Kings Bench. PRowse brought an Action upon the Case against Cary for words That the Plaintiff did subborn procure and bring in false Witnesses in such a Court at Westminster c. The Defendant pladed Not guilty And it was found that he did procure and brought in false Witnesses but was acquitted of the suborning It was objected 1 Cr. 296. 554. 607. That the Action doth not lie for it may be that the Defendant did not know that he would depose falsly Thou art a forger of false Writings are not actionable and so it was adjudged for it may be understood of Letters of small importance but that Exception was not allowed for it shall be taken in malam partem and cannot be spoken of any honest man. CXXXII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. Was bounden in an Obligation to B. upon condition that if A deliver to B. twenty Quarters of Corn the nine and twentieth of February next following datum presentium that then c. and the next February had but eight and twenty days And it was holden that A. is not bounden to deliver the Corn until such a year as is Leap-year for then February hath nine and twenty days and at such nine and twentieth day he is to deliver the Corn and the Obligation was holden good CXXXII Allen and Palmers Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was a Copy-holder did surrender his Lands to the use of a stranger for life Copy-holder surrenders where his heir shall be in by purchase 2 Roll. 416. Co. 1 Inst 226. and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Copy-holder who afterwards surrendred his Reversion to the use of a stranger in Fee died and the Tenant for life died and the right Heir of Palmer the Copy-holder entred And by Cook nothing remained in the Copy-holder upon the said surrender but the Fee is reserved to his right Heirs for if he had not made any such second surrender his Heir should be in not by descent but by purchase And the common difference is where a surrender is to the use of himself for life and afterwards to another in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of him who surrendreth there his Heirs shall have it by descent contrary where the surrender hath not an estate for life or in tail limited to him for there his Heir shall enter as a purchasor as if such use had been limitted to the right Heirs of a stranger And by him if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of his right Heirs the Land shall remain in the Lord until the death of the Copy-holder for then his Heir is known c. See Dyer 99. The Husband made a Feoffment to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Husband and Wife begotten they have issue the Wife dieth the issue cannot enter in the life of his Father for then he is not his Heir See Dyer 7 Eliz. 237. The Husband is sole seised in Fee and levieth a Fine of the Land to the use of himself and his Wife and the Heirs of the Husband and they render the Land to the Conusor for the life of the Husband the remainder to B. for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband dieth B. dieth Now the Wife shall have the Land for the life of the Wife for she shall not lose her estate by that render and this remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband is void and the Land and estate in it is in him as a Reversion and not as a Remainder And a man cannot tail a Remainder to his right Heirs whilest he is living unless it begin first in himself See Br. 32 H. 8. Gard. 93. CXXXIV Pearle and Edwards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was that the Defendant had leased Lands to the Plaintiff rendring Rent for certain years Assumpsit Consideration 1 Cro. 94. and after some years of the Term expired the Lessor in consideration that the Lessee had occupied the Land and had paid his Rent promised the Plaintiff to save him harmless against all persons for the occupation of the Land past and also to come And afterwards H. distrained the Cattle of the Plaintiff being upon the Lands upon which he brought his Action Golding Here is not a sufficient consideration for the payment of the Rent is not any consideration for the Lessee hath the ocupation of the Land for it and hath the profits thereof and also the consideration is past Cook The occupation which is the consideration continues therefore it is a good Assumpsit as 4 E. 3. A Gift in Frank-marriage after the espousals and yet the marriage is past but the blood continues so here and here the payment of the Rent is executory every year and if the Lessee be saved for his occupation he will pay his Rent the better Godfrey If a man marrieth my Daughter against my will and afterwards in consideration of that marriage I promise him one hundred pounds the same is no good consideration 2 Len. 111. which Clench Iustice denied And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his damages CXXXV Wakefords Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Extinguishment of Copy-hold by Release THe Earl of Bedford Lord of the Manor of B. sold the Free-hold Interest of a Copy-holder of Inheritance unto another so as it is now no part but divided from the Manor and afterwards the Copy-holder doth release to the purchasor It was holden by the Court that by this Release the Copy-hold Interest is extinguished and utterly gone but if was holden that if a Copy-holder be ousted so as the Lord of the Manor is disseised and the Copy-holder releaseth to the Disseisor nihil operatur CXXXVI Docton and Priests Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close 1 Cro. 95. it was found by special verdict that two were Tenants in common of a house and of a close â—djoyning to the house and they being in the house make partition without deed of the house and the close see 3 E. 4. 9. 10. Partition without deed upon the Land is good enough Vide 3 H. 4. 1. And it seems by 3 E 4. Partition made upon the Land amounts to a Livery Vide 2 Eliz. Dyer 179. Partition by word out the County void 19 H. 6. 25. Betwixt Tenants in common not good without deed 2 Roll. 255. 47 E. 3. 22. being upon the Land it is good without deed Two Ioynt-tenants make partition by word make partition in another County the same is no partition for as to that matter the common Law is not altered by the Statute but as to compel such persons to make partition Wray Iustice conceived that the partition here being without deed was not good although made upon the Lands Vide 18 Eliz. Dyer 35.
parties as if the condition were to go to Rome And as to the Request he conceived that it ought to be shewed specially and certainly for it is for the benefit of the Covenantee for without request the Action doth not lie which Clench granted And it was holden by the whole Court that the bar shall not help the insufficient Declaration No more if the Defendant plead Non Assumpsit yet the defect in the Declaration of a Request not duly shewed remaineth Gawdy The bringing of the Action is a Request Clench A Writ of Debt is a Praecipe for which there licet saepius requisitus is sufficient but a Writ of Covenant is not so CLXXI. Piers and Hoes Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass it was found by special verdict Trespass 1 Cro. 131. 1 Roll. 854. that A. seised of Land in the right of his Wife being her Ioynture by a former Husband he and his Wife made a Feoffment to a stranger and his Heirs Habend to the use of the stranger and his Heirs during the life of the Wife only Shutleworth The same is a forfeiture for if the same Feoffment had been without any use expressed Forfeiture then it should be to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs and by consequence a forfeiture and as the case is here it is also a forfeiture for during the life of the Wife the use is expresly to the use of the Feoffee and his Heirs and the remainder of the Fee-simple is to the use of the Feoffor scil the Husband and his Heirs Popham I conceive that here is a forfeiture Owen 64. 2 Cr. 200 201. 3 Cr. 167. Hob. 373. for here are several limitations limitation of the estate unto one and of the use unto another And the words for the life of the Wife do not refer to the estate but to the use with proximum antecedens And he resembled the same to the case of Leonard Sturton in which he was of Councel A man granted Lands Habend unto the Grantee to the use of the Grantee and the Heirs of his body the same is no estate tail in the Grantee but only an estate for life for the Limitation of the use cannot extend the estate Cook contrary The case is that A. Wife of one Piers being Tenant for life of the Ioynture of the said Piers took to Husband Hoe they both by Deed grant totum suum Messuagium to one Clarke Habendum to him and his Heirs for the life of the Wife only I conceive that here is not any forfeiture for it is but one intire sentence And if there be a double construction of a deed that which is most reasonable shall be taken so as wrong be not done Construction of Deeds and therefore these words for the life of the Wife shall refer unto both scil the estate and the use and their intent was not to commit a forfeiture as appeareth by the words of the Deed for they grant solum messuagium and that was not but for the life of the wife ad solum usum of the Feoffee and his Heirs during the life of the Wife and violence should be offered to this word solum if the Feoffee or his Heirs should have ultra the life of the Wife and the word tantum cannot otherwise be expounded but that the estate for life only shall pass from them And he cited the Case of 34 E. 3. Avowry 258. A. gives Lands unto B. in tail and for default of such issue to the use of C. in tail rendring Rent the same render shall go to both the estates So a Lease for life to A. the remainder to B. to the use of C. the same use goeth out of both the estates and not only out of the Remainder so here upon the same reason Regula these words for the life of the wife shall refer to the first estate as well as to the use And in such Cases the rule of Bracton ought to be observed viz. Benignae faciendae sunt interpretationes verborum ut res magis valeat quam pereat As the Case in 6 H. 7. 7. in a Cessavit the Plaintiff counted that the Tenant held by Homage Fealty Sute at Court and certain Rent and in the doing of the services aforesaid the Defendant had cessed and in not doing of Homage and Fealty a man cannot cesse by two years But it was holden that the said Cessavit should be referred to such services only in which one might cease and that is Sute of Court and Rent And if pleadings shall have such favourable construction a multo fortiori shall a Deed 4 E. 3. Wast 11. A man leased for life and by the same deed granted power unto the Lessee to take and make his profit of the said Lands in the best manner should seem good to him without contradiction of the Lessor or his Heirs yet by those words it is not lawful for him to do wast for there it is said that in construction of Deeds we ought to judge according to that intent which is according to Law and Reason and not to that which is against reason See 17 E. 3. 7. accordingly so in the principal Case the words in the Deed of Feoffment shall be so expounded that the estate be saved and not destroyed Popham contrary The Cases put by Coke are not like to the Case in question For where the Rent is out of both estates the same is but reason for the Rent is in respect of the Land and because he departs with both estates it is reason the Rent issue out of both and the like reason is of the Case of an use for if a man makes a Lease for life to A. the Remainder over to B. the same shall be to their use respectively and if he do express the use the same shall be accordingly and shall bind both estates but there Clark hath two estates one by the common Law and the other by the Statute 3 Cro. 167. But the words subsequent for the life of the wife only cannot refer to both estates A. gives Lands to one his Heirs for forty years the same is but a plain Term for years But if a Feoffment in Fee be made to one his Heirs to the use of another for forty years there the Fee passeth to the Feoffee and the Term to Cestuy que use Gawdy conceived that it is not any forfeiture for these words during the life of the wife only were put in the Deed to express the intent of the parties and therefore the same shall not be void and he conceived that they were put in to exclude the forfeiture and therefore they shall serve for that purpose And afterwards it was resolved by all the Iustices except Gawdy that it was a forfeiture for by the Feoffment the Fee-simple passeth and that to the use of the Feoffor the estate and the use are several things and
Executor of an Administrator 1 Cro. 121. Yel 20. 9 Co. 87. Administratrix of Joan Webb and declared of a Contract without specialty The Defendant pleaded That she had fully administred and it was found against her And now it was moved for the Defendant That upon the matter an action of Debt doth not lye against the Executor or Administratrix which was granted by the Court. But the doubt was If now forasmuch as the Defendant by pleading the plea above hath admitted the action she shall now take advantage of the Law in that point For the reason why this action doth not lye against an Executor or Administrator is because the Testator himself might have waged his Law if he had been impleaded upon it and by intendment of Law the Executor or Administrator cannot have notice of such a Debt or of the discharge of it But now by answering to the Declaration as above the Defendant hath taken notice of the Debt and in manner confessed it And by Rhodes and Anderson Iudgment shall be given against the the Plaintiff because it is apparent to the Court that the action doth not lye And by Anderson If Iudgment be entred against the Administratrix in such an action upon Nihil dicit the Court ex officio shall give judgment against the Plaintiff Periam and Windham doubted at the first that the Defendant by her plea had admitted the whole matter upon the specially administred pleaded and had taken notice of the Debt 41 E. 3. 13. 46 E. 3. 10 11. 13 E. 4. 25. 13 H. 8. Fitz. Execut. 21. And afterwards Anderson ex assensu of the other Iudges caused to be entred Querens capiat nihil per breve CCXXX Hambleden and Hambledens Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Mich. 29. 30 Eliz Devises 1 Cro. 163. 1 And. 381. THe case was William Hambleden the Father of the Plaintiff and the. Defendant was seised of the Lands c. And by his Will devised to his Eldest Son Black Acre to his second Son White Acre and to his third Green Acre in tail And by his said Will further willed That in Case any of my said Sons do dye without issue that then the Survivor be each others heir The Eldest son dieth without issue c It was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the second Son shall have Black Acre in tail and he cited the Case 30 E. 3. 28. propinquioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum for the construction of such devises Walmesley argued That both the surviving Brothers should have the said Black Acre for the words of the devise are quilibet supervivens which amounts to uterque and the Court was in great doubt of this point And they conceived That the estate limited in Remainder to the Survivor c. is a fee-simple by reason of the words Each others heir And also they conceived That both the Survivors should not have the Land for the same is contrary to the express words of the devise The Survivor shall be each others heir in the singular number see 7 E. 6. Br. Devise 38. A man seised of Land hath issue three Sons and deviseth part of his Lands to his second Son in tail Heb. 75. and the residue to his third son in tail and willeth That none of them shall sell the Land but that each shall be heir to the other The second son dieth without issue the same Land shall not revert to the eldest Son but shall remain to the third son 1 Len. 261. notwithstanding the words each shall be heir to the other CCXXXI Slywright and Pages Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Maintenance More 266. 