eat up the grass to the prejudice of the Plantiff but to this it was answered by Serjeant Attoe that though the declaration as to that is naught yet the diging of the coney borroughs is to his prejudice and sufficient to maintaine the action which the Court granted and as to the matter in law Attoe argued for the Plantiff and recited the case to be that E. 3. granted to the Deane and Chapter of Windsor that they shall have free warren in the lands which yet they had not purchased and of which they were not seised at the time whether this is a good grant and shall extend to take effect after the purchase see Buckleys case and be argued that it is not a good grant and he put a difference between a warren and other priviledges which are flowers of the Crown which may be granted infuturo but a warren never was a flower of the Crown and for that reason a grant de bonis et cattallis fellon et fugitivorum may be granted and yet not be in esse at the time of the grant for it is a flower of the Crown and it is said 44. E. 3. 12. that the King may not grant a warren in other mens lands but only in the land of the grantee and upon this he concluded that this grant shall not extend to land after purchased and the rather because it is in the nature of a licence which shall be taken strictly see 21. H. 7. 1. 6. And Hobert chief Iustice said that this word demeans is derived of the French words en son manies and though the Lord of the mannor had the waste in his hands yet he had not the common and as to the confirmation by Ed. 4. they all agreed that this will confirm nothing to him but what was granted by E. 3. himself and then as to the licence pleaded that is of no effect for first the licence is pleaded to be made to one Sir Cha. Haydon and the Defendant did claime under him and this licence was made by the father which will not binde the son who had the land to which the common is appendant after the death of his father for a common may not be extinguished without deed and Hobert and all the Court agreed that the licence of the father will not binde the son and by the Court if nothing is shewed to the contrary within a week judgement shall be given for the Plantiff Davies against Turner DAvies brought a replevin against Turner and he declared of the taking in a place called the Holmes and the Defendant made conusance as bayliff to Sir George Bing for that one Clap held certain land of him by 20. s. rent and suite of Court and for the rent he avowed and alleadged seisin by the hands of Clap the Plantiff said that Chap held 40. acres of land by 9. s. rent fealty and suite of Court absque hoc that he held modo et forma and upon this it was demurred and the single point was this in auowry the Tenant alleadged c. and the question is whether he ought to traverse the tenure or the seisin and it was argued by Henden Serjeant that he ought to traverse the seisin and that the traverse of the tenure is not good and besides here is double matter for the conclusion sounds in barre of the avowry and in abatement of the avowry see a good case 18. H. 6. 6. for the falsness of the quantity of the land and the falsness of the quantity of rent the on goes in barre the other in abatement of the avowry 47. E. 3. 79. 5. H. 6. 4. and affirmed for good law And as to the second point he held the seisin to be traversable and not the tenure and first he said there was a difference between pleading in barre of avowry and in the abatement of the avowry for in barre of the avowry there the seisin is is not traversable by Frowick 21. H. 7. 73. which opinion he held for good law for it is agreed in Bucknels case Co. 9. he may not say that he held of a stranger absque hoc that the avowant was seised but otherwise it is when that goes in abatement of the avowry Secondly he said that the seisin is the principal thing and the principal thing ought to be traversed for if a man had seisin of many services seisin shall never be ayded till the Stat. of magna charta see Bucknels case Cook 9. and here the seisin is the most meterial thing and the most proper see 37. H. 6. Bro. Avowry 76. ne tiendra is no plea for a stranger to the avowry but he ought to answer to the seisin Thirdly the cause for which the seisin is traversable see a notable case per Danby 7. E. 4. 29. for the beginning of the services may be time beyond memory c. and for that reason may not be tried see 20. E. 4. 17. 22. H. 6. 3. 26. H. 6. 25. by Newton he may traverse the tenure Attoe contrary 13. H. 7. 25. to this it was answered that the number Rolle may not be found 5. H. 7. 4. 13. H. 6. 21. 21. H. 7. 22. by Frowick and Kingsmil Harvey to the contrary the case was that the Defendant made conusance as Bayliff to Sir George Bing for this that Chap held a messuage c. by certain rent and by suite of Court and the other said that he held 40. acres by 9. s. and suite of Court absque hoc that he held the messuage and the land modo et forma and he argued that it was a good traverse of the tenure and not double which was granted by Hobert and by Winch being only present and Hobert said true
it is that if the Lord had seisin of more then the very services in this case it may not be avoyded in avowry and no fall tenure shall be avoyded c. but when he joyns another falsity and that is in the quantity of land now the false quantity of the rent had made the tenure traversable and the judgement was commanded to be entred accordingly Trin. 19. Jac. Thomas Bull Executor c. against Fankester THomas Bull Executor of William Bull brought an action against Fankester and declared that the Defendant enfeoffed his Testator in certaine land and that he covenanted for him and his heirs that he was seised of a good estate in fee and he alleadged the breach upon which they were at issue and now Attoe moved in arrest of judgement first because the Plantiff sueing as Executor had not shewed the Will for it hath been adjudged here that if a man bring an action as executor and do not shew the Will that the Defendant may demurre upon that because it is matter of substance but Hobert said it is very good because the Defendant had admitted him to be responsible but it is true he might have demurred upon the declaration as we often times adjudged here secondly Attoe said that the covenant being made with the heire the executor shall not have an action of covenant for it is annexed to the land which was granted by Hobert and Winch being only present in the Court. Note that it was said at the barre and agreed by Hobert that if the debtor make the dettee his executor he may now retain in debt against him and safely plead plene administravit if he had no other goods and shall not be driven to his special plea and so it had been agreed often times in this Court Parson and Morlees case PArson and Morlees case it was said that the Lord Chancellour presented to a venefice which belonged to the King which was above the yearly value of 20. l. per annum and this was referred to Hobert chief Iustice and to Tanfield chief Barron to certifie whether this was meerly void it remained good till it was avoyded Harris against Wiseman HArris had procured a prohibition against Wiseman who had libelled in the spiritual Court against the Plantiff for a frat in the Church which did belong to his house and it was said by Hobert and Winch only present that a man or a Lord of a mannor who had any Isle or a seat in the Church c. and he is sued for that in the spiritual Court he shall have a prohibition but not every common parishioner for every common seat and upon the first motion at the barre in this case day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore that a prohibition shall not be granted and the Defendant not having notice of that after the day the Plantiff had a prohibition and now after the day he shewed a good cause and upon that a supersedeas was granted to stay the prohibition in that case Aylesworth against Harrison AYlesworth against Harrison in debt against an executor the question was whether he may plead plene Administravit and give in evidence a debt in which the Testator was indebted to him or whether he may plead the special matter that plea amounting but to the general issue and it was argued by Harris Serjeant the Defendant may plead the special matter and shall not be bound to the general issue to leave that to the lay people who may suppose such a retainer to be an administration and he vouched the 15. E. 4. 18. if a man illiterate seale a deed which is read to him in another manner c. and he delivers that as an escrow to be delivered over as his deed upon conditions performed and this is delivered over before the conditions performed he may in this case plead the special matter and conclude so not his deed or if he will he may plead the general issue of non est factum and so is 39. H. 6. in dower the Tenant said that before marriage the husband infeoffed him and that after the Tenant let to him at Will and that the husband continued possession during his life absque hoc that he was seised of such an estate of which she might have dower and exception was taken there because that this only amounts to the general issue and yet ruled to be good for the lay people may conceive such a continuance of possession during the life of the lessee to be such an estate of which the wife may have dower if this were put upon the general issue and in our case because he had liberty to plead specially or generally he prayed that the Defendant may be admitted to plead specially and that he may not be bound to the general issue Serjeant Hendon to the contrary if one plead a plea which amounts to the general issue see Layfields case Coo. 10. and though in Woodwards case commentaries there was such a plea pleaded yet this doth not prove the contrary for in the same case no exception was taken by the Plantiff and presidents do prove that the Defendants in this kind have been compelled to plead the general issue Hobert if no special matter may be alleadged to the contrary the Defendant shall be compelled to plead the general issue and this is good discretion in the Court to take away the perplexity of pleading because one plea is as good as the other to which Winch being only present agreed and it was ordered that the Defendant here plead accordingly In debt against the heire upon the obligation of his father and in the declaration the Plantiff omitted these words obligo me et hered es meos c. and after error brought the Plantiff prayed that this might be amended because it was the misprision of the Clark only Hobert and Winch said that this shall not be amended for it is a matter of substance but because the clark who made this misprision was a good clark day was given over c. Widdow Archers case IN debt against the Widdow of Archer being executrix of her husband and the Plantiff declared that neither the Testator in his life nor the executrix after his death had paid that omitting those words licet saepius requisitus c. and evil but this omission was amended Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke SIr Edward Grubham brought an audita querela against Sir Edward Cooke upon a recognizance of 4000. l. and this was acknowledged to the use of his Mother and shewed that the conusor had infeoffed him and another in the land and that the conusee had sued execution only against him and it was found for the Plantiff and it was so moved in arrest of judgement by Ashley Serjeant first because he had not shewed in this audita querela when the Statute was certified nor yet the Teste nor yet the return of the writ of extent
within the Statute and â—hirdly he had not shewed what time he was received that so it might appeare that he was an apprentice but for half a year and such a retainer is not within the Statute fourthly the conclusion of the information is contrary to the form of the Statute yet this doth not aide the imperfection of the information for such information only extends to matter of circumstance and not to matter of substance Finch Serjeant contrary that the retainer of an apprentice who departs out of the service of his Mr. without a testimonial is within the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. for the same branch is general there being no person who departs c. and an apprentice is a person which departs secondly the clause of the Statute is be it enacted that none of the forementioned retained persons c. and an apprentice is a person which is in a special manner named before Mich. 19. Jac. and therefore he is within the express words of the same branch Thirdly the form of the testimonial proves that for it is I. W. servant to such c. and an apprentice is such a servant Hobert chief Iustice said that it was never the intent of the Statute to make an infant who is an apprentice to be within the danger of the same Statute for an infant at the age of 14. years may be bound to be an apprentice and the punishment which is given by the same Statute is that such person shall be whipt as a Rogue which plainly proves the Statute intends only those who are of full age and if other construction shall be made perchance that the sonne of a gentleman may be punished as a Rogue by such departure and he held that if an apprentice depart with his Mrs. goods delivered to him that in this case he is not within the Statute of the 21. H 8. as another servant is and Serjeant Finch said that there is an express exception and if that had not been that an apprentice had been within the danger of the law but Hobert said that he doubted much whether an apprentice had been within that Statute though the Proviso had not been made but this proves that the makers of the Statute thought this to be a hard matter to make an infant who is apprentice to be within the danger of the same law and for that reason the proviso of the Statute was made Winch said to which Hutton agreed that when the Defendant had pleaded nihil debet and this was found for the Plantâ—ff yet he may move in arrest of judgement if the matter be not within the Statute adjurned In a replevin the Defendant said that he hâ—d property in the beasts absque hoc that the property was to the Plantiff and so prayed judgement of the writ and it was found for the Plantiff and now Harvey Serjeant moved in arrest of judgment for in no book is found such a traverse as this that the Plantiff had not property but only that the property was to the Defendant and secondly the conclusion of the plea is not good for he ought to conclude to the writ and not to the action Hobert 6. H. 7. is that an action of detinue affirmes the property at the time of the action but a repleviant the time of the taking and two men may have such property in the same thing that every of them may have a replevin and Hutton said that when the Defendant in the replevin claimed property he ought to conclude to the action and Hendon Serjeant being only at the barre and not of councell in the case said that the book of entries is that he shall traverse the property of the Plantiff as in the principal case Hutton Iustice said that this was never seen by him but they all agreed that this being after verdict judgement shall be given for the Plantiff Trehern against Claybrook Ent. Tr. 18. Jac. Rot. 650. TRehern against Claybrook in a debt upon a lease for yeares the jury gave a special verdict to this effect that Iohn Trehern Grandfather of the Plantiff was seised of land in fee and let this for forty yeers rendring rent for which the action is brought and that he devised the reversion to the Plantiff in catle the remainder to Leonard Trehern in taile with divers remainders over and with provises in the same will that for the raising of a stock for the Plantiff and for him in remainder his will was that one Griffith and Anne his wife being daughter of the devisor should have the profits and rent of the said land to their own use until the time that the Plantiff and the said Leonard Trehern accomplish the age of 21. years provided alwayes and upon this condition that the said Griffith and his wife within 3 moneths of his decease enter into bond to the overseers of his will in such a summe and in such a penalty as shall be thought fit by the said overseers and this bond to be made by their advice and if the said Griffith and Anne his wife do refuse to be bound as is aforesaid then the overseers shall have the rents and the profits c. and the jury found over that he made two executors and 3. who were overseers and that the 3. October 16. Iac. died and that within 3. weeks after the death of the devisor the executor read the will to the overseers but they found that the overseers did not remember that and if upon all the matter Griffith and Anne his wife had not performed the condition was the question and that if not the reversion was in the Plantiff And the point in law upon the verdict was whether Griffith and Anne his wife ought of their perils to tender the bond within 3. moneths or whether the overseers ought to make the first act and to tender the bond and the penalty for them to seal and Towse Serjeant argued that Anne and Griffith her husband ought to tender the bond at their peril for he said that the condition did precede the estate and therefore if they will have the benefit of the devise then he ought to tender the obligation and vouched Corbets case and 18. Eliz. the devise of land upon condition to pay money he ought to pay that at his perill Attoe Serjeant contrary and yet he agreed that if the condition was to precede the estate then the law was as Towse had said but here he said the estate precedes the condition for all the profits are devised to Griffith and to Anne his wife during the minority of the Plantiff by which it is apparent the estate is presently in the devisees and by consequence the estate precedes the condition and then the sole doubt will be whether Griffith and Anne his wife ought to procure the overseers to make the obligation and to limit the condition or whether the overseers ought to make this first they being the parties instrusted by the Will
doth not lye for for it is not averred that there was any fellony committed also Iustice Hutton held that in this case the declaration is not good because it is not expresly alleadged with an eo quod that the Plantiff stole the Vetches but only an indictment preferred containing such a matter and Iustice Winch said that the framing of an indictment in a Court of record is not any cause of an action for it is a proceeding in an ordinary Course of justice and for that reason ought not to be punished by an action upon the case for that will deterre and scare men from the just prosecutions in the ordinary way of justice Hobert chief Iustice was of a contrary opinion and yet he said that it is true that the ordinary Course of justice ought not by any means to be hopped or hindred and as that may not be obstructed so neither may the good name of a man in any thing which concerns his life be taken away and impeached without good cause for Courts of justice were not erected to be stages to take away the good name or fame of any man and therefore by the common law if two do maliciously conspire to judict a man without cause though the indictment it self be good and legally drawn yet a writ of conspiracy lies against those which caused this indictment to be preferred and it is as great a slander to preferre a Bill of indictment to the grand jury and to give this in evidence to them as it is to declare that in an ale house and as to the declaration he held that to be good without any averment of an indictment indeed and the indictment in writing and the preferring that to the grand jury containes the scandal and I am of opinion that an action upon the case lyes well see more after Easter 20. Jac. C. P. Hill against Waldron Easter 20. Jac. C. P. HIll against Waldron in an action of debt upon an obligation the condition was that I. S. shall levy a fine to the obligee before such a day of such land the Defendant pleaded that the obligee had not sued forth any writ of covenant the replication was that before the obligation made I. S. had made of feofment in fee of the same land to I. S. and that the feoffee continued in possession at the time of the making of the obligation and upon this the Defendant demurred and in this case two points were moved first when I am obliged that I. S. who is a stranger shall levy a fine to the obligee whether in this case the obligee is bound to sue a writ of covenant and it was argued by Serjeant Harvy that not yet he agreed that if the condition was that the obligor shall levy a fine to the obligee in this case the obligee ought to do the first act viz. to sue a writ of covenant as Palmers case Cooke 5. but otherwise when the fine is levied by a third person for there the obligor had took all upon him 4. H. 7. 15. E. 4. if I am bound to marry the daughter of I. S. and she will not marry me yet I have forfited my obligation and so here he ought to leavy a fine at his perill and at his own costs or at the costs of the obligor But admitting that the obligee ought to sue a writ of covenant because it appears by the replication that before the obligation made I. S. had made a feofment over and that the feoffee did continue possession at the time when the fine was to be leavied and therefore the obligee needs not to sue forth any writ of covenant because he who is to leavy the fine had disabled himself to perform that and he urged Sir Anthony Maines case where Cooke 5. the party needs not to tender a Surrender because that he who had the reversion had granted that over before the Surrender was to be made Serjeant Hendon to the contrary for he argued that the obligation is not forfeit except the obligee sue a writ of covenant and there is no difference between this case and when the obligor himself was to leavy a fine for the obligor had not undertaken for the whole fine but only that I. S. shall acknowledge a fine and if the obligor shall be compelled at his perill to sue a writ of covenant then you will construe the condition to extend to an unlawfull act for it shall be maintenance in him to sue forth a writ of covenant he vouched a case P. 4 Iac. Rot. 1548. Burnell against Bowle the condition of the obligation was that I. S. shall acknowledge a judgement in this Court to I. D. and in debt upon this obligation the Defendant pleaded that the Plantiff had not sued forth any orginall writ and it was holden a good plea and for the second point he held that the obligee ought to sue this writ of Covenant though that I. S. had dismissed himself of the land for the words are general that I. S. shall leavy a fine and this he ought to do though no estate pass by the fine for a fine upon release shall be a good performance of the Condition but otherwise if it had been to make a feofment in fee for a man cannot make a feofment except he be seised of the land at the time as 31. E. 3. debt 164. a man was obliged to present the obligee to such a Church and the obligee took a wife by which he had disabled himself to be a person yet the obligor ought to present him for otherwise he shall forfeit his obligation and so in this case Hobert and Hutton as to the first point held the barre to be good and that the obligee ought to sue forth the writ of Covenant for Hobert said he ought to do that for it is no reason to compel the obligor who is a stranger to the estate which passeth by the fine to sue a writ of Covenant and for that reason if I am bound to compel you to come upon such land to take a feofment I am not bound that the other make a livery of seisin but if the case was that I was obliged to you that I. S. shall leavy a fine to I. N. in such case the fine ought to be leavied at my peril though that I. N. will not sue a writ of Covenant Hutton according but Winch doubted of the case and as to the second point Hutton and Hobert agreed that the obligee as this case is needs not to sue a writ of Covenant because that I. S. had made a feofment of the land before and so had disabled himself at the time of the obligation for now it is impossible to leavy a good fine for if he should enter into the land and put out the feoffee this were not good within the condition and Hutton said it ought to be agreed that if I. S. had made a feofment after the time of the making