1 And. 201. Golds 101 102. AN Information was in the Common Pleas by John Slywright against Page upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Maintenance and declared that the Defendant took a Lease of one Joan Wade of certain Lands whereas the said Joan was not seised nor possessed thereof according to the Statute and upon Not guilty the Iury found this special matter That Edmund Wade was seised and made a Feoffment in fee thereof unto the use of himself and of the said Joan who he then intended to marry and the heirs of the said Edmund The marriage took effect Edmund enfeoffed a Stranger who entred Edmund died Joan not having had possession of the said Land after the death of Ed. her husband nor bing now in possession by Indenture demised the said Land to the Defendant for years without any Entry or delivery of the Indenture upon the Land The said Defendant knowing the said Joan never had been in possession of the said Land and also the Defendant being Brother of the half blood to the said Joan. The first Question was If the Lease being made by one out of possession and not sealed or delivered upon the Land and so not good in Law as to pass any interest be within the Statute aforesaid And the whole Court was clear of opinion that it was for by colour of this pretended Lease such might be undertaken advanced to the trouble disquiet of the possession for amongst the vulgar people it is a Lease it is a Lease by Reputation Another matter was moved because that the entry of the wife is now made lawful by 32 H. 8. and then she might well dispose of the Land. But as to that It was said by the whole Court That the meaning of the Statute was to repress the practises of many That when they thought they had title or right unto any Land they for the furtherance of their pretended Right conveyed their interest in some part thereof to great persons and with their countenance did oppress the possessors And although here the Lease was made by the said Joan to her Brother of the half blood yet by the clear opinion of the Court the Lease is within the danger of the Statute and yet in some Case the Son may maintain his Father the Kinsman his Kinsman And note in this case it was holden by the Iustices That of necessity it ought to be found by verdict That the Defendant knowing that the Lessor never had been in possession And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXXXII Brokesby against Wickham and the Bishop of Lincoln Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff counted Quare Impedit 3 Len. 256. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 85 86. Popham 189. That Robert Brokesby was seise of the Advowson and granted the next Avoidance to the Plaintiff and Humphrey Brokesby and that afterwards the Church became void and after during the avoidance Humphrey released to the Plaintiff and so it belongs to him to present And upon this count the Defendant did demar in Law. For it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing that Humphrey ought to have joined with the Plaintiff in the action for the Release being made after the Church became void
as a Will but as an Executory Devise Wray It is not a conditional Estate in Fee but an Estate tail Coke They who would prove the Custom to entail Copyhold Land within a Manor it is not sufficient to shew Copies of Grants to persons and the Heirs of their bodies Copyhold Estate but they ought to shew that surrenders made by such persons have been enjoyed by reason of such matter VVray That is not so for Customary Lands may be granted in tail and yet no surrenders have been made within time of memory CCXLV Matthew and Hassals Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae betwixt Matthew and Hassal the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover and the Defendant brought a Writ of Error Error 1 Cro. 144. and assigned Error in this that the Iudgment was entred Quod querens recuperet possessionem c. where it should be Terminum vent in ten praedict See 9 Eliz. Dyer 258. Coke contrary That the Iudgment is good enough for the Writ of Execution upon it is Habere facias possessionem and in a real Action the Writ is Quod perens recuperet sesinam and not terram And afterwards Iudgment was affirmed CCXLVI Tempest and Mallets Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Tempest against Mallet Iudgment was given and Eror brought and assigned for Error 1 Cro. 153 145. that whereas the Action was brought against four one of them died Mesne betwixt the Award of the Nisi prius and the Inquest taken And it was said on the part of the Defendant in the Writ of Error which was entred upon the Record that the Plaintiff shewed unto the Court the death of one of the Defendants and prayed Iudgment against the others See 4 H. 7. 2 Eliz. 175. And there is a difference where in an Action of Trespass there is but one Defendant and where many Another Error was assigned the Defendant Obtulit se per Higgins Attornat suum without shewing his Christian Name as John or VVilliam for Higgins only without the Christian Name is not any Name for it is but an addition to shew which John or VVilliam Coke The same is helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. Where it is enacted that after Verdict Iudgment shall be given notwithstanding the lack of Warrant of Attorney of the party against whom the Issue shall be tried or any default or negligence of any the parties their Counsellors or Attorneys and of necessity this default here in the Christian Name ought to be the fault of one of them See also 18 Eliz. Cap. 14. for want of any Warrant of Attorney c. Glanvil The Statute provides for default of Warrant of Attorney c. Then Coke To what end was the Statute of 18 Eliz. made for the Statute of 32 H. 8. provides for defects of Warrants of Attorney Glanvil The first Statutes for Warrants of Attorneys of such persons against whom the Issue was tryed but the later Stat. is general Another Error was assigned Quod defendens Capiatur where the Offence so the Fine is pardoned by Parliament and therefore the entry of the Iudgment ought to be Et de fine nihil quia perdonatur Coke The Iudgment is well enough for in every general Pardon some persons are excepted it doth not appear if the Defendant here were one of them and then the Fine is not pardoned 1 Cro. 768. 778. 3 Cro. 22. for the Court cannot take notice of that as it was holden in Serjeant Harris Case but if the Defendant be charged with the Fine then he ought to plead the pardon and to shew that he was not any of the persons excepted And afterwards at another day the Defendant did alledge that there was a Warrant of Attorney in the Common Pleas. And also it appeareth upon Record that the Defendant did appear upon the Supersedeas by Attorney who had his full Name and therefore prayed a Certiorari de novo to certifie the same matter vide 9 E. 4. 32. VVray A Case here greatly debated betwixt the Lord Norris and Braybrook In nullo est erratum and upon Advice such a Writ of Certiorari was granted after the Plaintiff had pleaded In nullo est erratum for this Plea in nullo est erratum goes but to that which is contained within the body of the Record and not unto collateral matter scil Warrant of Attorneys And afterwards the Writ of Error was allowed and upon the day of return thereof it appeared upon the Record of Supersedeas that the Defendant did appear by such a one his Attorney But it was said by the Court that there ought to be two appearances the one upon the Supersedeas and the other when the Plaintiff declares See as to the name of the Attorney Tirrells Case 1 Mar. Dyer 93. CCXLVII. Palmer and Knowllis Case Hill. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 160. PAlmer recovered Debt against Knowllis and sued Execution by Elegit upon which the Sheriff returned that he had made Execution of the lands of the Defendant by the Oath of twelve men but he could not deliver it to the party Execution for it is extended to another upon a Statute upon which the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad satisfaciendum And now came the Defendant by his Counsel and moved that after Elegit returned the Plaintiff could not resort to the Execution by Capias and therefore prayed a Supersedeas Caplas after Elegit because the Capias erronice emanavit But the whole Court was clear to the contrary for upon Nihil returned upon Elegit the Plaintiff shall have a Capias 17 E. 4. 5. See 21 H. 7. 19. A man shall have a Capias after a Fieri facias or Elegit 34 H. 6. 20. and here the special return doth amount to as much as if the Sheriff had returned Nihil Also the Statute of West 2. which giveth the Elegit is not in the Negative and therefore it shall not take away the Execution which was at the Common Law. And here is no Execution returned for after the former extent ended he ought to have a new Elegit which Wray granted And afterwards the said Knowllis was taken by force of the Capias ad satisfaciend and came into Court in the Custody of the Sheriff and the Case was opened and in the whole appeared to be worthy of favour but by the Law he could not be helped and although he instantly prayed a Supersedeas yet the same was denied unto him CCXLVIII The Church-wardens of Fetherstones Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Trespass was brought by the Church-wardens of Fetherstone in the County of Norfolk and declared Church-wardens 1 Cro. 145. 179. That the Defendant took out of the said Church a Bell and declared that the Trespass was done 20 Eliz. And it was found for the Plaintiffs And now it was moved by
CCLXXVIII Arrundel and the Bishop of Gloucesters and Chaffins Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Quare Impedit SIir John Arrundel brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester and Chaffin and counted upon a disturbance to present 1 Novembris Chaffin as incumbent pleaded That 1 Maii next after the said 1 Novemb. he himself was presented to the Church by the Queen the presentment to the said Church being devolved unto her by Lapse Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And the plea was holden insufficient for the Plaintiff counted upon a Disturbance to him 1 Novem. and the Defendant entitleth himself to an incumbency 1 May after in which case the disturbance set forth in the Count is not answered by traverse nor confessed nor avoided And of that opinion was the whole Court For the disturbance of which the Plaintiff hath declared is confessed And afterwards It was moved by the Queens Serjeants That the Queen might have a Writ to the Bishop Writ to the Bishop for the title of the Queen appeareth to be by Lapse which is confessed But the whole Court were clear of opinion against it For although it appeareth that he was lawfully presented to the said Church and so once lawfull Incumbent yet it appeareth also That the title of the Queen is once executed and so gon and nothing remains in the Queen and now when the Defendant hath lost his incumbency by ill pleading as he may as well as by Resignation or Deprivation yet the same shall not turn to the advantage of the Queen for where the Queen presents for laps and her Clark is instituted and inducted the Queen hath no more to do but the Incumbent must shift as well as he can for the holding of it for by what manner so ever he loseth his incumbency the Queen shall not present again otherwise it had been if the Queen be Patron and afterwards the Plaintiff had a Writ to the Bishop CCLXXIX The Lord Pagets Case in a Monstrans de Droit The Case was Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber More 193 194 1 Co. 154. 1 And. 259. THomas Lord Paget Father of William Paget was seised of the Mannor of Burston and divers other Mannors in three several Counties in his demesne as of fee and so seised by Indenture between the said Lord of the one part and Trentham and others on the other part and in consideration that the said Trentham and others with the profits of the said Mannors should pay his debts and such sums of money which were contained in such a Schedule and which he should appoint by his last Will covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of the said Trentham of one Eusal c. for the term of four and twenty years and after the Expiration or end of the said Term of twenty four years unto the use of the said William Paget his Son in tail with diverse Remainders over And afterwards the said Lord Paget was attainted of high Treason It was here holden and agreed by all the Iustices and by the Council of both sides That the uses limited to Trentham and others are void for here is not any consideration sufficient to raise an use for the mony which is appointed for the payment of his debts is to be raised of the profits of the Lands of the said Lord Declaration of uses which is not any consideration on the part of Trentham and others But if the consideration had been That they with the Profits of their own Lands should pay the debts c. It had been a good Consideration It was agreed also That the term for twenty four years to Eusal is void for want of sufficient consideration And then it was moved If this Lease being void The use limited to the said William Paget Son of the said Lord Paget should being presently upon the death of the Lord Paget or should expect until the twenty four years were encurred after the death of the Lord Paget or not at all And it was argued That an use to be raised upon an impossibility should never rise as if I covenant to stand seised to the use of B. and his Heirs after the end of the term for years which I.S. hath in the Mannor of D. whereas in truth I. S. hath not any term in it the said use shall never rise so here Use cannot rise out of a possibility No use to the Son can rise for the lease for twenty four years shall never end for it never can begin for want of sufficient consideration as is aforesaid and if the said use in tail should at all rise it should not rise before the expiration of the said twenty four years As if I covenant to stand seised of certain Lands to your use when my Son and Heir shall come to the age of one and twenty years now if my Son dieth before such age The use shall not begin before the time in which my Son if he shall live should attain unto his said age Egerton the Queens Solicitor Vses may be limited to begin at times certain before which they shall not begin and so in our case the use in tail in limited to begin when the term of twenty four years is ended and therefore until the Term be ended no use shall rise and the use is limited to rise upon the end of the time or term of four twenty years and not upon the end of the estate and so William Paget hath begun his Monstrans de Droit before his time The Lord Paget had but an estate for life and if so Then the Remainders are not continggent uses but vest presently as if a man covenant That after his death his Son and Heir shall have his Lands now the Father hath but an estate for life and the inheritance is vested in the Son. Cook I covenant That after twenty four years ended I and my Heirs will stand seised to the use of my Son c. there the use in Fee doth vest in my Son presently So I covenant That after my death I and every one who shall be seised c. shall be seised of the said Land to the use of my Brother the said use shall rise to my Brother presently I devise That after the death of such a Monk I.S. shall have the Land nothing passeth to I.S. till the death of the Monk but if Land be devised to a Monk for life and afterwrds to another in Fee the Devisee in Fee shall have the Land presently Manwood A devise or use limited to one for life the Remainder in tail the first devisee doth disagree Cook the Remainder doth vest presently Manwood I devise lands unto one until my Son comes of full age Cook The remainder doth vest presently Manw. A use limited to one to begin at Mich. next the remainder over if in the mean time the Lessee obtain the