seisin of the homage and therefore perchance it will be hard to finde my antient president they adjourned and at another day Hutton and Winch being only present judgement was given for the avowant against Whitgift and Hutton said that he had spoke with the other Iustices and they agreed Vpon a motion made by Towse the case was this a man made a lease for one year and so from year to year during the Will of the lessor and lessee rendring rent and the lessee died and the rent was behinde and by Winch being only present if the rent is behinde in the time of the lessee and he dies an action of debt is maintainable against his Executor in the detinâ—t only and so I conceive if that was behinde after his death he may have an action in the debt and the detinet or in the detinet only to which Brownlow agreed Secondly Winch said that when a man made a lease for a year and so from year to year at the pleasure of the parties that this is a lease for 3. years and not for two Thirdly he doubted if the lessee hold over his term so that he is tenant at sufferance what remedy the lessor had for his rent Vpon the reading of a record the case was that a Scire facias issued against the land Tenant to have execution of a judgement given against Ferdinando Earl of Darby in the 15. Eliz. and the Defendant pleaded that a long time before the said Ferdinando any thing had in the land one Edward Earl of Darby was seised of the land and being so seised 3. Mar. infeoffed I. S. to the use of the Lord Strange and his wife in tail the remainder over to the said Ferdinando and made the said Ferdinando heire to the estate taâ—le and pretended that by this meanes the land should not be liable to this judgement because it was intailed to Ferdinando and of such estate he died seised the Plantiff traversed the feofment made by Edw. Earl of Darby and the jury found that the feofment was made by Edward Earl of Darby to the same persons as the Defendant had pleaded but this was to the use of the feoffor for life the remainder over to the Lord Strange and his wife the remainder as before and whether this shall be intended the same Feofment which the Defendant had pleaded was the question because the estate for life was omitted and upon the special verdict that was the question and Attoe said that if the jury had found this feofment made to other feoffees though the estate had agreed this should be found against the Defendant and Winch Iustice said that there was such estate found as had taken away the execution or extent and the estate for life is not material but it was adjourned till another day A man Covenanted to make such assurance as shall be devised by the counsel of the Plantiff so the same assurance be made within the county of Norff. or the Citty of Norwich and the Plantiff assigned the breach and shewed that in this case his Councel devised that a fine should be leavied of the same land which was not done and it was moved by Serjeant Attoe that in this case the breach was not well laid because he had not shewed where his councel devised that the fine should be leavied In the case of a prohibition in case of a libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for the tithes of Cattles the Plantiff alleadged that those Cattle of which Tithes were demanded are for his Dairy and for the plough and Winch being only present said that the parson shall not have Tithes of such Cattle but if he bred up Cattle to sell it is otherwise secondly the Plantiff in the prohibition alleadged that time beyond memory the parishoners had paid a half peny for the Tithe of a Calf and a penny for a Cow and that upon a day limitted they use to bring this to the Church and to pay this to the Vicar and now the Vicar had libelled in the spiritual Court against them to compel them to bring it home to his house and Winch said that this is no occasion of a prohibition for they agree in the modus but vary in the place of payment and this is not matter of substance and for that reason no prohibition will lie Vpon the reading of a record the case was that the father made a feofment to the use of himself for life the remainder to his son and his wife and to the heires of the body of the son and this was for a joynture for his wife and the father died and the son also died and whether this was a good joynture was the question for all this matter was pleaded in barre of dower brought by the wife and it was ruled to be no good joynture for the feme notwithstanding that the father died in the life of his son and Hutton said if a man made a feofment to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Executors for years the remainder to his wife for a joynture this will be no good joynture within the Statute of joyntures though the feme here had the immediate franktenement In an action of debt against an Administrator who pleads outlawry in the Testator and it was moved that this was no plea for he had taken the Administration upon him Winch a man who is outlawed may not make an executor for if he meet with his goods he shall answer for them to the King and for that reason it seems to be a good plea 3. H. 6. 32. and Brownlow chief Prothonotary said that he could shew a president 27. Eliz. where this is adjudged to be no plea and Iustice Winch said to him shew that president if any such be and upon Tuesday after he shewed that and then Winch agreed Auditor Curle for words AUditor Curle brought an action upon the case and in his declaration he set forth the Statute of 32. H. 8. for the erection of the Court of Wards and that the same Statute appointed the Auditor of the same Court and shewed that the Plantiff was an Auditor of the same Court and that the Defendant such a day and at such a place said of him you have taken money for ingrossing of feodaries innuendo accompts and tunc et ibidem you are a Cozner and live by Cozning and I will prove that to be Coznage and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Finch Serjeant of the King that the Plantiff shall not have judgement upon this verdict for the first words are not actionable for the taking of money for the ingrossing of feodaries are insensible and then the inuendo will not help nor aid that also the words in the second place are not actionable because he had not said that he was a Cozning officer and so he had not expresly applied that to his office and
son and his wife and upon a demurrer the question was whether this Covenant did raise a present use to the Son and to his wife or whether this only rests in Covenant and Harris Serjeant argued that no present use will arise by this Covenant for first all other Covenants in the indenture are in the future for the words are that the lands shall remain and come c. and therefore till the death of the Covenantor the fee simple is in him and no use will arise for it shall be in the election of the Covenantor what estate he will make to his Son for he himself shall interpret his intent and the difference in our books is when the words are in the present tense and when in the future and for this he cited 22. H. 7. by Iustice Rede if a man Covenant that land shall discend remain or revert he said this did not give any present interest because the wors are in the future and it is in the election of the Covenantor how and in what manner the land shall pass and there he put the case that if I give my horse or my Cow to I. S. there the Donee had election to take at his pleasure the one or the other because the words are in the present tense but if the words are that I will give a horse or a Cow there the Donor had election which he shall have because the words are in the future the Lord Borroughs Covenanted 34. H. 8. Dyer 55. with another in frank marriage with his son that immediately after his death his son shall enjoy the use of his land of inheritance according to the course as then they stood and the question was whether the see simple was presently out of the Covenantor and the opinion was that it was not because it was but a Covenant and did not change the fee simple and so is Dyer 96. Sir Thomas Seymor promised and Covenanted by indenture in consideration that the Covenantee had granted land to him that he would leavy a fine to Wimbish and Pennoy of other lands which fine should be to Sir Thomas Seymor for life the remainder to the Covenantee in taile and no fine was levied and the question was whether any use was raised by this Covenant to the Covenantee and the opinion of the book is that not because it is in the future and he cited the 20. H. 7. 10. the Duke of Buckingham in consideration that the Lord Henry his brother was to marry the Lady Wiltshire he Covenanted with Bray and with others that the Mannors of D. and of S. shall be to the Lady and to her heirs of her body begotten by the said Lord and after the Duke granted to the Lord Henry and his wife for their lives and it was argued whether this second grant is good or no for if it is then the first Covenant will not work to raise an use to the feme and the book left that as a quere and if it be then he argued that in the principal case no present use is raised but that this rests meerly in Covenant and so he prayed judgement for the Plantiff Serjeant Hendon to the contrary for he thought this will raise a present use and that this was the intent of the parties that this should raise a present use for the intent was to advance them first during their lives with the rent and after the death of the Covenantor and his wife with the land it self and therefore of necessity this will raise a present use for a bare action of Covenant may not be any advancement at all and the rather here because they who take benefit of this are strangers to the Covenant and not Preston himself for as it appears by 3. H. 7. a stranger shall not take benefit by a Covenant and therefore he said the intentions of the parties was to raise an use for otherwise there shall be no advancement at all And further the words in the indenture are Covenant and grant and if no use is raised then this word grant is idle and every word shall be so expounded that they may take effect and the word Covenant is insufficient of it self to pass an estate in land or to have any estate in signification other then to a meer Covenant and to be obligatory as is put Co. 2. Cromwels case Tirrels case there vouched a lease for years provided and it is Covenanâ—ed and agreed there the Covenant is a condition and also a Covenant and 8. Ass 1. 12. it is agreed that if I Covenant that an other shall have my land for 7. years this a good lease of the land it self and it was adjudged here Tr. 2. Jac. Rot. 1696. accordingly and in our case this word Covenant and grant is also sufficient to raise an use and to give an interest in the land it self and yet he agreed that if there was an other act to be made by the Covenantor or the Covenantee that then no use will arise but it shall rest only in Covenant Dyer 162. there are Covenants between the Lady Vere and Sir Anthony Wingfield her son that the said Lady would convey to her son by a recovery and that after 6. moneths the said Sir Anthony shall make an estate to his Mother for life and there it is doubted whether the use is changed within the 6. moneths and it was holden that it was not Mich. 20. Jac. C.P. for then it is impossible that the Covenants should be performed and in that case it is in the power of the Covenantor to make an act that the Covenants shall not be performed and therefore Covenants will not raise an use but in our case no act of the Covenantor may hinder that this use shall arise and therefore good and for that the difference is Dyer 296. which is entered 11. Eliz. the Roll of which I have seen the father upon the marriage of his son promised to the friends of his wife that after his death his son shall have his land to him and his heirs and the book is ruled that this did not change the use and the reason was this Covenant was by words and not in writing but it was not doubted if this Covenant had been by writing but that the Covenant will raise an use which is all one with our case and so was Callard and Callards case 37. Eliz. stand forth Eustace reserving to my wife and my self I give to thee and thy heires and there it was doubted whether any use will arise to the son and ruled that not because this was by words only but it was also agreed that if these words had been by writing they had been sufficient to raise an use to the son and he cited Dyer 232. before the Statute of the 27. H. 8. A Covenanted and agreed with B. that upon the marriage of his son with the daughter of the other that he would retain his land for life and that
that all such recoveryes shall be void and shall be taken for fained recoveries and this may not be imagined a fained recovery where he in remainder in tail is vouched by him who is Tenant for life Jennings case Coo. 10. and such recovery as is there resolved is out of the Statute of the 14. Eliz. and is good by the Common Law and so in our case but admitting this to be within the Statute of the 11. of H. 7. yet the proviso of the same Statute had made that good for there is an express proviso that a recovery with the assent of the heir inheritable if this appear upon Record this shall not be within the Statute and in our case this is with the assent of the heir inheritable and also this appears to be of record and so the recovery is out of the danger of the Statute of the 11. H. 7. See Doctor and Student a book which was written but a litle time after the making of this Statute and Dyer 89. Vernons case and he said that the intent of the same Statute and of the proviso of the same Statute was to have issues and heirs and not termors who had only a future interest to falsifie recoveries and so he concluded that the recovery is out of the same Statute and that the proviso of the same Statute had made that good by the assent of the heir but admitting this should be against him that this recovery shall be within the Statute yet the lessee in our case shall not falsifie nor take advantage of the forfeiture by force of the same Statute but it hath been objected by Harvy that the wife in this case had only an estate for life or Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct and he answered that the resolution in Beamounts case Coo. 119. is contrary for it is there expresly agreed that she was Tenant in tail after the fine leavied by the issue and so was it also resolved in Pophams case 9. Eliz. but there it was doubted whether she was Tenant in tail within the 32. H. 8. who might make a lease but all agreed that she was Tenant in tail who may suffer a recovery and binde the remainder and then when the feme suffers such a recovery as in our case that recovery shall take away a term for years which was made by the issue in tail Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. in the life of his mother notwithstanding she was a joynteress within the 11. H. 7. also he said that this lease for years being made by Henry Mark-Williams the son who was heir to the estate in tail and also to the reversion in fee being made by deed indented rendring rent this shall be a lease which issued out of the estate in fee simple and not out of the estate tail and this shall be out of the estate tail by estoppel being by deed indented for an estate shall not enure partly by way of interest and this lease to begin after the death of the feme he may not take advantage of the forfeiture for though the words of the Statute are that all such recoveries shall be void yet this shall not be void without entry and he who will have benefit by this ought to be mabled to enter presently so soon as the recovery is suffered for as there ought to be a person in esse who shall take benefit of the same Statute as appears by Coo. 3. Lincoln Colledge case so there ought to be a present estate in esse at the time of the recovery for the words of the Statute are to whom the interest shall appertain but in our case the interest doth not appertain to the lessee who had only a future term and therefore he shall not take the benefit by any forfeiture within the Statute of 11. H. 7. and the rather in our case because there is a rent reserved also all this matter is found by special verdict what estate the son haâ— when he made the lease by indenture Dyer 244. Coo. 155. and Bredons case in Treports case lessee for life and he in reversion by indenture let for years this is no estoppel and it shall be said to be the lease of one and the confirmation of the other and here the lease shall be said to issue out of the reversion in fee and not out of the estate tail and he vouched a case adjudged 10. Jac. when Flemming was chief Iustice of the Kings Bench between Errington and Errington and the case was that a man conveyed land to the use of himself and his wife in tail the remainder to his right heirs and had issue a son and a daughter and he died and the son let for years to begin after the death of his Mother and he died without issue and the daughter leavied a fine and the wife who was Tenant in tail died and the question was whether this lease for years issued out of the estate tail by way of estoppel for then the Conusee shall not avoid this but it was adjudged this lease was drawn out of the reversion in fee and the Conusee of the daughter shall avoid that which is all one with our case but admit that this lease is good by estoppel out of the estate taile yet he shall not take benefit of the forfeiture within 11. H. 7. and this differs from Sir George Browns case for there the Conuser entered by vertue of a remainder and not by the estate tail which passed to him by estoppel and upon that he concluded that if this is an estate meerly by estoppel he shall not have benefit by that Pope and Reynolds before NOw the case between Pope and Reynolds which see before was moved again by Ashley for the Plantiff in the prohibition and the case was that he was owner of a Park and the Park had been time beyond memory replenished with deer till the 10th of Eliz. at which time that was disparked and that the owners had used before the disparking to pay a Buck in Summer and a Doe in winter in full satisfaction of all Tithes due to the Vicar and the Parson had libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes in kinde and also traversed the prescription and it was found for the Plantiff in the prohibition and it had been moved in arrest of judgement that notwithstanding this prescription is found for the Plantiff yet he shall not have judgement for two causes First because gross Tithes belong to the Parson and not to the Vicar for the Vicaridge is derived out of the Parsonage to this he answered that for the most part every Vicaridge is derived out of the Parsonage but it is a meer non sequitur that this doth for the Vicarage and the Parsonage may have several patrons Fitzh 45. also a Vicarage may be time beyond memory as in our case 40. E. 3. 2. 7. and Fitz. juris utrum a Vicar may have a juris utrum and
the lessee of the Mannor or to the Bishop was the question and it was argued by Serjeant Hendon that this appertaines to the Plantiff and not to Wood and as to that the single point is a Bishop is seised of a Mannor in the right of his Bishoprick and lets parcel of that for life whether the reversion of this parcel be alwayes parcel of the Mannor notwithstanding this lease and he argued that it was not and yet he agreed that if another let as aforesaid the reversion continues alwayes parcel of a thing in possession and that in the case of the King himself as appears by Dyer 230. if the King lets parcel of a Mannor for life the reversion of this parcel passeth to the King for the reversion had all times continuance in the same capacity and no alteration is made of this by force of the lease but where the lease for life is a discontinuance there he gaines a new reversion and this shall not be parcel of the Mannor and for that if a man is seised of a Mannor in the right of his wife and he lets parcel for life this is a discontinuance and he had gained the reversion in his own right and for that reason the reversion may not be parcel of the Mannor as appears by 18. Assises and also he held if Tenant in taile lets parcel of a Mannor for life that were the reversion of this parcel is not parcel of the Mannor for the cause aforesaid and so in our case when the Bishop granted parcel which is not grantable by the Statute now he had discontinued the reversion and had gained a new fee simple which may not be parcel of the Mannor so long as this new fee simple had a continuance and this was his first reason And secondly he argued from the intent of the parties because the intent was that the lease to Wood shall be good and if the reversion of the 20. acres pass to Wood this will make all the lease void for no rent may be reserved out of the reversion but out of the land it self 3. Assise Placito ultimo a Bishop let land and a hundred rendring rent the rent issues out of the land and not out of the hundred and so here it issues out of the land and not out of the reversion which made the lease all void and so he concluded the first point that the reversion of the 20. acres did not pass to Wood the lessee of the Mannors Secondly when the Bishop lets 20. acres of ground rendring rent and this is not confirmed by the Dean and Chapter as it ought and after he lets the Mannor and the successor accepts the rent of the Mannor this acceptance shall not make the lease of the 20. acres to be good admitting that the reversion do pass and when the Bishop had made a lease for 3. lives he may not contract for the reversion and when a lease is meerly void in the creation there no acceptance afterwards may make that good but admitting this to be against him yet the lessee shall not have the Herriot for they are not appendant to the reversion but due only by way of Covenant and the words are yielding c. and this being a Collateral thing it shall not go with the reversion and the Herriot here may not be had without it be delivered by the lessee for life Secondly it is paid only in the name of a Herriot and this is not Herriot service Thirdly it is to be paid upon the death of a stranger and not upon the death of the lessee and all this proves this Herriot to be collateral and he cited Rawlins case a lease for years paying for a fine 20. l. this is a summe in gross and shall not pass with the reversion and so he prayed judgement for the Plantiff Attoe contrary and yet he agreed the case of the husband and wife and of the Tenant in tail for here the lessor gaines a new fee simple but in our case when the Bishop lets for life this is not any wrong for the successor may enter and he shall have this lease not in his natural capacity but alwayes in his politique capacity and for that there is an apparent difference between the cases and for that reason he held that the reversion was parcel of the Mannor and so passed to the lessee and as to that which had been said that the intent of the parties was only that the Mannor in possession and not the parcel in reversion should pass to the lessee for that is most beneficial to the lessor to this he answered that by express words this is granted and no construction shall be made contrary to the very express words of the grant and here though the Defendant had not any title at all to the Herriot yet the Plantiff shall not have a trover and conversion for this because that he himself had not right to this and for that reason judgement shall be given for the Defendant and he also argued that the lease of the reversion is not meerly void but voidable and then the acceptance extends to this see 37. H. 6. the lease of a Priâ—r 2. E. 6. Bâ— Abbots case Vpon which authorities he said cleerly by the Common Law this lease of the reversion is not meerly void but voidable and for that the confirmation of the Dean and Chapter after the Statute of the first of Eliz. had not altered that and for that a lease after the Statute shall not be meerly void and see Lincolns Colledge case Coo. 3. and in our case there is a possibility that the lessee of the Mannor may survive the cestui que vies of the 20. acres and that possibility is sufficient to make this good out of the reversion for then the lessor may distrain for his rent but where no possibility of a distress is there no rent may be reserved as in Iewels case the lease was void for there was no possibility that the lessor shall ever distrain but in our case the lease for years is good for the lessor is not without his remedy for he may have an action of debt upon this reservation 1. H. 4. 2. there a measnalty in gross was let rendring rent and good for by possibility the Tenant may die without heires and yet this is a remote possibility 12. E. 3. execution 112. a reversion granted by fine in tail rendring rent is good and Coo. 5. Elmers case that a reversion being let for life rendring rent is a good reservation at the Common Law and he held without question that where a Bishop is seised of a Mannor which consists part of freeholders and part of Copiholders that a lease of the Mannor rendring rent is good and in our case the reservation of the rent is intire and shall bind the successor and as to that which had been said that the Herriot is Collateral and shall not go with the reversion to this he