leaving out I. S. and see Amy Townsends Case in the Commentaries where the Husband seised in the Right of his Wife makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his wife for their lives the Remainder over to another the husband dyeth the wife refuseth the estate limited to her by the Husband she brings Sur cui in vita not against the heir but against him in the Remainder to whom the Land doth accrue by the refusal of the wife not against the heir of the Feoffor and I grant That where an estate in use or otherwise is to begin upon a condition precedent which is impossible or against the Law the estate shall never rise or begin And here the Case of the Lord Borroughs 35 H. 8. Dy. 55. was cited Where the Father covenanted in consideration of marriage of his Son that immediately after his death his eldest Son shall have the possession or use of all his Lands according to the same course of inheritance as then they stood and that all persons now seised or to be seised should be seised to the said use and intent and it was holden That upon that matter no use is changed But if the Words had bin Immediately after his death they should remain then although the words of the Limitation be In futuro the use of the Fee shall rest in the Son presently and the words In futuro ought not to be interpreted but in benefit of him to whom the use and estate is limited 9 Eliz. Dyer 261. A. Leaseth for thirty years and four years after the beginning of the said term he makes another Lease for years by these words Noverint c. dictis 30 annis finitis completis demisisse omnia praemissa to the said c. Habendum tenendum a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque ad finem 30 annorum And by the opinion of all the Iustices This new Lease shall commence in possession at the end of the former term and not before and if it should not be expounded the second Lease should be in effect an estate but for ten years which was not the intent of the parties and every grant shall be expounded most strongly for the grantee and to his advantage to which purpose he said he had vouched this Case Also by him there is not any difference where the use is limited by way of covenant or upon a Feoffment And if a man enfeoffeth B. upon condition that he shall enfeoff C. now if he offer to enfeoff C. and he refuseth the Feoffor may re-enter But if the condition were to give to C. in tail then upon such refusal of C. the Feoffor shall not re-enter See 2 E. 4. 2. 19 H. 6. 34. E. si Equitas sit adhibenda in construction of conditions a multo fortiori in case of Vses A Feoffment in Fee upon condition that the Feoffee shall grant a Rent charge to J. S. who doth it but J. S. refuseth the Feoffor shall not re-enter for that was not the intent of the condition If in the principal case Post 266. the limitation of the use had been after the expiration of twenty four years then no use should rise before the twenty four years expire but where not the time but the estate is material there if the estate be void the use shall go to him in the Remainder presently and shall not stay the time 1 Co. 154. c. Egerton Solicitor first it is to see if the use limited to William Paget be good secondly if William Paget doth not come before his time to shew his Right If this use limited to William Paget be a Remainder or an estate to begin upon a contingent or a present estate the estates formerly limited being void and he conceived that it is not a Remainder for there is not any estate upon which it may depend And the words are after the estate for twenty four years ended or expired that then and from thenceforth to the use of William Paget c. so that no use is limited to him before the particular estate is ended therefore no Remainder for a Remainder ought to begin when the particular estate begins Without doubt that was not the intent that William Paget should have the Land during the life of his Father and yet the use limited during the life of his Father was void and if the Remainder should take effect during the said twenty four years against Eusall and his companions wherefore should it not also take effect against Trentham and the others to whose use it was limited during the life of the Lord Paget And here the use limited to William Paget is to begin upon a collateral contingent upon which if it cannot rise it shall not rise at all and I conceive that the use limited to William Paget shall never rise or begin for it is limited to begin when the term of twenty four years is ended and that is never for that which cannot begin cannot end and this Term is meerly void Ergo it cannot begin Ergo it cannot end then this thenceforth cannot be and so this contingent can never fall H. 6. 7. E. 6. A Lease was made for years upon condition that if the Lessee do not pay such a sum of money that he should lose his Indenture the meaning and sense of these words is not that he should lose the Indenture in parchment but that he should lose his Term The Iudgment in an Eectjone firmae is Quod querens recuperet terminum suum that is to be understood not the time but his Interest in the Land for the Term And Coke secretly said that in that case there is not any contingent for the estates precedent never began And as to the Case cited before by Coke Br. Leases 62. If the last Lease be made by Indenture reciting the former Lease certainly the second Lessee shall not be concluded to claim the Land demised presently but shall tarry until the years of the first Term be expired by effluction of time And as to Mawnds Case cited before there is an estate upon which a Remainder may depend scil the estate tail alledged to Robert c. If such as now is limited to William Paget had been limited at the Common Law to a younger Son the eldest Brother should have the Land in the Interim discharged of any use and now after the Statute no use limited to William Paget before the contingent where therefore is it in the mean time In the Lord Paget who being attainted it accrues to the Queen and out of the possession of the Queen this use shall never rise although that the contingent be performed for now the use is locked up A use doth consist in privity of the estate and confidence of the person if these be severed the use is gone And here if the possession be in the Queen she cannot be seised to another use Note by Godfrey that
the opinion in Baintons Case 8 Eliz. Dyer 37. is not Law and so hath the Law been taken of late Popham contrary If before the Statute of 27 H. 8. the Father covenant in consideration of Advancement of his Son to stand seised to the use of I. S. for life and after the death of I. S. to the use of my Son in Fee here the estate of I. S. in the use is void and yet the estate in the use limited to my Son shall not take effect before the death of I. S. for the estate of my Son is not limited to take effect till after the death of I. S and therefore the possession of the Father is not charged with the use during the life of I.S. But if by way of Feoffment I.S. had refused the Son should have it presently and the Father should not have it for he by his Livery hath put all out of him and it was not the intent of the Feoffment that the Feoffee should have the Land to his own use Popham allowed the difference mentioned before out of 2 E. 4 19 H. 6. betwixt a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff a stranger and to give in tail to a stranger and that is grounded upon the intent of the parties And Owen Serjeant put the Case cited before 1. 3 Eliz. Dyer 330. A Feoffment is made by the Husband to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of one Ann whom he intended to marry for during and until the Son which he should beget on the body of the said woman had accomplished the age of thirty one years and after such time that such Son should come unto such age unto the use of the said woman quamdiu she should live sole they entermarry the Husband dyeth without Issue the wife entreth immediately and continues sole and her Entry was adjudged lawful and the estate in Remainder good although she never had any Son and thereupon a Writ of Error was brought and the first Iudgment was affirmed note by Tanfield and others at the Bar that that was the most apt case to the purpose in the Law and the reason of such Iudgment was because they took it that Deeds ought to be expounded according to the meaning of the parties and estates in possession I grant there ought to be a particular estate upon which a Remainder may depend but the same is not necessary where the Conveyance is by way of use And if I covenant that A. shall have my Lands to him his Heirs to pay my Debts and Legacies the same is by way of bargain and sale and nothing passeth without Enrolment And here the Attainder doth not prevent the use as it hath been objected by Master Solicitor for the use doth rise before the Attainder for William Paget had a Remainder in tail in the life of his Father upon the first limitation c. Periam Iustice I lease my Lands to you to begin after the expiration of a Lease which I have made thereof to I.S. and in truth he hath not any Lease the same Lease shall never begin Manwood chief Baron I lease my Lands to you or grant a Rent to you to begin after the death of Prisoit Serjeant at Law when shall that begin Coke Presently Manwood cujus contrarium est Lex CCLXXX The Queen against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Fane and Hudson Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 1832. THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Chichester and Hudson Quare Impedit 4 Len. 107. Hob. 303. 175. Owen 155. and counted that John Ashburnham was seised of the advowson of Burwash was outlawed in an action of Debt during which Out-lawry in force the Church voided for which it belongs to the Queen to present The Arch-Bishop and Bishops plead that they claim nothing but as Metropolitan and Ordinary Fane pleaded that King E. 4. Ex gratia sua speciali c. and in consideration of faithful service c. did grant to the Lord Hastings the Castle and Barony of Hastings and Hundred c. Et quod ipse haberet omnia bona catalla tenentium residentium non residentium aliorum residentium quorumcunque hominum de in Castro Baronia c. or within the same pro munero debit c. tam ad sectam Regis c. quam c. Ut legatorem quid ipse faceret per se vel per his sufficient Deputies c. And from him derived to the now Earl of Huntington as Heir and the said Earl so seised and the said Ashburnham seised of the advowson as appendant to the Manor of Ashburnham holden of the said Barony the Church aforesaid during the Out-lawry aforesaid became void For which the said Fane ad dictam Ecclesiam usurpando presentavit the said Hudson who was admitted and instituted c. with this That idem T.C. verificare vult that the said Church of Burwash is and at the time of the grant was within the Precinct Liberty and Franchise aforesaid and that the said Manor of Ashburnham at the time of the grant aforesaid was holden of the said Barony and the Incumbent pleaded the same Plea if by that grant of King Edward the fourth to the Lord Hastings scil omnia bona catalla c. The presentment to the Church should pass or not was the question Shutleworth Serjeant argued for the Queen he confessed that the King might grant such presentment but it ought to be by special and sufficient words so as it may appear by them that the intent of the King was to grant such a thing for the general words omnia bona catalla will not pass such special Chattel in the Kings grant And he conceived that by the subsequent words no Goods or Chattels shall pass by such Grants but such which may be seised which the avoidance of a Church cannot be quod ipse liceret per se vel ministros suos ponere se in seisinam 8 H. 4. 114. 15. the King granted to the Bishop of London that he should have Catalla felonum fugitivor de omnibus hominibus tenentibus de in terris feodis praedict and of all resiants within the Lands and Fees aforesaid Ita quod si praedict homines tenentes residentes de in terris feodis praedict seu aliqui eorum seu aliquis alius infra cadem terra feodis pro aliqua transgressione c. vid. librum c. and by Tirwit By that Grant the goods of those who are put to Pennance shall not pass so of the goods of one Felo de se vid. 42 E. 3. 5. One being impanelled on the Grand Enquest before the Iustices of Oyer and Terminer pleaded the charter of the King of exemption from Enquests and because in the said charter was not this clause More 126. licet tanget nos
33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. IT was found by special Verdict that Berwich and Tesdel seised of certain Lands conveyed the same to Sir Thomas Cotton for life Fines levied to use Co. 2 Inst 519. 1 Cro. 219. the Remainder to VVil. Cotton primogenito filio suo haeredi masculo sic de primogenito ad primogenitum dict VVilliam the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of Sir Tho. Cotton and VVil. Cotton lawfully issuing the Remainder to the right Heirs of Sir Tho. Cotton VVil. had Issue a Son born here in Eng. and went beyond Sea to Antwerp and there continuing and his Son being within age in England Sir Thomas Cotton levied a Fine of all the Land sur conusans de droit come ceo c. And afterwards by Indenture convenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Rober Cotton his Son in Fee William died at Antwerp his said Son being within age in England Sir Tho. Cotton died Robert entred and leased the Lands for years to Sary and the Infant Son and Heir of William leased the Land to one Chewn at Will who entred and ousted Sary who thereupon brought Ejectione firmae It was here holden by the Court that Sir Tho. Cotton was Tenant for life the Estates Remainder to William for term of his life the Remainder to the Heirs of both their bodies issuing So as unto one Moyety Sir Thomas Cotton had an Estate tail dependant upon the said Estates for life and so the Fine levied by him was a Bar to the Issue of William for a Moyety And as to the other Moyety they held that the said Fine was not any Bar but that the party interessed at the same time might avoid the Fine at any time during his Nonage five years after for Wil. his Father was not bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. because at the time of the Fine levied he was beyond the Seas and although he never returned but died there yet by the equity of the Statute his Issue shall have five years after his death to avoid the Fine if he were of full age and if he were within age then during his Nonage and five years after At another day the Case was argued and put in this manner viz. Lands were given to Sir Thomas Cotton for life without Impeachment of Wast the Remainder over to Cheny Cotton his eldest Son primogenito filio haeredi Masculo of the said Cheny sic de primogenito filio in primogenitum filium the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the body of the said Cheny for want of such Issue the Remainder to Wil. Cotton his second Son primogenito filio in primogenitum filium the Remainder over to the said Sir Thomas and the said William and the Heirs Males of their bodies lawfully begotten Cheny Cotton died without Issue William having Issue went beyond the Sea Sir Thomas Cotton 19 Eliz. levied a Fine with Proclamation and afterwards William the Father died in Antwerp his Son being within age Sir Thomas by Indenture limited the use of the Fine to himself for life the Remainder over to Robert Cotton his third Son in Tail Sir Thomas died but it doth not appear at what time William the Son being yet within age entred but non constat quando and 31 Eliz. leased the Lands to the Defendant at Will. Drue Serjeant argued for William Cotton And he conceived that William the Father had an estate-Estate-tail and then the entry of William the Son was congeable for the whole But admitting that it is not an Estate-tail in VVilliam the Father for the whole yet he hath by the second Remainder an Estate-tail in the Moyety and then his Entry good as to one Moyety and then Robert being Tenant in Common of the other Moyety Tails his Lessee without an actual Ouster cannot maintain an Ejectionae firmae against the Lessee of his Companion And he conceived here is a good Estate-tail in VVilliam Cotton by virtue of the Limitation to William primogenito filio haeredi Masculo ipsius Guliel sic de primogenito filio in primogenitum filium c. for according to the Statute of VVest 2. the will of the Donor ought to be observed and here it appeareth that the intent of the Donor was to create an Estate-tail although the words of the Limitation do not amount to so much And the Estates mentioned in the Statute aforesaid are not Rules for Entails but only Examples as it is said by Trew 33 E. 3 F. Tail 5. see Robeiges Case 2 E. 2. 1 Fitz. Tail and 5 H. 5. 6. Land given to A. and B. uxori ejus haeredibus eorum aliis haeredibus dicti A. si dict haeredes de dictis A. B. exeuntes obierint sine haeredibus de se c. and that was holden a good Entail so a gift to one and his Heirs si haeredes de carne sua habuerit si nullos de carne sua habuerit revertatur terra and adjudged a good tail So 39 E. 3. 20. Land given to Husband and Wife uni haeredi de corpore suo ligitime procreat uni haeredi ipsius haeredis tantum And that was holden a good Tail and so he conceived in this Case that although the words of the Limitation are not apt to create an Estate-tail according to the phrase and stile of the said Statute of VVest 2. yet here the intent of the Donor appears to continue the Land in his Name and Blood for VVilliam the Son could not take with his Father by his Limitation for he was not in rerum natura and therefore all shall vest in VVilliam the Father which see 18 E. 3 Fitz. Feoffments Fait 60. Now it is to see if upon the Limitation to Sir Thomas Cotton and VVilliam his Son by which the Remainder is limited to Sir Thomas Cotton and VVilliam and the Heirs Males of their bodies issuing the said Sir Thomas Cotton Wil. have a joynt Estate-tail in respect that the Issue of the body of the Son may be Heir of the Body of the Father and so because they might have one Heir which shall be inheritable to his Land it shall be one entire estate-Estate-tail in them But he conceived that they are several estates-Estates-tail and that they are Tenants in Common of an Estate tail 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 145. Land given to the Father and Son and to the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten the Remainder over in Fee the Father dieth without other Issue than the Son only and afterwards the Son dieth withou Issue a stranger abates Or if the Son hath made a Discontinuance if he in the Remainder shall have but one or two several Formedons was the Question And by Saunders Brook and Brown but one Formedon and Quaere left of it yet admitting that yet notwithstanding that it might be