that then his two sons shall pay them and if it happen that either of them die before his debts and legacies paid or before either of them do enter into his part that thou the other shall have all the land in fee and after the devisor died and in the life of the mother the eldest son released to the youngest all his right title Claim and demand to the land which was devised to him by his father and after the wife died and two points came in question in this case First whether this limitation is good Secondly whether the release is good and it was argued by Richardson Serjeant that this limitation of the Statute by way of devisee is good and he vouched Dyer 330. Clarks case and 4. Eliz. Goldley and Buckleys case a man devised to his son and his heirs provided that if his personal estate did not suffice to pay his debts and legacies that then his lands shall be to another and he vouched Brown and Pells case which was adjudged in Banco Regis the case was that a man had two sons William the eldest and Thomas the youngest and he devised his lands to Thomas his son and his heirs provided that if Thomas died without issue living that then William shall have the land and it was resolved that this was good to William by way of executory devise and in that case doubt was moved whether if Thomas suffer a recovery whether this shall take away the estate of William and it was holden by all the Court except Doderidg that it shall not but all agreed that this devise upon the future contingency is good and so he concluded that if the youngest son die in the life of the Mother and before the legacies are paid the land shall remain to the Plantiff according to the intent of the devisor but the other doubt is when the Plantiff did release all his right and claim to the other whether this release will extinguish this future possibility and he held that it will not and he said that he had seen the case of Lampet Coo. 10. and there the release of a possibility is penned as in our case and if any word discharge this possibility it is this word right but if the resolution of that book had not been against him he would have argued that this right was not sufficient to extinguish this future possibility but that there ought to be a more apt and proper word but he said he would not argue against books but he said that which he would insist upon was the distinguishing of possibilities for there are two manner of possibilities the one is Common and ordinary the other is more remote and forreigne And first there is a possibility which is Common and necessary and this depends upon an ordinary casualty as a lease for life the remainder to the right heirs of I. S. for it is apparant that the right heirs of I. S. may take by this and such a possibility may be released and a possibility which is remote and forreigne is as if a lease be made for life the remainder to another during the life of the lessee for life or a lease for life the remainder to the Corporation of B. those remainders are void but yet by possibility they may be good for in the first case the Tenant for life may enter into religion and in the latter case the King may make Corporations and yet because such possibilities are not usual the remainders are void see Coo. 2. Chamleys case where such a remote possibility may not be released if a man give land to one which is married and to another woman which is married and to the heirs of their two bodies ingendred this is a good estate tail for there is a common possibility that they may intermarry but if the gift be to a man and to two women who are married and to the heirs of their bodies ingendred they shall not have an estate tail executed for it is a remote and forreigne possibility and an imbrodery of estates which the law will not allow nor respect see the Rector of Chedingtons case that such a possibility as in our case may not be released for first here the mother ought to be dead before the Plantiff shall have land Secondly legacies ought to be paid Thirdly Thomas ought to be dead and till all these possibilities hap the Plantiff shall have nothing in the land and for that it is a remote possibility which is not gone by the release for as it is said when a possibility shall be gone by a release there ought to be a good foundation upon which the release may operate secondly the possibility which is released ought to be necessary and Common but in our case it is not necessary that the son shall enjoy it in the life of his mother and also the mother may in a short time pay the legacies and then neither of the sons shall have the land by which circumstances it is apparant that this is not a Common or an ordinary possibility but is a remote and forraigne expectancy which shall not be gone by this release and this differs from Lampets case for there was a possibility of a Chattel which as it may easily be created so it may easily be destroyed but in our case it is a franktenement which as that requires a greater ceremony in the creation and for that it will require a greater matter to destroy and to extinguish that and it is said in Woods case cited in Shelleys case Coo. 1. that if a man covenant with A. that if I. S. infeoffed him of the Mannor of D. that then he will stand seised to the use of him and his heirs of the Mannor of B. and the Covenantee died and the said I. S. infeoffed the Covenantor in such case the heir shall be inward and yet it is only a possibility which descends which possibility of an use may not be discharged or released and yet in that case there was a possibility which is more Common and ordinary then in our case for there was a possibility that I. S. should make the feofment and so say a good foundation upon which the release may operate and he put the case that I. shall let for so many years as I. S. shall name if I. S. name it is good and yet he held if I. S. release before the nomination that this release is meerly void because he had only a possibility and as to Digs case Coo. 1. there a power of Revocation may be released and good reason for the Covenantor who released had the bird in his own hand and for that it was no remote possibility but there it is said that if the power be limited to an estranger there the stranger may not release and he also agreed Albanies case for there the power to release was upon the death of a man only but in our case it is upon death and other
he was seised in fee and that he had power to alien that and this was to encourage the Purchasers and for the form he needs not aver that this was in the hands of Anne Parker for he had confessed that in the bar that he came lawfully to that and besides the Covenant is broken though he never was seised and so I conceive that the Plantiff shall have judgement Winch to the same intent it is true if it had been all but one Covenant then if it had been no question this had not been broken but I think they are several Covenants like to the case of Sir Robert Napper lately adjudged also the first two Covenants are in the affirmative and the other in the Negative and for that they ought to be answered with several pleas and these kinde of assurances are the Common assurances and therefore they ought to be interpreted favourably for the Purchasers and Iohn was not deceived in these Covenants for they brought down upon the deed an estate in fee and it is also agreed if the word Covenant and grant had been divers times added to the several clauses then they had been several Covenants and now it is all one word and made those to be several Covenants and words of relation never will controul that which is certainly put down before and so he concluded in this case the Plantiff shall have judgement to recover Hobert chief Iustice to the contrary every deed ought to be construed according to the intention of the parties and the intents ought to be adjudged of the several parts of the deed as a general issue out of the evidence and intent ought to be picked out of every part and not out of one Word only and here Peter joyned with his father to strengthen the assurance and Iohn had not only his own estate but the estate of Proud and it is plain he never meant to intangle himself with other Conveyances then those which he and Proud had made and I hold this to be no independent Covenant and it is all bound with one clause S. for any Act or Acts made by them c. and it is confessed if these words had been placed in the forefront that then they should relate to all and it is as clear as if they were and the first reson is that the intent appears only to undertake for himself because he should but have part of the land and for that he was to warrant his evidence and to that end he was to deliver to him his title at large in the said indenture and here he had made the Plantiff privie to every several conveyance of that to inform the Purchaser of it and will you also intangle him with a covenant you might have taken notice of his title and it appears to be the very intents of the parties that you should take notice of the title and inform your selves concerning the same Secondly this is a sentence which may be taken both wayes and I say it is agreed that if it had begun with these words notwithstanding any Act or Acts c. that then it shall be all construed by this and I never saw any difference I grant they are several Covenants in point of fact but not in point of obligation for there are not several words of binding nay I say if he had released this last he had released all but it hath been said that one is in the negative and the other is in the affirmative but I do not value that and it hath been said that this is the Common assurance of the Realm and if other construction shall be made then no man shall be sure of his own we had given him leave to say that no reversion nor remainder is in the King by any Act by him made and the King may not have any reversion and he seised in fee also this clause standing indifferent whether this shall be referred to all or not and then the question is how the Court will adjudge of that for my part I take it that this may stand with the intent of all the parties of the deed but take that as you take it that this destroyes all for if he is absolutely seised in fee what matter is where the reversion is and yet if the reversion was in the Crown and not by his Act you confess that may not charge him which is expresly against the first Covenant if this be distinct by it self but take that indifferently and all the parties will stand together Nappers case hath no affinity with this for questionless there were several Covenants for in that indenture it did not appear what estate Sir Thomas Eearsfield had and for that reason nothing might be collected out of that but he had a present estate but in our case all is contained in the bodie of the indenture and Nokes case is a strong case and stronger then the case at the bar is for thereupon construction of all the parties of the deeds the special warrantie controuls the general warranty and the reason is no man will take an express special warranty when the intent is that he shall have a general warranty there was a case lately ajudged between the Earl of Clanrickard and his wife against the Countess of Leicester where the Lady pleaded that she was Tenant in Dower where in veritie she had the revesion in fee expectant upon a Term for life and they conveyed all the estate the Lady had in Dower and then they covenanted that they would convey all their estate to the Lord of Leicester and his heirs during the life of his wife and then Covenanted that they would convey all their estate to the Earl of Leicester and his heirs for ever in the aforesaid land and it was resolved that though such Covenant will raise an use to the partie who ought to have that and so the reversion will pass if there had been no more words now it was but during the life of the Lady for that third part for the Covenant was but to strengthen an estate and not to convey it and so he concluded that the Plantiff should be hard and after it was said by the Court that this case was not of weight to be brought into the Exchequer Chamber and therefore the Court advised that the parties would agree quere for the residue in the Exchequer Chamber concerning that Entred Hill 18. Jac the case of Comendams Richard Woodley against the Bishop of Exeter and Mannering RIchard Woodley brought a quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exeter and Mannering who was Parson of the said Church and he declared that Arthur Basset was seised of an acre of land to which the said Advowson was appendant in his demeasne as of fee and that he the 13. Octobris 13. Eliz. granted the next advowson to one William Manwood who was then incumbent in the said Church who by his will 20. November made one Harcourt his executor
years notwithstanding his advancement and he resigned during the 3. years and issue there taken upon the resignation and this case proves all the partes of our case first that the King may dispence and that by his dispensation he is compleat person to resign and if he do resigne during the years the King shall not have the prerogative to present again for that was satisfied with the dispensation and also when the King came to his prerogative by subjects means he ought to take that as it falls for otherwise he loses that quite vide Bastervils case Coo. 7. and another reason is if it be not satisfied then the King shall have another which is mischievous and this being a new case such president is not to have more favour then the necessitie of the Law will require and so my opinion is that it is all one as if it had for life and there is a good case 9. Ed. 3. 20. where the King had 2. presentments vide the case but it was upon another reason but the case of 21. H. 7. 8. Frowike where the grantee of the next avoydance had judgement to recover and the incumbent resigned so that it is the second presentment yet the Plantiff shall have the effect of his judgement and he had a writ to the Bishop quere the application for I did not well heare that but in our case if the prerogative of the King was not satisfied yet it ought to appear that when he presented Gee he had no title but that was an usurpation and if the King was not satisfied then the Plantiff shall not have judgement for then Gee was an usurper and upon that declaration the Plantiff shall be barred but now for the last point admit that the King was satisfied of his prerogative by his presentation of Gee whether the Plantiff had lost his course I think he had in the first place the words of the devise are the first the next avoydance which shall hap after the death of Athur Basset now it hath been objected that the King had the first by his prerogative and therefore he shall have the second I think in this case Brook presentation 52. is a strong case where a presentation was granted to one and after to another when the first is void and ruled that the second grantee shall not have the second and so Dyer 35. it ought to be taken according to the words for otherwise he shall not have any for modus et Conventio uniunt Legem and the case of quare Impedit 152. proves something to this purpose for a man had 4. advowsons and granted the next which should hap of them to I. S. and he died and the heir assigned the wife for her Dower one Mannor to which the advowson was appendant which first became void and ruled that the Grantee shall not have that against the feme and then it was moved by Thorpe that he shall have the second but Shard said certainly never which proves that if the turn of the Grantee was taken from him by the indowment of the feme he had lost that for ever the like case is the 15. H. 7. 7. 14. H. 7. 22. moved by Mordant that the Grantee of the third shall have the fourth when the wife is indowed of the third which case is brought to prove a case which without question is not law and that is that the King being Gardian of the Grantee of the next avoydance and he grant that in this case the heir shall have that at his full age which without question is now law for by the same reason his course may be the 20. but there are two rules from this which seem to cross this opinion one rule is that the words of the grantor shall be taken most strong against himself and the other that the Grantor shall not be received to avoid his own grant as it is said in Davenports case Coo. 8. but yet these rules are to be intended where the words are compleat for as the case is the 13. Ed. 3. Grant 65. that where the husband and his wife are joynt Tenants for life and he in reversion grant the lands only which the husband held in this case nothing passeth for the reversion was expectant upon a lease which the husband and wife held nay I will cite one case where a man by his own Act shall avoid his own grant in a quare Impedit Elmes against Taylor where a man was seised of the Mannor to which the advowson was appendant and he granted the third next avoydance and after against his own grant he usurped and it was adjudged that by this usurpation he had gained the advowson to be appendant to his Mannor again and that the Grantee had lost his course and so the case in Dyer 283. where the Church was void and the patron granted the next avoidance tunc vacant to another and this pro hac unica vice tantum and there resolved that the grant was not good and that it should not extend to another and so in our case it shall not extend to a second another reason is if the King had a prerogative he is bound and every derivative estate under him for he shall not be in better case then the grantee for he was bound by the law of the land and for that it is equitie and it is Iustice that the estate of the grantee should be bound and so in this case like to the case in Plowden 207. and Dyer 231. where by Act of Parliament the possessions of an Abbot were bound now if afterwards the Abbot made a lease for years or granted the next avoydance and then after they came to the King he shall avoid the grant for the interest of the Grantor was bound by Act of Parliament and see the case of the universitie of Oxford Coo. 10. where a man before he was a recusant convict he granted the next avoydance and after he became a recusant convict and then the Church became void now the grantee shall not present for his interest was bound by Act of Parliament and so he must take it and here it behoves him to take that as it is bound with the prerogative of the King and so upon all the matter he hath lost his title and he concluded that the Plantiff shall be barred The argument of Justice Winch. WInch Iustice of the same opinion but because his argument was much to the purpose of that with Hutton and the Lord Hobert therefore I will not Report that verbatim and Winch said I will speak to the last point which was moved by my brother Hutton and I hold that where he had the first granted to him now he shall have none at all for it is punctually expressed that he shall have the first and that shall not extend to the next which may be granted but I grant if two coparceners had an advowson and the eldest presented and
of 3. acres and he accepts a rent of two of them which render of them all this is void for one acre and lastly by a feofment of land by warranty a rent is discharged 21. H. 7. and here I conceive that the replication to the bar of the avowrie is not good for his plea is that the rent in this case is not comprised and that is a point in law whether it is comprised or no for if we do take issue upon that we shall draw the trial here from the Court to the jury in the Countie which is not good and so upon all the matter I pray judgement for the Plantiff in the replication The argument of Davenport Serjeant DAvenport Serjeant to the contrary and he said the case is as hath been recited and the question is whether the rent so granted in tail is by this agreement of the parties and by the fine of the land whether it hath extinguished the rent and I hold this conveyance which only passeth the rent by implication is no bar to the issue in tail within the Statute of fines for where it is said that a fine was levied of the rent by the name of the land and made no mention of the rent this will not carry the rent and yet I agree this fine to be a feofment upon record and to be a bar against the parties who levied that but not against the issue if this had been before the Statute of fines it is no question this had been no bar against the issue for it is the express book 13. Ed. 3. avowrie 12. and 26. H. 7. 4. Tenant in tail of a rent made a feofment in fee of the rent with warrantie and there it is said that the warrantie did not extend to issue quoad the rent but now our case is upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. which saith that a fine shall be a bar of my lands Tenements and hereditaments any way intailed but yet I conceive that this requires that the fine be levied expresly of that and not by way of conveyance and so the case of Smith and Stapleton by Thornton who said that this was granted to him to be law which must needs be meant it was granted by the Court or by the Councel of the other side and the reason of that is because it ought to be levied of that expresly and there it is said if Tenant intail of an advowson do levie a fine of the nomination that shall not bar the issue and yet in effect that is the advowson and because it is not levied of that expresly it is not good and then for the precedent agreement that is indeed that the fine shall be for the extinguishment of the rent and what then will that prove that the fine was levied of the rent and here the writ of Covenant was not brought of the rent and yet I agree that agreements which do lead uses of fines will qualifie them against the very nature of the fine as the case of the Lord Cromwel and Puttenham in Dyer but I do not hold the agreement will extend over the nature of the fine and therefore this being a rent in gross it may pass by the name of land and the averment here is contrary to that which doth appear upon the Record and then not comprised is a good plea but this shall not be tried by the Countrie but by the Record as 12. H. 7. 16. for it is only to inform the Court that the partie had mistaken the Law and shall be tried by the Court and not by a jury in the Countrie as Attoe said and so upon the whole matter of the case I conclude my argument and pray judgement for the Avowant see after Hill 22. Iac. The residue of Michaelmas Term in the two and twentieth year of King James Ralph Holt and Rand against Robert Holt. RAlph Holt and Rand were joyntly and severally bound in an Obligation to Robert Holt and he took out Proces against them by several Praecipes and he had two several judgements and took out two several Executions against them of one Test S. a fieri facias against Rand and a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Holt and the question was whether the writs were well awarded and whether when one is Executed the other is discharged and Serjeant Crew urged 15. H. 7. 15. if after a Capias executed Sir Gilbert Dabenhams case he may not have a scire facias against the same partie and he cited a case to be adjudged in the 13. year of King James between Crawley and one Lidcat where two joynt obligors and the obligee did sue them and had two several judgements against them and he took an elegit against one and a Capias against the other and he who was taken upon the Capias brought his audita querela by which he was discharged of the execution for in so much that he had taken an elegit against one he is concluded to take any Process against the other as well as against him who had the elegit sued against him and so is Cook 1. 31. and yet some books are if the fieri facias is served for part he may have a Capias for the residue and so is the 18. Ed. 4. and â—0 Ed 4. 3. but here the fieri facias was executed for all and for that no Capias ad satisfaciendum shall issue in this case but Waller one of the Prothonotaries câ—â—ed a case in this manner that if a noble man and another be bound in an obligation as before and the obligee had such a judgement as here in this case he may have an elegit against the noble man because that the first Process against him is by summons and distress and he may have a Capias against the other or a fieri facias but Hutton denied this case and said that he shall have the same execution against both for as this ought to be one satisfaction quo ad ec sati factionem so this ought to be one for the manner also and though in this case that the Capias was not well awarded and Harvey Iustice agreed to that Methol against Peck MEthol brought an action upon the case against Peck upon an assumption and he declared that in consideratâ—on that the Plantiff would pay unto one Plaford 52. l. to the use of Peck such a day c. Peck promised to redeliver his bond in which he was bound in the said summe when he should be requâ—sted to that and he said that he paid the 52. l. to the use of Peck and that the said Defendant had not delivered the said obligation licet saepius postea requisitus fuisset and upon the issue of non assumpsit it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement because he had not shewed the day and the place of the request but the Court c. Hobert Hutton and Harvey were of opinion that judgement