that they had several estates-Estates-tail 17 E. 3. 51. 78. Land given to a man and his Sister and to the Heirs of their two Bodies issuing they have several Estates tail and yet one Formedon And see 7 H. 4. 85. Land given to a man and his Mother or to her Daughter in Tail here are several Entails And here in the principal Case Sir Thomas Cotton hath one Moyety in Tail expectant upon his Estate for life and therefore as to the Moyety of Sir Thomas Cotton he is bound by the Fine And the other Moyety is left in the Son who may enter for a Forfeiture upon the alienation made by his Father as well in the life of the Father as afterwards Now after this Fine levied the entry of VVilliam the Son by virtue of his Remainder is lawful after the death of Sir Thomas although that VVilliam the Father was beyond the Sea at the time of the Fine levied and there afterwards died VVilliam the Son being within age The words of the Statute of 4 H. 7. are Other than Women Covert or out of this Realm c. so that they or their Heirs make their Entry c. within five years after they return into this Land c. So that by the bare letter of the Act VVill. the Son hath not remedy nor relief by this Act against the Fine because that William the Father died beyond the Sea without any return into England yet by the Equity of the Statute he shall have five years to make his Claim although his Father never return for if such literal construction should be allowed it should be a great mischief and it should be a hard Exposition for this Statute ought to be taken by Equity as it appeareth by diverse Cases 19 H. 8. 6. My Vncle doth disseise my Father and afterwards levies a Fine with Proclamations my Father dieth and after within five years my Vncle dies that Fine is no Bar to me yet the Exception doth not help me for I am Heir to him that levied the Fine and so privy to it but my Title to the Land is not as Heir to my Vncle but to my Father So if an Infant after such a Fine levied dieth before his full age his Heir may enter within five years after and yet that Case is out of the Letter of the Statute And by Brown and Sanders If the Disseisee dieth his Wife enseint with a Son the Disseisor levieth a Fine the Son is born although this Son is not excepted expressly by the words because not in rerum natura at the time of the Fine levied c. yet such an Infant is within the equity and meaning of the said Statute See the Case betwixt Stowel and Zouch Plow Com. 366. And by him It was holden 6. Eliz. that an Infant brought a Formdon within age and adjudged maintainable although the words of the Statute be That they shall take their Actions or lawful Entries within five years after they come of full age And he also argued that here when Sir Thomas being Tenant for life levyed a Fine which is a Forfeiture he in the Remainder is to have five years after the Fine levyed in respect of the present forfeiture and also five years after the death of the Tenant for life And that was the case of one Some adjudged accordingly in the Common Pleas It hath been objected on the other side That the Defendant entring by color of the Lease at Will made to him by William who was an Infant that he was a Disseisor as well to the Infant as to the Lessor of the Plaintiff who had the Moyety as Tenant in common with the Infant and then when the Lessor of the Plaintiff entred upon the Defendant and leased to the Plaintiff and the Defendant enentred and ejected the Plaintiff he is a Disseisor to which he answered That the Defendant when he entred by the Lease at Will he was no Disseisor for such a Lease of an Infant is not void but only voidable c. and then a sufficient Lease against the Plaintiff although not against the Infant Beaumont Serjeant to the contrary By this manner of gift William the Son took nothing but the estate setled only in William the Father but not an estate tail by the words haeredi masculo c. And voluntas Donatoris without sufficient words cannot create an estate tail but where the intent of the Donor is not according to the Law the Law shall not be construed according to his intent But this intent shall be taken according to the Law. And he held that Sir Thomas and VVilliam had several estates in tail and several Moyeties and not one entire estate and here upon all the matter Sir Thomas is Tenant for life of the whole the Remainder of one moyety to him in tail the Remainder of the other moyety unto VVilliam in tail and rebus sic stantibus Sir Thomas levying a Fine of the whole now as to one moyety which the Conusor had in tail the Fine is clearly good and so as to that Robert the Lessor of the Plaintiff had a good Title as to the said moyety and as to the other moyety he conceived also that VVilliam is bound for this Statute shall not be construed by Equity but shall bind all who are expresly excepted and that is not VVilliam the Son for his Father never returned and then his Heir is not releived by the Statuteâ— Also VVilliam had a Right of Entry at the time of the Fine levyed scil for the Forfeiture and because he hath surceased the time for the said Right of Entry he shall not have now five years after the death of Tenant for life for he is the same person and the second saving which provides forfuture Rights extends to other persons than those who are intended in the first saving and he who may take advantage of the first saving cannot be releived by the second saving for no new title doth accrue to him in the Reversion or Remainder by the death of Tenant for life for that title accrued to him by the forfeiture so as the title which he hath by the death of the Tenant for life is not the title which first accrued unto him Also by this Forfeiture the estate for life is determined as if Tenant for life had been dead for if Tenant for life maketh a Feoffment in Fee the Lessor may have a Writ of Entry ad terminum qui praeterijt Fitz. 201. which proves that by the Forfeiture the estate is determined and then no new title doth accrue to him in the Remainder by the death of the Tenant for life but that only which he had before the alienation so that his non-claim after the five years shall bind him Then when VVilliam the Infant having a Right to a moyety and Robert the Lessor of the Plaintiff a Right to the other moyety and the Infant leaseth unto the Defendant at Will who entreth now is he a
Entry holden lawful But Error was brought upon it And also Calthrops case was cited to the same purpose 16 Eliz. Dyer 336. This estate limited to Ambrose doth refer to the estate limited to Muriel and Ann and not to the time for ever the first estate is to be respected as 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. He in the Remainder in Fee upon an estate for life deviseth it to his Wife yielding and paying during her natural life yearly 20 shillings and dieth living Tenant for life the Rent shall not begin until the Remainder falleth So as the general words refer to the beginning of the estate although the words imply that the Rent shall be paid presently And see also such construction 9 Eliz. 261. A Lease was made for thirty years and four years after the Lessor makes another Lease by these words Nos dictis 30 annis finitis dedisse concessisse c. Habend tenend a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque terminum c. And although prima facie the beginning of this Term seems incertain yet the Iustices did respect the former estate and so the Lessee hath the Interest of the Term from the making of the Deed but no estate until the first Term expire Then Ambrose before his age of 21 years levying a Fine the Fine shall not bind the Feoffee for it enures only by way of conclusion and so binds parties and privies but not a stranger And the party needs not to plead against this Fine quod partes to the Fine Nihil habuerunt for that appeareth upon their own shewing Wiat contrary The state of Ambr. accrues and rises when any of the said times come first full age return death for the words are And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death c. This word or before death disjoyns all and makes the sentence in the Disjunctive and he cited a case lately judged in the Common Pleas A Lease was made to Trewpeny and his Wife for one hundred years if he and his Wife or any Child or Children betwixt them begotten should so long live the Wife died without Issue the Husband held the Land c. for the Disjunctive before Child made the sentence Disjunctive Gawdy Iustice That had been Law if no such word had been in the Case And Wiat said That although the return be incertain yet it is certain enough that he shall come to the age of 21 years or dye And also this is by way of use which needs not to depend upon any estate and if the Remainder shall vest presently upon his return then it would be doubtful what Remainder it is if it be a Remainder depending upon the estate for the life of Ann and Muriel or for years i.e. until Ambrose shall come of the age of 21 years But be it incertain yet the Fine is good for here is a Remainder in Ambrose and both are but particular estates and there is not any doubt but that one may convey by Fine or bar by Fine such contingent uses for which see the Statute of 32 H. 8. All Fines to be levied of any Lands intailed in any wise to him that levieth the Fine or to any his Ancestors in possession reversion c. which word use goes to contingent uses for at the time of the making of that Statute there was no other use Fenner Iustice remembred the Case adjudged M. 30 31 Eliz. betwixt Johnson and Bellamy 2 Len. 36. which ruled this Case Gawdy Iustice Here is a certainty upon which the Remainder doth depend i. e. the death of Ambrose but the Case had been the more doubtful if no certainty at all had been in the Case Atkinson contrary Here the Lord Vaux is Tenant for life the Remainder to George in tail now when the Lord Vaux levies a Fine this is a forfeiture and then the Entry of George is lawful It hath been objected on the other side that this Remainder was future and contingent and not vested therefore nothing passed to George by Ambrose The words are quousque Ambrose shall return This word quousque is a word of Limitation and not of Condition and then the Remainder may well rise when the Limitation hapneth It hath been said that this Remainder is contingent and then the Remainder which is to vest upon a contingency cannot be granted or forfeited before that the contingent hapneth And he cited the Case of 14 Eliz. 314. Dyer A Fine is levied to A. to the use of B. for life the Remainder to E. in Tail the Remainder to B. in fee. Proviso That if B. shall have Issue of his Body that then after such Issue and 500 l. paid to c. within six months after the birth of such issue the use of the said Lands after the death of the said B. and the said six months expired shall be to the said B. and the heirs of his body And it was holden that before the said contingent hapneth B. had not any estate tail for there it was incertain if the said contingent would happen but in our case the contingents or some of them will happen or run out by effluxion of time and that makes the Remainder certain in Ambrose And he also argued that the Limitations are several by reason of the Disjunctive and the last part of the sentence and that the said sentence is in the Disjunctive appeareth by the subsequent words which of the said days or times shall first happen And then the return of Ambrose for that first hapned vests the Remainder in him and therefore the Plaintiff ought to be barred Buckley contrary The estate of the Daughters doth depend upon a Copulative i.e. the return of Ambrose and his full age and both is but one Limitation it is clear that the first Limitation is upon a contingent and the remainder cannot vest until both are performed And as to that which hath been said that there is a certain Limitation i. e. the return of Ambrose 18 Eliz. the Case was Lands were given to Husband and Wife the Remainder to such of them as should survive the other for years the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth it was holden that although the Limitation was upon a certain estate yet because it is not known in which of the parties the estate secondly limited shall begin the Lease is void So here it is not certainly appointed when the estate limited to Ambrose shall begin upon the return full age or death of Ambrose and he said that here are but two times of Limitation first return and full age second death return and full age determines the estate of the Daughters and also the death if it shall first happen and if these three times shall be construed in the Disjunctive 2 Len. 2â— the same would overthrow the estate of the Daughters which is an estate for years determinable upon the death of themselves or Ambrose
the Right of the Complainants come ceo c. with warranty of the said Husband and Wife for which the Complainants did render a Rent of fifty pounds per annum with clause of distress in dictis Manerijs to the said John Amy the Heirs of Amy and also rendred the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to the said John and Amy for their lives the Remainder to the said Francis their Son in tail the Remainder to the said Amy and her Heirs and that John and Amy dyed by force whereof the said Rent descendeth to the said Plaintiff as Son and Heir of the said Amy and that the said Francis entred into the said Mannors as in his Remainder and was seised in tail and was seised of the said Rent by the Hands of the said Francis and afterwards thereof did enfeoff the said Garmons the Defendant c. The Tenant pleaded That the Plaintiff was never seised so as he could be disseised and if c. Nul tor nul disseisin which was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment and Execution upon which the Tenant brought a Writ of Error Stephens assigned Error First the Fine is levyed of two Manors inter alia so as no other Lands passed by the Fine besides the Manors and so the Rent is granted out of the said Lands and Manors and no other Lands which passed by the Fine and then upon the Plaintiffs own shewing it appears that all the Tenants of the Lands charged with the Rent in demand are not named in the Assize Second Error This Rent is granted only out of the Estate tail for Amy hath Fee in both as well the Rent as the Land and then when the Estate tail is determined the Rent is also determined and he hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail or any of his Issue wherefore it shall be intended that he is dead without issue and then the Rent is gone and then he hath not any cause to have Assise Bourchier As to the first conceived and argued that it is not Error for although these words inter alia c. yet it shall not be intended that the Conusor had any other Lands or that the Rent is issuing out of other Lands than those two Manors which are expressed not inter alia As to the second the continuance of the tail needs not to be averred for the Tenant in tail hath enfeoffed the Tenant of the Land by which the estate tail is discontinued And although the Tenant in tail be dead without issue yet the Rent doth remain until Recovery of the Land by Formedon in the Remainder Fenner Iustice was of opinion Vaugh. Reâ— 175. That the Per nomen should go unto the Mannors only and should not extend to the inter alia For if a man in pleading saith that J.S. was seised of twenty acres of Land and thereof inter alia did enfeoff him per nomen of Green-wead the same shall not have reference to the inter alia but only to the twenty acres And the averment of the continuance of the Tail needs not for the Estate-tail is discontinued Gawdy Iustice was of opinion That the per nomen should go as well to the inter alia as to the two Manors and then all the Ter-tenants are not named in the Assise and the same not to be pleaded for it appears of the Plaintiffs own shewing and there needs no averment of the continuance of the Tail for the cause aforesaid Clench Iustice The per nomen doth refer to all which see by the Fine which shews that other Lands passed by the Fine than the said two Manors And as to the second point he said There needed no averment Gawdy As to the first Error the same cannot be saved by any way but to say That the Conusor was not seised of any other Lands than the said two Manors and then the Fine doth not extend unto it and then no Rent is granted out of it Fenner In the Common Pleas in the great case of Fines it was holden that in pleading of a Fine it needs not to say That the Conusor was seised for if the Conusor or Conusee were seised it is sufficient for such pleading is contrary in it self for a Fine sur conusance de droit come ceo c. doth suppose a precedent Gift It was also objected That here is a confusion in this Fine for the Rent is rendred to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Wife and the Land is rendred to the Husband and Wife for their lives the Remainder to Francis in Tail the remainder to the Wife and her Heirs And these matters cannot stand together in a Fine but the one will confound the other But as to that it was said that the Law shall Marshall these two renders so as they both shall stand And it is not like unto a Rent-service for a Rent-service issueth out of the whole Estate And therefore if a Remainder upon an Estate for life Eschears the Seigniory is gone even during the life of the Tenant for life which see 3 H. 6. 1. contrary of a Rent-charge For if the Grantee of a Rent in Fee purchaseth the remainder of the Land out of which it is depending out of an Estate for life he shall have the Rent during the life of the Tenant for life And of that opinion were all the three Iustices for the Conusors took by several Acts and the Estate is charged for it cometh under the Grant. Fenner Iustice There is a difference betwixt a Rent service and a Rent-charge or Common for that shall charge only the Possession but a Rent-charge shall charge the whole Estate And therefore if he who hath a Rent-service releaseth to him in the Remainder upon an Estate-tail or for life the Rent is extinct which Gawdy denied And this Case was put The Disseisee doth release to the Lessee for years of his Disseisor nihil operatur But if the Disseisor and Disseisee joyn in a Release to such Lessee the same is good for first it shall enure as the Release of the Disseisor and then of the Disseisee c. CCCXLIV Tedcastle and Hallywels Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt 2 Roll. 594. 1 Cro. 234 235. IN Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded That the Condition was That whereas John Hallywel had put himself to be an Apprentice to the Plaintiff if the Defendant John Hallywel during his Apprenticeship or any other for him by his consent or agreement take or riotously spend any of the Goods of his said Master the Plaintiff If then the Defendant within one month after notice thereof given to him do pay and satisfie the Plaintiff for all such sums of Monies Wares c. so taken or riotously spent by the Defendant or by any other by his procurement or consent the same being sufficiently proved that then c. The Defendant by protestation Quod nec
ipse nor any other by his procurement or consent had taken or riotously spent the Goods of the Plaintiff for Plea saith That the Plaintiff before the Writ brought had not sufficiently proved that the said John Hallywel took or riotously spent any of the Plaintiffs Goods Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was argued by Daniel That the proof is sufficient and good for the time if it be tried in the Action upon this Obligation and the proof intended is proof by twelve men for it is not set down before what person it shall be proved nor any manner of proof appointed and therefore it shall be tried according the Law of the Land which see 10 E. 4. 11. 7 R. 2. Bar. 241. Godfrey contrary This case is not like to the cases before for here is a further matter First warning and a month after Notice pay c. And if the proof shall be made in this Action the Defendant shall lose the benefit of the Condition which gives time to pay it within a month after for in all such cases the precedent Act of the Obligee is traversable as 10 H. 7. 13. I am bound by Obligation to enfeoff such a person of such Lands as the Obligee shall appoint In an Action brought against me I shall say-that the Plaintiff hath not appointed c. And here ought to be Notice first and proof ought to precede the Notice by the meaning of the Condition and so this differs from the other cases put for here proof is not the substance of the whole Owen Serjeant It is the folly of the Defendant to put himself to such an inconvenience for now he ought to pay the mony without delay of any month And here the Defendant ought to plead That he hath not imbezelled any goods of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Replicando shall say and shew the Special matter that he hath given Notice to him thereof See 15 E. 4. 25. CCCXLV. Manning and Andrews Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Devise 4 Len. 2. IN Ejectione firmae the Iury found by special Verdict That Richard Hart and Katharine his Wife and divers other persons 1 H. 8. were seised of the Lands in question to the use of Richard and his Heirs ad per implend ultimam volunt dict Rich. who the first of August 8 H. 8. by his Will in writing devised That his Feoffees should be from thenceforth seised to the use of his said Wife for her life and after to the use of W. H. his Son for his life without impeachment of Wast and after the death of the said Katharine his Wife William his Son and Joan Wife of the said William his Feoffees should be seised to the use of the next Heir of the Body of the said William and Joan lawfully begotten for the term of the life of the same Heir and after the decease of the same Heir to the use of the next heir of the same heir lawfully begotten and for default of such issue to the use of the heirs of the body of the said William and Joan lawfully begotten for the term of life or lives of every such heir or heirs More Rep. 368. and for default of such heirs to the use of the heirs of the body of the said William and for default c. to the right heirs of William And further he willed That if any of the said heirs shall set alien say to mortgage the right title and interest which they or any of them shall have in or out of the same Lands or by their consent or assent suffer any Recovery to be had against them c. or do any other Act whereby they or their heirs or any of them may or ought to be disinherited that then the use limited to such heir so doing shall be void and of no effect during his life And that his said Feoffees shall be thenceforth seised to the use of the heir apparent of such Offender as though he were dead Richard Hart died William had issue by the said Joan his wife a Son named Thomas and died and afterwards 31 H. 8. Joan died Katharine died Thomas entred and had issue Francis and Percival Thomas by Deed indented 1 August 4 Eliz. bargained and sold to Andrews and levied a Fine to him with warranty And afterwards 6 Eliz. Francis levied a Fine to the said Andrews Sur conusans de droit come ceo And further by the said Fine released to him with warranty at the time of which Fine levied Percival was heir apparent to the said Francis Francis after had issue I. and F. who are now living The heir of the Survivor of the Feoffees within five years after the age of Percival and seven years after the Fine levied enter to revive the use limited to Percival who entred and leased to the Plaintiff This case was argued by the Iustices of the Kings Bench c. First It was agreed by the whole Court That Richard Hart being seised with seven others unto the use of himself and his heirs might well devise all the use Use suspended yet the Land devised although his use was in part suspended because he was joyntly seised with seven others to his own use and so the use for the eighth part suspended for when this Devise is to take effect i. e. at the time of his death all the possession of the Land by the Survivor passeth from the use and then the use being withdrawn from the possession shall well pass And by Wray A use suspended may be devised As if Feoffees to use before the Statute of 27 H. 8. be disseised by which disseisin the use is suspended and afterwards during the disseisin Cestuy que use by his Will deviseth That his Feoffees shall re-enter and then make an estate to I. S. in Fee the same is a good devise for by that disseisin the trust and confidence reposed by Cestuy que use in the Feoffees is not suspended Secondly It was holden that here a use implied was limited to Joan the wife of William although there be not any express devise of it according to the Book of 13 H. 7. 17. Thirdly when a use is limited to the Heir of the body of William and Joan lawfully begotten for life and afterwards to the Heir of the body of the same heir for life c. Geofry Iustice was of opinion That here is in effect an estate tail for the estates limited are directed to go in course of an estate tail for he wills That every heir of the body of his Son shall have the Land and the special words shall not make another estate to pass but that which the Law wills As if Lands be given to one for life the Remainder after his death to the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten notwithstanding that the words of the limitation imply two several estates yet because the Law so wills it is but one estate Gawdy Iustice said That
every issue begotten betwixt William and Joan should have an estate for life successive and a Remainder in tail expectant as right heir of the body of William A Contingent shall hinder the execution of an estate in possession and this estate tail shall not be executed in possession by reason of the mesne Remainder for life limited to the heir of the body of William and Joan and although that these mesne Remainders are but upon a contingent and not in esse yet such regard shall be had to them that they shall hinder the execution of the estates for life and in tail in possession As if an estate be made to A. for life the Remainder to the right heirs of B. in tail the Remainder in Fee to A. although the estate tail be in abeyance and not in esse during the life of B. yet in respect thereof the Free-hold and Fee shall not be conjoyned Southcote Iustice To the same purpose And he put a case lately adjudged betwixt Vaughan and Alcock Vaughan and Alcocks case Land was devised to two men and if any of them dieth his heirs shall inherit these devisees are Tenants in common because in by devise but contrary if it were by way of Grant Lands are devised to A. and B. to be betwixt them divided they are Tenants in common Wray William and Thomas have but for life for they are purchasors by the name heir in the singular number but when he goes further and says for want of such issue to the heirs of the body of William in the plural number now Will. hath an Inheritance And if a devise be made to one for life and then to his heir for life and so from heir to heir in perpetuum for life here are two estates for life and the other Devisees have Fee for estates for life cannot be limited by general words from heir to heir but by special words they may And here Thomas being next heir of the body of William and Joan hath an estate for life and also being heir of the body of the said William hath a Remainder in tail to him limited the mesn remaineth limited to others i. e. to the next heir of the body of Thomas being in abeyance Co 11. Rep. 80. because limited by the name heir his Father being alive shall not hinder the execution of these estates but they shall remain in force according to the rules of the common Law Then Thomas so being seised levyeth a Fine against the Provision of the Will by which Thomas hath forfeited his estate for life and so his next heir shall have the Land during his life And a great reason wherefore the heirs ut supra after the two first limitations shall have tail is because that if every heir should have but for life they should never have any Interest in the Lands by these limitations for by the express words of the devise none shall take but the heir of the first heir for ever i. e. When Thomas aliens by which the use vests in Francis and when afterwards Francis levieth a Fine then the use vests in Percival Hâ—rt being next heir of the said Francis at the time of the Fine levyed notwithstanding that afterwards Francis had a Son which is his next heir and therefore the use in Percival by the birth of the said Son in Francis shall not be devested Estate vested shall not be devested because it was a thing vested in him before by purchase 9 H. 7. 25. A enfeoffs B. upon condition on the part of A. to be performed 1 Cro. 61. and dyeth having issue a Daughter the Daughter performs the condition and afterwards a Son is born the Daughter shall hold the Lands against the Son So 5. E. 4 6. A woman hath issue a Daughter and afterwards consents to a Ravisher the Daughter enters and afterwards a Son is born yet the Daughter shall hold the Lands for ever i. e. And Geofries Iustice said Francis being in by force of the Forfeiture shall not be subject to the limitation of the Will i. e. to any forfeiture if he alien for the estate which Francis hath for his life is but an estate gained by the offence of his Father and the use was limited to him upon the Will of Richard and then the said estate is not subject to the Proviso of the Will and then hath not Francis committed any forfeiture And admit Francis shall forfeit yet Percival shall get nothing thereby but the estate which Francis had at the time of the Fine levied scil the Free-hold only for no estate of Inheritance was in him living his Father As to the regress of the Feoffees Geofries was of opinion That where an use is limited to a person certain and thereupon vested in the person to whom it is limited That the Entry of the Feoffees in such case is not requisite notwithstanding that the first estates be discontinued but where the use as in our case is not limited to a person certain in esse but is in abeyance not vested in any person upon the limitation of it some estate ought to be left in the Feoffees to maintain that use and to render it according to the limitation and in our case these uses not in esse at the time of the making of the Statute of 27 H. 8. could not be executed by the said Statute but now at the appointed time by the limitation shall be raised and revived by the Entry of the Feoffees but here by the Fine and Non-claim the Feoffees are bound and their Entry taken away and so no use can accrue to Percival Hart by such Entry Southcote Iustice was of opinion that the Feoffees cannot enter at all because that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. nothing is left in them at the time of the making of the Statute which saves the right of every person c. other than the Feoffees so as no right is saved to them but all is drawn out of them by the operation of the Statute and the second saving of the Statute saves to the Feoffees all their former Right so as the Right which the Feoffees had by the Feoffment to the use is utterly gone But Percival Hart may well enter for he is not bound to the five years after the Fine levied for he had not right at the time of the Fine levied but his right came by the Fine Wray chief Iustice The Feoffees are not to enter for the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath two branches 1. gives the possession to Cestuy que use in such manner as he hath in the use 2. takes away all the right out of the Feoffees and gives it to Cestuy que use so as nothing at all remains in the Feoffees for if an Act of Parliament will give to me all the Lands whereof my brother Southcote is seised and that I shall be in the Seisin thereof now is the actual possession in me without my