the parties hinders the operation of the law and that law will not provide for him that provides not for himself and the Lady her self was partie to the limiting of the uses and she covenanted that she will be seised by vertue of the fine and under the condition in the indenture and so it is a plain Surrender of her former estate and so I pray judgement for the Plantiff The argument of Serjeant Hendon to the contrary HEndon contrary there are 3. points First whether this be a precedent or a subsequent condition and I conceive it is subsequent and here the indentures being but to declare the uses of the fine and not to create any use ergo it shall be guided by the intents of the parties appearing in them and so is the Earl of Rutlands case Cook 5. and Dyer 357. and Shelleys case and the meaning of the parties was not to raise any use to Robert but only a possibilitie to reduce that by the performance of the condition and first it is here said that the Conusee shall be seised to the uses hereafter expressed and under the conditions and then the use ought to preceed the condition for no man may stand seised under the condition except the condition is subsequent to the use to arise Secondly when is the use to arise to Robert surely when he payes 10. s. and then in the mean time the use is to the Lady and her heirs for tunc had here relation to when as it is said in Boles case Cook 3. and in Grants case cited in Loves case Cook 10. and 17. Ed. 3. 1. all which cases prove that tâ—en had relation to when and before this when he had nothing and this doth appear to be the agreement of the parties and now for the words themselves I take it that they make a subsequent condition and so it is here limited in intention and for that in matter also and it is said in Colthirsts case in Plowden that if the estate doth first pass reducible upon condition then it is subsequent and here it is limited to the Conusee and his heirs if the Conusor do not pay but here it hath been said is inversio verborum and the consequent is placed before the Antecedent and this hath been proved by Logick I never knew cases in law to be expounded by Logical and Grammatical learning but by the intentions of the parties and here I conceive that the estate is vâ—sted in the Conusee by the fine and so the condition is subsequent but admit it is Executory and I say concerning that there are these differences that if the state of the thing granted is executory and that the condition of the thing granted is Executory and the condition is to remain with the estate so long as the estate doth remain the condition is precedent 28. E. 3. 2 4. 3. 1. H. 6. 32. but if the condition be but one time to be executed and that not contained with the estate then it is subsequent 10. Eliz. Dyer Calthorps case but here our estate is executed for it is expresly limited to the Lady Cesar and her heirs which takes away all implied uses so that no implied use shall result in the mean time and so 75. Assises land given to a man and to his heirs if he have heirs of his body now this if is subsequent and so I conceive that it is not a condition simply but a conditional limitation for it appears by Mr. Littleton because it is no otherwise expressed and another reason is because the condition is annexed to the future time ergo that is subsequent and yet I grant there is a difference betwixt such an estate conditional annexed to an interest and where it is is annexed to an authoritie it may be precedent but for an interest it is subsequent as is the case of Bracton lib. 2. fo 3. and now for the second point whether the heir may and ought to perform that and I do conceive that he is and it is not annexed to the person because it is real and doth arise with the land Secondly yet the law doth expect who ought to have performed that but it is the performance it self which the law doth respect 4. E. 3. 2. such condition real which doth arise with the land and in such a case no notice is in that case requisite and the last point is whether the estate for life is gone and I hold that it is saved by the common law of England for the fine only is as the grant of the reversion by the explanation of the indenture and then there is no surrender in the case but when the condition is performed the estate for life doth remain and so was it resolved in Mr. Mansors case and yet I agree that a litle matter will make a surrender and Mr. Ruds case where lessee for years of an advowson was presented by the Patron that was a surrender but the Statute of the 27th of H. the Eighth at the end saved that though it is to her own use for the words of the saving are to every person and their heirs which hereafter shall be seised to any use all such former rights c. possession c. as they might have had to their own use in any lands whereof they be seised to any other use whatsoever and so upon the whole matter I do conceive that judgement ought to be given for the Defendant The residue of the case of Gibson and Ferrers NOw the case of Gibson and Ferrers which see before was argued again by Serjeant Bridgman and he said as before the award is not good for the interest and yet he now agreed that covenants bonds and contracts for usury are good in law but yet it may not be awarded 17. Ed. 4. 5. if a man do submit to Arbitrators they may not award that he and his wife shall levie a fine but if the partie himself do promise that this is good and shall binde the wife to perform that and besides he said that here is an award made only of one side and nothing is allowed to Ferrers and so not good 9. Ed. 4. 29. 29. H. 6. 22. and I pray that the Plantiff may be barred Hendon to the contrary and he argued if an award be good in any part though it be not in that which is assigned for breach yet it is good upon such plea of nullum fecerit arbitrium and the other shews an award and assignes the breach in this case the breach is not traversable for it is of the form and not of the substance of the action but to that the Court did presently answer that the cause of the action is the breach of the award and this he ought to make apparent to the Court for otherwise he shall not have any action and though the breach is not traversable yet it is of the substance of the action for upon such plea pleaded he not only
ought to maintain the award but to shew the breach for it shall be otherwise if it be found against him and then Hendon answered to the other exception that this is not for direct usury but is rather for the damage which he sustained by the forbearance of the money and yet if it were for interest it is good and then as to that which now had been agreed by my brother Bridgman that contracts and obligations for usury are good I say then by the same reason an award for that is good for whatsoever a man may contract for the same thing may be awarded if the contract will bear that and usury is not malum in se but only malum prohibitum and is good by our law and here in this case though the Arbitrator was deceived in the summe yet after the award made it is altogether certain and an implied recompence is sufficient in this case but the Court said that the casting up of the accompts did not make an award for it is not a good Calculation but the ending of the controversies that doth make the award but yet the opinion of the Court in this case was that the award was good for an Arbitrement shall not be taken absolutely upon the bare words and the Court did command the parties to come before them upon the morrow in the Treasury and as it seems this was for mediation to make an agreement for the opinion seemed to be for the Plantiff The case of Hilliard and Sanders argued by the Court. IUstice Harvey this Term did argue the case of Hilliard and Sanders which see before and after a brief recital of the case he said that his opinion was that the avowant shall not have return because that by the fine of the lands the rent is extract and I am induced to be of this opinion by two things the first is the agreement and tâ—e other is the favourable exposition of the Statute of fines to settle repose and quiet and I will first shew the efficacie of fines at the common law 21. Ed. 4. the Pryor of Binghams case it is laid for a ground and rule in law if a thing be contained in a fine either expresly or implicitly this is very good and so is 44. Ed. 3. 22. 37. H. 6. 5. for a fine is no more then an agreement and therefore it is called in latin Concordia and then see if by any words you may pass this rent by the fine and though the word rent is not there yet if it be so infolded in the lands that is good with that it is very good and for that 3. H. 7. 16. 17. 21. H. 7. proves that by a feofment of the land the rent doth pass and wherefore not by fine then and this shall be within the Statute of 4. H. 7. and 32. H. 8. and a case may be out of the Statute of 32. H. 8. and yet be within the Statute of the 4. H. 7. as the 2. Ed. 3. in Dyer though the feme after the death of the husband she may enter upon the discontinues of the husband yet if she do not within 5 years she shall be barred and now you see that the construction of these Statutes was alwayes to settle repose and quietness for if such a construction should be made according to the opinion of Chornton in Smith and Stapletons case then it will be mischievous and for his opinion it was only in the way of arguing and yet I conceive he had the good opinion of the Reporter and without all question it is a case of as hard a construction as that is of Archers case where the heir who nothing had in the land in the life of his father did levie a fine this is a bar for ever and the reason is because it is of a thing which is intailed and he cited a case in Bendloes Reports where a discontinuee was disseised by Tenant in tail who levied a fine and the discontinuee entred and then proclamations passed that in this case the issue was barred truly I do agree the case of 36. H. 8. that that a fine levied of land did not bar him who had title of Common or a way the reason is because there is no privitie but in our case there is a privitie and by Margaret Podgers case a Coppiholder is within this Statute and in our case the rent passeth especially in regard of the agreement as in the Lord Cromwels case and he cited a case primo Jacobi between Gage and Selby in an ejectione firme where Gage was Tenant in tail and he levied a fine to I. S. in fee and after he levied another fine to the use of himself for life the remainder over and his brother brought a writ of error to reverse the first fine and ruled that he may not for the second fine had barred him of any writ of error and so I conclude the fine had extinguished the rent The argument of Justice Hutton to the contrary HUtton contrary the fine had not barred the rent in which I will consider the nature of fines at the Common Law and they were of mightie and great esteem and force as appears by the great solemnitie which is used in them as is prescribed in the Statute of fines 18. Ed. 1. de modo Levandi fines and he agreed that such a fine by Tenant in fee simple will pass that inclusively for by the release of all his right in the land a Signiorie is gone I agree also that a fine is but an agreement but yet it must work according to the nature of the thing as upon a writ of Measne or of right of advowson a fine may be levied and yet it is not levied of the lands but of the advowson or Signiorie and so if the writ of covenant be one thing and the agreement of another thing then it is not good and first I will prove that at the Common law fines have been rejected when the writ of covenant did not contain the thing of which the fine is to be be levied and if at the Common law a fine was levied of rent there ought to be a writ of covenant of that 18. Ed. 2. fines 123. and there the rule is given that it is against reason to hold covenant of that which never was and the rent there never was before but ought to begin then and yet it is clear a man may create a rent by fine but he shall not have a writ of covenant of that when it was not in esse before and because the concord may not varie from that therefore it was not received 38. Ed. 3. 17. Knevet put the rule that a fine may not be of more then is in the writ of covenant and when a fine is properly levied of that it is by way of release Fitz. fine 100. and so I conceive here the rent doth not pass Secondly here no man may plead that any fine is levied of