Entry so where an use is often executed by the Statute Cestuy que use without any Entry hath an actual possession i. As to the uses contingent nothing remains in the Feoffees for the setling of them when they happen but the whole estate is setled in Cestuy que use yet subject to such use and he shall render the same upon contingency And if any estate should remain in the Feoffees it could be but an estate for life for the Fee simple is executed in Cestuy que use with an estate in possession and then the Feoffees should be seised to another use than was given them by the Livery Also if a Feoffment be made unto the use of the Feoffor and his heirs until J.S. hath paid unto the Feoffor 100 l. from thenceforth the Feoffor and his heirs shall be seised to the use of the said J.S. and his heirs if upon such Feoffment any thing should remain in the Feoffees before the payment by I.S. the same should be a Fee-simple and then there should be two Fee-simples of one and the same Lands one in the Feoffor and the other in the Feoffees which should be absurd and therefore the best way to avoid such inconveniences is to continue the Statute that it draws the whole estate of the Land and also the confidence out of the Feoffees and reposeth it upon the Lands the which by the operation of the Statute shall render the use to every person in his time according to the limitation of the parties And also if any Interest doth remain in the Feoffees Then if they convey to any person upon consideration who hath not notice of the use then the said use shall never rise which is utterly against the meaning of the said Statute and the meaning of the parties and therefore to construe the Statute to leave nothing in the Feoffees will prevent all such mischief And if a Feoffment in fee be made to the use of the Feoffor for life and afterwards to the use of his wife which shall be for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor The Feoffor enfeoffeth a stranger taketh a wife now cannot the Feoffees enter during the life of the Feoffor and after his death they cannot enter because they could not enter when the use to the wife was to begin upon the intermarriage and then if the Entry of the Feoffees in such case should be requisite the use limited to the wife by the Act of the Feoffor should be destroyed against his own limitation which is strong against the meaning of the Act aforesaid for by the said act the Land is credited with the said use which shall never fail in the performance of it And such contingent estates in Remainder may be limited in possession a Fortiori in use which see 4. E. 6. Coithirsts case 23. And Plesingtons case 6 R. 2. And it is true at the common Law the Entry of the Feoffees was requisite because the wrong was done unto them by reason of the possession which they then had but now by the Statute all is drawn out of them and then there is no reason that they medle with the Lands wherein they have now nothing to do and the scope of the Statute is utterly to disable the Feoffees to do any thing in prejudice of the uses limited so as the Feoffees are not to any purpose but as a Pipe to convey the Lands to others So as they cannot by their Release or confirmation c. bind the uses which are to grow and arise by the limitation knit unto the Feoffment made unto them which see Br. 30. 30 H. 8. Feoffments to uses 50 A. covenants with B. That when A. shall be enfeoffed by B. of three Acres of Lands in D. that then the said A. and his Heirs shall be seised of Land of the said A. in S. to the use of B. and his Heirs and afterwards A. enfeoffeth a stranger of his Lands in S. And afterwards B. enfeoffeth A. of his Lands in D. now the Feoffee of A. shall be seised to the use of B. notwithstanding that the said Feoffee had not notice of the use for Land is bound with the use in whose hands soever it come And see the like case ibid. 1. Ma. 59. Vpon the reason of which cases many assurances have been made for it is the common manner of Mortgage i. e. If the Mortgag or pay such a sum c. that then the Mortgagee and his Heirs shall be seised after such payment to the use of the Mortgagor and his Heirs In that case although that the Mortgagee alien yet upon the payment the use shall rise well enough out of the possession of the Alienee and the Lands shall be in the Mortgagor without any Entry For the Mortgages could not enter against his own alienation to revive the use which is to rise upon the payment and therefore without any assistance of such Entry it shall arise As at the Common Law Land is given to A. in tail the Remainder to the right heirs of B. A. levies a Fine makes a Feoffment suffers a Recovery c. although the same shall bind the Issues yet if B. dyeth and afterwards A. dyeth without issue now notwithstanding this Fine c. The right Heir of B. may enter And always a use shall spring out of the Land at his due opportunity and it is a collateral charge which binds the Lands by the first Liberty and cannot be discharged vi 49. Ass 8. 49 E. 3. 16. Isabell Goodcheapes case A man deviseth that his Executors shall sell his Lands and afterwards dyeth without heir so as the Land escheats to the King yet the authority given to the Executors shall bind the Lands in whose hands soever it comes c. And so a title of Entry continues notwithstanding twenty alienations But an use is a less thing than a Title of Entry especially an use in contingency and an use as long as it is in contingency cannot be forfeited As if the Mortgagor be attainted and pardoned mean betwixt the Mortgage and the day of Redemption c. Then when Thomas levies a Fine Francis may well enter And Thomas before the Fine had an estate tail executed to his Free-hold and therefore by the Fine he gave an estate of Inheritance to the Conusee and then no right of entail remained in Francis but he took an estate for life only and that as a Purchasor by the limitation of the Will and then when Francis levied a Fine his estate was gone which was but for life and then the right of the entail and all the other estates which are especially limited are also gone and so Percival Hart to whom no estate was specially limited hath not any cause to enter c. And it was further said by Wray Husband and Wife Tenants in special tail the Husband levies a Fine with Proclamations and dieth the Wife enters the issue in tail is
barred but if the Wife enter after the death of her Husband and before the Proclamations pass the issue is not bound by the Fine And if Tenant in Tail granteth totum statum and after levieth a Fine thereof with Proclamations come ceo c. The Issue is barred contrary where the Fine is upon a Release c. CCCXLVI Henningham and Windhams Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARthur Henningham brought a Writ of Error against Francis Windham upon a common Recovery had against Henry his Brother Error Owen Rep. 68. and the Case was That Land was given in special tail to Thomas Henningham Father of the said Henry and the said Arthur the Remainder in general tail the estate tail in possession was to him and the Heirs Mairs of his body Thomas had issue the said Henry and three Daughters by one woman and the said Arthur and two other Sons by another woman and dyed seised Henry entred and made a Feoffnent a common Recovery is had against the Feoffee in which Henry is vouched who vouched over the common Vouchee according to the usual course of common Recoveries Henry dyed without issue Error and Attaint by him to whom the Land is to descend and Arthur brought a Writ of Error being but of the half blood to Henry And it was resolved by the whole Court That Error and Attaint always descends to such person to whom the Land should descend If such Recovery or false oath had not been As if Lands be given to one and the Heirs Females of his body c. and suffers an erronious Recovery and dyeth the Heir female shall have the Writ of Error So upon Recovery of Lands in Borough English for such Action descends according to the Land quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam But it was objected on the Defendants part That because that the Feoffee being Tenant to the Praecipe is to recover in value a Fee-simple and so Henry is to yield a Fee-simple which should descend to the heir at the Common Law if this Recovery had not been therefore he to whom the same should descend should have the Writ of Error for he hath the loss But the said Exception was not allowed And it was said That Tenant in tail upon such a Recovery shall recover but an estate in tail scil such estate which he had at the time of the warranty made c. And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Action was maintainable So if a man hath Lands of the part of his mother and loseth it by erronious Iudgment and dyeth That the Heir of the part of the Mother shall have the Writ of Error CCCXLVII Foster and Pitfalls Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the Case was 1 Cro. â— Brook devised Lands to his Wife in general Tail the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee and dyed he took another Husband and had issue a Daughter The Husband and Wife levyed a Fine to a stranger The Daughter as next Heir by 11 H. 7. entred It was agreed by the whole Court That an estate devised to the wife is within the words but not within the meaning of the Statute Secondly It was resolved That no estate is within the meaning of the Statute unless it be for the Ioynture of the Wife Thirdly Resolved That the meaning of the Statute was That the wife so preferred by the Husband should not prejudice the issues or heirs of her Husband and here nothing is left in the Issues or heirs of the Husband so as the Wife could not prejudice them for the Remainder is limited over CCCLXVIII Greenes Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Acceptance of Rent 1 Cro. 3. 3 Co. 64. b. GReene made a Lease for years rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry and the Rent due at the Feast of the Annunciation was behind being demanded at the day which Rent the Lessor afterwards accepted and afterwards entred for the condition broken and his Entry holden lawful Entry Plow Com. in Browning and Bestons Case for the Rent was due before the condition broken but if the Lessor accepts the next Quarters Rent then he hath lost the benefit of Re-entry for thereby he admits the Lessee to be his Tenant And if the Lessor distrain for Rent due at the said Feast of the Annunciation after the forfeiture he cannot afterwards re-enter for the said forfeiture for by his Distress he hath affirmed the possession of the Lessee So if he make an Acquittance for the Rent as a Rent contrary if the Acquittance be but for a sum of mony and not expresly for the Rent all which tota Curia concessit CCCXLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Lessee for life the Remainder for life the Remainder in tail the Remainder in fee The two Tenants for life make a Feoffment in fee. Dyer A woman Tenant for life in Ioynture the Remainder for life the Remainder in fee the Tenants for life joyn in a Feoffment Entry for Forfeiture the Entry of him in the Remainder in fee is lawful by 11 H. 7. And if Tenant for life be impleaded and he in the Remainder for life will not pray to be received he in the last Remainder may and so in our case inasmuch as he in the Remainder for life was party to the wrong he in the Remainder in tail shall enter Which Harper and Munson granted Dyer 339. a. i. e. Manwood Although that this Feoffment be not a Disseisin to him in the Remainder in tail yet it is a wrong in a high degree as by Littleton A Disseisor leaseth for life to A. who aliens in fee the Disseisee releaseth to the Alienee it is a good Release and the Disseisor shall not enter although the Alienation was to his disinheritance Lit. 111. which Dyer granted And if Tenant for life alieneth in fee and the Alienee enfeoffeth his Father and dieth the same descent shall not avail him no more than in case of Disseisin Livery of Seism It hath been objected that this is the Livery of the first Tenant for life and the confirmation of him in the Remainder for life Dyer was of opinion That by this Livery the Remainder for life passeth and this Livery shall be as well the Livery of him in the Remainder as of the Tenant in possession and although where an estate is made lawfully by many it shall be said the Livery of him only who lawfully may make Livery Yet where an estate is wrongfully made it shall be accounted in Law the Livery of all who joyn in it And in this the Remainder for life is extinguished by the Livery in the Feoffee and the Livery of him in the Remainder for life shall be holden a void Livery especially when he joyns with such a person who hath not authority to make Livery As if the Lord and a Stranger Disseise the Tenant and make a Feoffment over the whole Seigniory is
formally expressed in the usual Terms As to the second payment Where a man bargains and sells his Lands by Deed indented to be enroled and before enrolment he makes Livery to the Bargainee and afterwards the Indentur is enroled the Court discharged Beamount from the arguing of that Point Liveâ—y where it prevents operation of an Enrolment for by Wray the Livery doth prevent the operation of the Enrolment and Sir George shall be accounted in by the Livery and not by the bargain and sale for Livery is of more worth and more worthy ceremony to pass estates and therefore shall be preferred and then the Livery being made in such part of the Mannor which was in the possession of the Feoffor in the name of the whole Mannor no more of the Mannor passeth but that which was then in the possession of the Feoffor And the Reversion of such part of the Mannor which was in Lease shall not pass without Attornment but when the Enrolment cometh now the whole passeth and then the Reversion being setled by the Enrolment the Attornment coming afterwards hath no relation See 48 E. 3. 15 16. The Iury here have found the default of payment whereby the conditional use which passed by the bargain and sale upon the condition broken shall be reduced to the Bargainor without any Entry 1. Cro. 382. and then the uses limited after are void for an use limited upon an use cannot rise quod fuit concessum per totam curiam Then Bracebridge the Father having the Inheritance of the said Mannor in his own right and the interest de futuro for years in the right of his Wife joyntly with the said A. when he sells the said Mannor by Deed indented and enroled now thereby the interest for years which he hath in the Right of his Wife doth not pass for a bargain and sale is not so strong a conveyance as a Livery As if I have a Rent-charge in the right of my Wife out of the Manor of D. which Manor afterwards I purchase and afterwards by Deed indented and enroled I bargain and sell the said Manor c. the Rent shall not pass Then the said Thomas Bracebridge the Father having the said Right of an entail to him and to the Heirs Males of his body and being Tenant for life by his own conveyance the Remainder in tail to his Son and Heir apparent the now Defendant when he levyeth a Fine and the Son enters for forfeiture before Proclamations pass and his Father dyeth in that case the Defendant is not remitted unto the first entail although after Proclamations pass in the life of the Father and so he shall not avoid the Leases for notwithstanding that the Issue in tail by that Entry hath defeated the possession which passed by the Fine yet as to the right of the old entail the Fine doth retain its force and so he entred quodam modo in assurance of the Fine As if Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth the Discontinuee and levieth a Fine with Proclamations and the Discontinuee enters within the five years now although the Fine as to the Discontinuee be avoided so as the possession which passed by the Fine is defeated yet the right of the entail doth continue bound Egerton Solicitor contrary and he conceived that all the Mannor doth pass by the Livery to Sir George and nothing of it by the Enrolment and that the meaning of the parties was that all should pass by the Livery for if the assurance should enure by the bargain and sale then the second uses limited upon default of payment should never rise for an use upon an use cannot rise and then the said uses limited for the payment of the debts of the Feoffor c. should be defeated and also where at the begining of the assurance the condition was entire the warranty entire c. and if such construction should be allowed here shall be a divided condition a divided warranty And also the meaning of the parties that the whole Mannor should pass by such construction should be dismembred and part pass by the Livery and part by the bargain and sale and we ought to make such constructions of Deeds that things may pass by them according to the meanings of the parties as if I be seised of a Mannor to which and Advowson is appendant and I make a Deed of Feoffment of the same Mannor cum pertinencijs and deliver the Deed to the party but no Livery of seisin is had the Advowson shall not pass for then it should be in gross whereas the meaning of the parties was that it should pass as appendant and that in such case cannot be for there is no Livery therefore it shall not pass at all and so it hath been adjudged So if I bargain and sell my Mannor of D. and all the Trees in the same and I deliver the Deed but it is not enrolled the Trees shall not pass for the intent of the parties was that the Trees should pass as parcel of the Free-hold and not as Chattels And as to the remitter I conceive that the Heir entring as Heir by the Law is remitted but where the Entry is given by a special Statute there the Entry shall not enure further than the words of the Statute As Land is given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the Husband levieth a Fine and dieth the wife entreth this Entry shall not avail to the issue in tail for the Entry is given to the Wife by a special Law And he cited Sir Richard Haddons Case the Husband aliened the Lands of his Wife they are divorced the Husband dieth the Wife shall not enter by 32. H. 8. but is put to her Writ of Cui in vita ante divor And afterwards the same Term the Iustices having considered of the Case delivered their opinions upon the matters by Wray chief Iustice viz. That the one moyety of the Lease was extinct by the Livery viz. the moyety of Ioyce the Wife of the Lessor and as to the other moyety it is in being for here is no remitter for if any remitter had been in the Case it should be after the use raised which is not as yet raised for the Land ought to remain in Sir George until the said five hundred pounds be levyed and that is not found by the Verdict and therefore for the said moyety the Plaintiff had Iudgment XI Treshams Case Mich 25 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer SIR John Tresham seised of the Manor of D. holden of the King in Capite by Knights service 4 H. 7. enfeoffed Edmund Earl of Wilts and N. Vaux Knight who gave the said Manor to the said Sir John in tail upon condition that he should not alien c. quo minus c. John Tresham dyed seised by whose decease the Manor descended to Tho. Tresham who entred 2 Len. 55 56. and 18 H. 8. aliened with
for that he hath not made his Fresh sute according to the Law for he ought to have begun his Fresh sute within the Hundred where the Robbery was done and it was also objected that the Robbery was done post occasum solis in which Case the Hundreders are not to pursue the Malefactors And Walmsley Serjeant cited a Case out of Bracton Si appellatus se defenderit contra appellantem tota dle usque ad horam in qua Stellae incipiunt apparere recedat quietus de appello and it is not reason to drive the Hundreders to Follow felons at such a time 1 Cro. 270. when for want of light they cannot see them And all the Iustices were clear of opinion that if the Robbery was done in the night time the Inhabitants are not bound to make the pursute And by Rhodes if in a Praecipe quod reddat of Lands the Sheriff summons the Demandant upon the Land in the time of night such a summons is meerly void LXXIII Wiseman and Wisemas Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin 28. Rot. 1458. IN an Action of Debt by Wiseman against Wiseman the Case was Debt 1 And. 160. Owen 140. that one Wiseman was seised of the Lands and by his Will devised 1. I will and bequeath unto my Wife B. acre for the Term of her life the remainder to my Son Thomas in tail Item I will and bequeath unto my Son Thomas Devises all my Lands in D. and also my Lands in S. and also my Lands in V. Also I give and bequeath unto the said Thomas my Son all that mâ— Island or Land enclosed with water which I purchased of the Earl of Essex To have and to hold all the said last before devised premisses unto the said Thomas my Son and the Heirs of his Body The only matter was If the Habendum shall extend to the Island only in which Case Thomas shall have but for life in the Lands in D. S. and V. or unto the Island and also to the Lands in D. S. and V 2 Roll. 60. Roph. 126. in which Case he shall have fee-Fee-tail in the whole And it was argued by Fenner that the Habendum should extend to the Island only as he said the opinion of the Iustices of this Court was in 4 Eliz. in another Case I devise my Manor to D. my eldest Son and also my Land in S. in tail in that Case the entail limited for the Land in S. shall not extend to the 1 Roll. 844. said Manor and of such opinion was Weston Welsh and Dyer Brown contra that the Son hath tail in both But if the words of the devise had been I devise my Manor of D. and my Lands in S. to my Son in tail here the Son had an estate tail in both So it hath been adjudged that if I devise Lands to A. B. and C. successively as they be named the same is good by way of Remainder Walmesley contrary and he relied much upon this that the words of the Habendum are in the plural number 2 Bulst 180. 181. All the last before devised premisses whereas the thing lately devised by the Will was an Island in the singular number which cannot satisfie the Habendum Extent of an Habendum which is in the plural number and therefore to verifie the plural number in the Habendum the Habendum by fit construction shall extend to all the Lands in D. S. and V. and so upon his motion made at another day it was resolved by all the Iustices that the Habendum should extend to all the said Lands and the Habendum should not streighten the Devise to the Island only LXXIV Fullwood and Fullwoods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Bail renders himself in Court. IN an Action upon the Case the Defendant put in bail to the Court to answer to the Action and now Iudgment being given against him he came into Court and rendred himself and prayed that in discharge of his sureties that the Court would record the rendring of himself which was granted And the Court demanded of the Plaintiff if he would pray execution for the body against the Defendant who said he would not whereupon the Court awarded that the sureties should be discharged and the Rule was entred that the Defendant offered himself in discharge of his sureties and Attornatus Querentis allocatus per curiam c. dixit se nolle c. Ideo consideratum fuit per curiam quod tam praedict defend quam praedict Manucaptores de recognitione praedict denariis in eadem contentis exonerentur LXXV Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was He in the Reversion upon a Lease for years makes a Charter of Feoffment to divers persons to the use of himself for life Feoffments and after to the use of his eldest Son in tail and the words of the Charter were Dedi Concessi Barganizavi Feoffavi and he sealed and delivered the deed but no livery of seisin was made and afterwards he came to his Lessee for years and said to him that he had made a Feoffment and shewed also the uses but did not shew to whom the Feoffment was made to whom the Lessee said you have done very well I am glad of it Attornment And if that were a good Attornment was the Question It was said that that was the Case of one Arden And Gent and Manwood were of opinion that the same was no Attornment because it was not made to the Feoffee scil to the Grantee of the Reversion and so it was ruled in this Case for Attornment ought to be to the Grantee himself and not to Cestuy que use 1 Cro. 251. Tythes and where the spiritual court shall have jurisdiction of them LXXVI The Parson of Facknams Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Parson of great Facknam brought an Action of Trespass against the Parson of Hannington and the Case was If the Parson of one Parish claim by prescription a portion of Tythes out of the Parish of another if the Spiritual Court shall have the Iurisdiction for the tryal of it And the opinion of the whole Court was clear that it should because that the matter is betwixt two spiritual persons and concerning the right of Tithes As 35 H. 6. 39. I. Vicar of B. brought Trespass for taking away of forty loads of Beans c. The Defendant pleaded that he is Parson of the said Church of B. and the Plaintiff is Vicar c. and before the Trespass c. the Beans were growing in the same Town and severed from the nine parts and he took them as belonging to his said Church and demanded Iudgment of the Court c. The Plaintiff said that he and all his Predecessors Vicars c. time out of mind c. have used to have the Tithes of such a Close c. belonging to his Vicaridge and
one of them dieth her Heir within age and in Ward to the King The Church voideth and the King is disturbed in his presentment he shall have a Scire facias upon such composition notwithstanding that he be a stranger to it See F.N.B. 34 H. And by all the Iustices if one recover in Debt upon a simple contract and before execution the Plaintiff is out-lawed in an Action personal the King shall sue execution And see 37 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt upon an Obligation it was surmised to the Court that the Plaintiff was out-lawed And the Kings Attorney prayed delivery of the Obligation c. LXXXV Moile and the Earl of Warwicks Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Quare Impedit A Quare Impedit was brought by Walter Moile against Ambrose Earl of Warwick and the Archbishop of Canterbury And now came the Serjeanes of the Queen and shewed an Office to entitle the Queen to have a Writ to the Bishop containing such matter viz. That one Guilford was seised of the Manor of D. to which the Advowson of the Church was appendant and that Manor was holden in chief by Knights service and that Guilford and his Wife levied a Fine thereof to the use of themselves for their lives the remainder over in tail to their eldest Son and that Guilford is dead but who is his next Heir ignorant And it was shewed by the Council of the other side that the truth of the Case was that the said Guilford was seised of the said Manor in the right of his Wife and so levied the Fine in which Case the said coveyance is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. for it was for the advancement of the Husband not of the Wife which Anderson granted Vide Dyer 19 Eliz. 354. Caverlies Case but that is not in the Office And it was moved at the Bar that the Office is imperfect because no Heir is found But Anderson the Office is sufficient for the King to seise although it be insufficient for the Heir c. And it was agreed by the whole Court Office trove that the Court ought not to receive the Office although one would affirm upon oath that it is the very Office but it ought to be brought in under the Great Seal of England and also the Court shall not receive it without a Writ and yet Nelson Prothonotary said that the Statute of Huy and Cry of Winchester was brought into the Court without a Writ under the great Seal A Record not to be brought into Court without a Writ 63. and that was out of the Tower And in that Case also the Iustices held that if a Record be pleaded in the same Court where it abides the other party against whom it is pleaded may plead Nul tiel Record as if the said Record had bin remaining in another Court which all the Prothonotaries denied that always it had been used to the contrary At another day the Case was moved again The Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit counted that Richard Guilford was seised of the said Manor c. in the right of Bennet his Wife and so seised they both levied a Fine thereof to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo who rendred it to the Husband and Wife for their lives the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband and they so being seised the Husband alone levied a Fine to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine the Conusee rendred to the Husband and Wife in tail the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband the Husband died seised the Wife entred and leased the said Manor to the Plaintiff and then the Church did become void And now the Queens Serjeants came and shewed unto the Court an Office which came in by Mittimus In which Writ the perclose is Mandamus vobis quod inspectis c. pro nobis fieri faciatis quod secundum leges consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae faciend Statuetis And the Office did purport that the said Richard was seised of the said Manor and held the same of the Queen as of her Castle of Dover by Knights service in chief and levied the Fine ut supra and that the said Richard died sed quis sit propinquior haeres dict Ric. penitus ignorant and upon that Office prayed a Writ to the Bishop for the Queen And two Exceptions were taken to the Office First because it is not found by the said Office that the said Richard died seised 1 Cro. 895. in which Case it may be for any thing that appeareth in the Office that the said Richard after the said Fine had conveyed his estate in the said Lands unto others or that he was disseised c. See 3 H. 6. 5. If it be not found of what estate the Tenant of the King died seised the Office is insufficient But see there by Martin that such an Office is good enough for the King but not for the Heir to sue his Livery upon it And by Anderson Periam and Rhodes that defect in the Office is supplyed by the Count for there it is expressly alledged that the said Richard died seised Secondly because no Heir is found by the said Office. To which it was said by the Lord Anderson that peradventure at the Common Law the same had been a material Exception But we ought to respect the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. of Wills. And therefore as to the Wife the Queen is entitled to Primer seisin because the conveyance was made for her advancement And by Windham the Queen in this Cale shall not have Primer seisin for by the Statute the Queen shall not have Primer seisin but in such Case where if no conveyance had been made the Queen should have had Primer seisin but in this Case for any thing that appears before us if this conveyance had not been made the Queen should not have had Primer seisin forasmuch as no Heir is found and if he died without Heir there is no Primer seisin because there is not any in rerum natura to sue livery Rhodes Periam and Anderson contrary Admitting that Richard died withou Heir the Queen shall have Primer seisin against the Wife of Richard notwithstanding the escheat Walmesley Serjeant If the Tenant of the King by Knights service in chief dieth seised of other Lands holden of a common person by Knights service without Heirs the King shall not have Primer seisin of such Lands holden of a Subject which Windham granted But by Anderson the Lord is put to sue an Ouster le mayne of the Land holden of him And afterward Exception was taken to the Count because the Plaintiff hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail that is of Bennet the Wife of Richard to whom