this rent for this is forced in by the name of land which is absurd and contrary and here is not any fine levied directly of the rent nor any Silver of the King paid for that but only by the judgement of consequence and now for the Statutes of fines whether it is a fine within these Statutes and I hold that it is not and I am of opinion that if the rent had been behinde before all the dayes of proclamation pass and the issue had accepted that he is remitted and the same law is if Tenant in taile of such a rent and he acknowledge such a fine with proclamations and the proclamations pass now if his issue had accepted the rent before the proclamations passed he is remitted and now for the Statute of 32. H. 8. that is not taken by equitie because it is a Statute of explanation which regularly may not be inlarged and so appears in Butler and Bakers case and now for the agreement it self that is not any thing for this is by a contrary name which may not be good like to the case of the Lord Cromwel for there was an agreement to raise a rent by fine but here is an agreement to pass a rent by another name and will any man say that if a man agree to levie a fine of rent by the name of an advowson that this will pass the rent and I think that the case of Thornton is good law and so is also the case which is put after that of the advowson and yet I agree if Tenant in tail do accept a fine with render to another for years that shall bar him because that doth not work a discontinuance but otherwise where it is for life and so in my opinion the rent remains and the avowant shall have judgement The argument of the Lord chief Justice Hobert HObert to the contrary the short question is whether the rent is extinct by the fine of the land and I hold that it is and it is agreed it is a bar against the parties themselves though not against the issue and that being granted I see no second reason wherefore the issue shall not be barred and first I am of opinion that this plea of not comprised it is not good because this fine doth work by way of release but it was said at the bar that things ought to pass litterally in a fine which I denie and also every informalitie of a fine which is cause to reject that is not a cause to frustrate that when that is levied and the words of the Statute are of any lands Tenements or hereditaments any wise intailed and if there be any word in the conveyance which will carry that it is sufficient and it shall be put upon the construction of the law and as to that that the fine shall be according to the writ of covenant but I say if there be no writ of covenant then there is no departure but it was said that the Silver of the King was not paid which I also denie for it was paid inclusively and the words of the Statute are of any thing any wise intailed and Tenant in taile had as great power to pass that by fine as Tenant in fee simple and for the case of Thornton I know he was a learned man but let it suffice that he was so esteemed but for his opinion I do utterly denie that and I do denie the case put by my brother Hutton of the Piscary for I hold if a man had a Piscary in another mans land and levies a fine of that by the name of land this will pass the Piscary clearly and so the same if a man have an office appertaining to land intailed and a fine is levied of that by the name of the land this shall bar the issue and I denie that Statutes of explanation shall alwayes be taken litterally for it is impossible that an Act of Parlâ—ament should provide for every inconvenience which happens and so the case of Godfrey and Wade adjudged that the fine of the youngest son may not bar the eldest and yet within the words the eldest was heir to him but this word heir shall be expounded as his heir and so we use to expound the Statute of 4. H. 7. which is an original Statute and bindes parties and privies and here the eldest brother is not privie for he claimes before him and so I conclude that the rent is gone and judgement was given accordingly Sir Robert Hitcham against Brooks SIr Robert Hitcham Serjeant of the King brought an action upon the case against Brooks and set forth in his declaration that he was one of his Majesties Serjeants at law and that the Defendant spoke these words of him I doubt not but to prove he innuendo Sir Robert Hitcham hath spoken treason and upon not guiltie pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hendon first because it is not a direct affirmation that he spake treason but he doubts not but to prove that like to Penticosts case which was adjudged here where one Baker said of him I will prove that Penticost was perjured and no action will lie because he did not directly affirm that he was perjured Secondly because he had not shewed when he spoke those words and perchance it was in his infancie or lunacie or before the general pardons Thirdly here is not any allegation of any conference had of the King before and the speach of Treason is not Treason but when there is an intent to commit that and words shall be taken in the best sence as the case of Stanhop Cook 4. and so in the case between the Earl of Shrewsbury and Sir Thomas Stanhop one laid to Sir Thomas Stanhop that the Earl is a subject nay said Sir Thomas that is his grief and adjudged those words are not actionable and yet the words might be taken as if he had repined to have a Soveraign but the words were taken in the best sence Finch to the contrary this is more then a bare affirmation for he said he doubted not but to prove that asmuch as if he had said I am sure of that and Mich. 16. Iac. Sidnams case where one said I think in my conscience that if Sir Iohn Sidnam might have his will he would kill the King and all his good subjects and adjudged upon a writ of error brought of that the words are actionable and so in Whorewoods case so sure as you beleeve that God rules the world and that the King rules the Kingdome so sure did Whoorwood steal such goods and adjudged to be actionable and yet perchance the partie to whom he spake did not beleeve either of them and so Woods case 18. Iac. I will call him in question for killing of a man I will pawn my shirt but I will hang him and so here and prayed judgement for the Plantiff Ashley Serjeant contray words which may be taken
if one be named in the venire facias Gregory is returned George there needs not amendment if it be in a Tales otherwise in a principal pannel 66 Action for words he is as arrant a Thief as any is in England the Plantiff needs not aver that there are Thieves in England for the difference is when the words relate to a particular place and when to an intire Realm and so when it is tied to one kinde of fellonie 70 89 Action upon the case where it lieth for a malitious prosecution at the Sessions 73 An action by the Obligee for the Obligor saying he had forged the bond but if he had said to another that he was a forger and had forged false writings no action lies 76 Action upon the case upon a contract in London to Table with the Plantiff at A. in N. and he then and there assumed to pay 4. s. by the week where the action must be brought 78 An action upon a promise against a Parson in consideration that the Plantiff would better his Tithes by Planting hops that he would allow him 40. s. an acre for his charge if that be a good consideration 80 Action upon the case where it lieth against an Attorney for convinous pleading 90 Action by an Attorney for saying he had forged writings and deserved to lose his ears lieth not 90 91 An action against a Sheriff whethâ—r it lies in the Countie where the return of the extent was made or where the land lies 100 Averment against the Sheriffs return where good and where not 100 Amendment where the venire facias habeas Corpus and the pannel agree but the Jury Rolâ— differs 101 Action of the case upon a promise 101 Action for saying the Plantiff stole a ring and had been hanged but for me lieth 102 Action upon a promise where the time and place of the request ought to be expressed 102 103 112 113 Aâ—bitrators amongst other things award interest mony whether good for all or part 114 120 Action by Serjeant Hitcham for saying I doubt not but to prove Sir Robert Hitcham hath spoken Treason 123 124 B A Bail where he is not liable to the judgement until default be in the principal or if the principal die 61 62 C A Commission to 4. or 2. of them and one refuseth the other sit the 4th may be a witness 45 Condition to save harmless he plead in the affirmative he must show how 9 A Coppiholder releaseth to his Companion it is good without admittance 3 A Coppiholder where he may inclose or dig for Marle and where not 8 A Covenant to injoy without the let of the Grantors c. or by their procurement 4 A Custome for a Coppiholder to cut trees at his pleasure is void 1 If Tenant in antient Demesne devise his lands the Devisee shall have fee 1 Covenant See fine Costs where they shall be given against an Administrator 11 A Condition to surrender coppihold he pleads he did it not good because he shewed not when the Court was holden 11 A Commission to seise for recusancie they seise an advowson the Kâ—ng grants to I. S. who presents and is disturbed by the Universitie of Oxford to whom the presentation belongs 11 12 13 Costs upon a Nonsuit at a nisi prius whether assessible by the Court or by the Judge of Assize 16 Common claimed to 600 acres and certain Messuages and lands and that he was disturbed by digging common Borrowes and doth not say he was seised at the timâ— much good matter 16 17 Custome of Merchants in Bills of Exchange varietie of good matter 24 Condition to free the nâ—xt avoidance from incumbrance the Grantors heir presents if that be a breach 25 Custome to have a widdowes estate and the husband is attainted if it holds 27 Condition that I. S. shall levie a fine to the Obligee who sued not a writ of Covenant the Plantiff replies that before c. I. S. had made a feofment of c. whether the Obligee must sue a writ of Covenant 29 30 A Condition contingent where extract by release 30 31 54 55 56 Covenant to make assurance by advice so that it be within Norfolk or Citie of N. a fine is advised not good because not shewed where it should be levied 32 33 Covenant not to alien an advowson without assent the Plantiff saith he had aliened c. good although he had not said by deed 34 Covenant where it raiseth a present use and where not 35 36 37 59 60 Custome touching Marchants and nationall lawes 52 Church shall be repaired by him who hath land there though he be no inhabitant but not lyable for the ornaments thereof 53 Coppiholder what act by him will make forfeiture 62 Covenant by a draper against his apprentice for defrauding him the Defendant pleads the Statute 5. Eliz. and that thereby there ought to be a certificate that his father had 40 s. per annum freehold which was not done here 63 64 If a Coppiholder sels his land to a Lessee of the Mannor it is good 67 Condition in a Will where nothing vesteth till it be performed 69 Costs not to be paid where the Plantiff mistakes his action 69 Covenant brought by an Executor the Defendant pleads giving of an horse in full satisfaction which the Testator accepted 76 A Court of equitie if it doth decree against a maxime in law as benefit of Survivorship a prohibition lieth 79 Covenant that he was seized of a good estate in fee and had good authoritie to sell and that no reversion was in the King c. 91 92 93 Condition where it shall be precedent and where subsequent 105 106 107 108 c. 115 116 c Costs not discharged although the offence be pardoned 125 Commendam See King D IN dept after imparlance alwayes ready is a good Plea 4 Distress gone as to the nomine Paenae if the rent be expired 7 A Declaration where it shall be mended in matter of substance 20 Damages where good in part especially after verdict 27 28 Debt against an Administrator who pleads outlawrie in the intestate no good Plea 33 58 A man soweth land and deviseth to I. S and dies before severance whether the devisee or Executor shall have the Corn 51 A Devise for years if an entrie by him must be pleaded 53 Declaration see new assignment Dower a Tenant pleads a fine levied by her husband and that the wife had not claimed within the Statute 4. H. 7. she replied she brought a writ which abated and this writ now brought was by Journeys accompts 66 Debt for rent must be brought by a privie in estate only where the land lies otherwise of a Privie in estate and contract 69 Debt upon a bond the Plantiff saith he had not paid the money and did not say nor any part thereof good for that must come of the other part to shew 72 Debt upon a bond to perform an award the Defendant