Ancestor of the Demandant was pleaded in Bar by the name of W the Demandant in avoidance of it would have said that the name of his Father was R. to have avoided the Fine but to that he was not received And 3 E. 3. 32. scil Averment 42. In a Formedon the Tenant pleaded Ne dona pas The Demandant by Replication said That a Fine was levied of the same Lands between the Father of the Demandant and one T. by which Fine the Father of the Demandant did acknowledge to T. the Lands come ceo c. and the said T. gave by the said Fine to the Father of the Demandant the Land in tail Where it is said by Stone that since the gift is proved by as high a Record a man shall not aver against such matter in avoidance of the said Fine c. and yet the party against whom it was was a stranger to the Fine And see 38 E. 3. 7. The Lord shall not be received against a Fine levied by his Tenant to aver the dying seised of his Tenant in his Homage And as to the Issue in tail he conceived that the Averment doth not lie for him for the Issue in tail is as much privy as the Heir of a Tenant in Fee-simple And see 33 E. 3. scil Estoppel 280. In a Formedon the Tenant voucheth the Demandant Counter-pleaded that the Vouchee nor any of his Ancestors had any thing in the Land in demand after the seisin c. to which the Tenant said that to that the Demandant should not be received for the Father of the Demandant after the gift levied a Fine to the Ancestor of the Vouchee of the said Land in demand sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and the same was holden a good bar to the Counter-plea And it was said by the Iustices That although the Statute of West 2. of Donis conditionalibus doth not avoid the Fine as to the fore-closing of the Issue in tail of his Formedon yet it remaineth in force as to the restraining of the heir in tail to aver a thing against the Fine as well as against the heir in Fee-simple and in all Cases where he against whom a Fine is pleaded claims by him who levieth the Fine he shall not have the same Averment but where he claims by a stranger to the Fine there he shall have it well enough see 33 H. 6. 18. If my Father Tenant in tail or in Fee grant the Land by Fine and afterwards I make Title to the same Land by the same Ancestor and the Fine is pleaded against me I shall not be received to say that those who were parties to the Fine had not any thing at the time of the Fine levied but such a one an estranger whose estate c. but it is a good Plea for me to say that after the Fine such a one was seised in Fee and did enfeoff me vid. 22 E 3. 17. before 33 E. 3. Estoppel 280. And Dyer 16 Eliz. 334. The Father is Tenant for life the Remainder in Fee to his Son and Heir levieth a Fine to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. with warranty and takes back an estate by the same Fine in that case it was holden that the heir should not be received to aver continuance of the possession and seisin either ante finem tempore finis or post finem in the Tenant for life for it is a Feoffment upon Record and makes a discontinuance of the Remainder and Reversion The only Book in our Law to maintain the Averment is 12 E. 4. 15. by Brian who although he was a reverend Iudge in his time yet he erred in this that if Tenant in tail be disseised and levieth a Fine unto a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. that the Issue in tail may well say that partes ad finem nihil habuerunt but Coke and Lit. were clear of a contrary opinion and see in the same year fol. 12 by Fairfax and Littleton that if Tenant in tail where the Remainder is over to a stranger levieth a Fine sur conusans dodroit come ceo c. he in the Remainder may aver continuance of seisin against that Fine for he is not party nor heir to the party c. And the Stat. of 4 H. 7. goes strongly to extort such Averment out of the mouth of the Issue in tail for the words concerning the same point are saving to every person or persons not party nor privy to the said Fine their exception to avoid the said Fine by that that those which were parties to the said Fine nor any of them had ought in the Land at the time of the said Fine levied And it is clear that the Issue in tail is privy to his Ancestor whose heir to the tail he is which see agreed 19 H. 8. 6. 7. And he vouched the Case of one Stamford late adjudged Land was given to the eldest Son in tail the Remainder to the Father in tail the eldest Son levied a Fine sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and died without Issue in the life of his Father and afterwards the Father died the second Son shall inherit but if the eldest Son had survived the Father and afterwards died without Issue the second Son should have been barred Periam to the same intent It should be very dangerous to the Inheritances of the Subjects to admit of such Averments and by such means Fines which should be of great force and effect should be much weakned and he put many Cases to the same purpose as were put before by Rhodes Iustice and he shewed how that Fines and the power of them were much weakned by the Statute of non-claim whereof followed as the preface of the Statute of 4 H. 7. observeth the Vniversal trouble of the Kings Subjects and therefore by the said Statute of 4 H. 7. Fines for the good and safety of the Subjects were restored to their former Grandure and authority which should be construed by us who are Iudges strongly and liberally for the quiet and establishment of present possessions and for the barring and extinguishing of former rights and so did the Iudges our Predecessors which see in the Argument of the said Case between Stowel and the Lord Zouch So see such liberal construction 19 Eliz. Dyer 351. Where if Land be given to Husband and Wife in special tail and the Husband alone levieth a Fine and dieth having Issue the Issue is barred And it hath lately been adjudged by the advice of all the Iudges of England upon the Statute of 1 Ma. viz. All Fines levied whereupon Proclamations shall not be dayly made by reason of Adjournment of any Term shall be of as good force and strength to all intents and purposes as if such Term had been holden and kept from the beginning to the end thereof and not adjourned and the Proclamations shall be made in the following
and damages and in an Action upon the Case brought upon that promise the Plaintiff was barred for here is not any consideration for they bailed the Servant of their own head without the request of the Master and the matter which is alledgged for consideration is executed before the Assumpsit and the promise was not before the enlargment and the said bailment was not at the instance Claytons Rep. 45. 1 Cro. 756. or request of the Master And the Case of one Hudson was cited adjudged in the Kings Bench The Defendant in consideration that he was Administrator and natural Son of the Intestate and that the goods of his Father have come to his hands promiseth to pay the debt to the Plaintiff And in an Action upon the Case upon that promise the Defendant pleaded he made no such promise and it was found that no goods came to the hands of the Defendant And it was holden that the consideration that he was Administrator and Son to the Testator was not of any force to maintain the Action and afterwards in the principal Case the Iudgment was affirmed And it was moved by Coke that Iudgment should not be given against the Executor of his own goods if he had not goods of the Testator for the charge doth not extend beyond the consideration i. e. That the goods of the Testator came to the hands of the Defendant But Wray Iustice was of opinion that Iudgment shall be of his proper goods as in Case of confession Kemp Secondary if the Action be brought upon Assumpsit of the Testator Iudgment shall be of the goods of the Testator but of the promise of the Executor of his own goods but the Original Iudgment which is now affirmed was general CXXII Savel and Woods Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 71. 3 Len. 203. 265. Post 128. THe Case was That a Parson did Libel in the spiritual Court against a Parishoner for Tythes of such Lands within his Parish the Defendant came into the Kings Bench and surmised and that he and all those whose estate he hath in the Lands out of which the Tythes are demanded have used to pay every year five shillings to the Parish Clark of the same Parish for all the Tythes out of the same place And it was argued by Coke that that could not be for a Parish Clark is not a person corporate nor hath succession But if he had prescribed that they had used to pay it to the Parish Clark to the use of the Parson it had been good Also he ought to shew that the Parson ought of right to find the Parish Clark c. And he cited the Case of Bushie the Parson of Pancras who libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tithes The Defendant to have a prohibition did prescribe that he and all those c. had time out of mind c. used to pay to the Vicar c. and at last a Consultation was awarded because it was triable in the Ecclesiastical Court for both parties as well Vicar as Parson are spiritual persons and the modus decimandi is not in question but cui solvend And at another day it was agreed by the Iustices that of common right the Parson is not tied to find the Parish Clark for then he should be said the Parsons Clark and not the Parish Clark But if the Parson be tied to find such a Clark Challenge and such a sum hath been used to be paid to the Parish Clark in discharge of the Person the same had been a good prescription and so by way of composition and by Clench Tythes are to be paid to spiritual Persons but a Parish-Clark is a Lay-person And afterwards the Court granted a Consultation CXXIII Higham and Reynolds Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant 1 Maii 28 Eliz. cut down six posts of the house of the Plaintiff at D. The Defendant doth justifie because that the Free-hold of the house 10 Aprilis 27 Eliz. was to I. S. and that he by his commandment the same day and year did the Trespass c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law because the Defendant did not traverse without that that he was guilty before or after And the opinion of Wray was that the traverse taken was well enough because the Free-hold shall be intended to continue c. Vide 7. H. 7. 3. But all the other three Iustices were of a contrary opinion to Wray But they all agreed that where the Defendant doth justifie by reason of his Free-hold at the day supposed in the Declaration there the traverse before is good enough And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Defendant CXXIV Knight and Footmans Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass by Knight against Footman the Case upon the pleading was that one Margaret had issue two Sons Richard and Thomas Surrender of Copy-hold Land. and surrendred to the use of Richard for life and afterwards to the use of Thomas in Fee they both Thomas being within age surrender to the use of one Robert â—ap John in Fee who is admitted Richard dieth Co 1 Inst 248. Thomas dieth having issue A. who is also admitted and enters into the Land and if his entry be lawful or that he be put to his plaint in the nature of a Dum fuit infra aetatem was the Question And Wray was clear of opinion that it was And if a man seised of Copy-hold Land in the right of his Wife or Tenant in tail of a Copy-hold doth surrender to the use of another in Fee the same doth not make any discontinuance but that the issue in tail and the Wife may respectively enter 1 Cro. 372. 380. 391. 483. 717. More 596. and so was it holden in the Serjeants Case when Audley who afterwards was made Chancellor of England was made Serjeant and afterwards it was adjudged that the entry of the Enfant was lawful CXXV Sir Wollaston Dixies Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information was in the Exchequer against Sir Wollaston Dixie upon the Statute of Vsury upon not guilty pleaded Information upon the Statute of 13. Eliz of Usury The Informeâ— gave in evidence an usurious Contract upon a bargain of Wares The opinion of the Court was that the Information being exhibited for the loan of money that the Evidence was not pursuing nor leading to the Issue And yet the Iury against the opinion of the Court upon that evidence found the Defendant guilty And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Evidence did not maintain the Information nor prove the Issue ex parte Querentis and it was said there are three things within the Statute i. three words i. bargain loan and cheivizance and these three are several things and therefore if the Information be conceived upon loan and the Informer giveth in Evidence a corrupt
otherwise it should be idle And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Queen CLXIII Piers and Leversuchs Case In Ejectione firmae Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IT was found by special verdict that one Robert Leversuch Grand-father of the Defendant was Tenant in tail of certain Lands whereof c. and made a Lease for years to one Pur. who assigned it over to P. father of the Plaintiff Robert Leversuch died W. his Son and Heir entred upon P. who re-entred W. demised without other words the Land to the said P. for life the remainder to Joan his Wife for life the remainder to the Son of P. for life with warranty and made a Letter of Attorney therein to enter and deliver seisin accordingly P. died before that the Livery was executed and afterwards the Attorney made livery to Joan. W. died Ed. his Son and Heir entred upon the Wife she re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff who upon an ouster brought the Action Heale When P. entred upon W. Leversuch the issue in tail he was a disseisor and by his death the Land descending to his Heir the entry of W. Leversuch the issue in tail was taken away 3 Cro. 222. Cook contrary P. by his entry was not a disseisor but at the Election of W. for when P. accepted such a deed from W. it appeareth that his intent was not to enter as a disseisor and it is not found that the said P. had any Son and Heir at the time of his death and if not then no descent and there is not any disseisin found that P. expulit Leversuch out of the Land. And Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And Cook cited a Case which was adjudged in the Common Pleas and it was the Case of Shipwith Grand-father Tenant in tail Father and Son The Grand-father died the Father entred and paid the Rent to the Lessor and died in possession and adjudged that it was not any descent for the paying of the Rent doth explain by what title he entred and so he shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of another CLXIV Severn and Clerks Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. â—ts THe Case was that A. by his Deed Poll recited That whereas he was possessed of certain Lands for years of a certain Term By good and lawful conveyance he assigned the same to I. S. with divers Covenants Articles and Agreements in the said deed contained which are or ought to be performed on his part It was moved if this recital whereas he was be an Article or Agreement within the meaning of the condition of the said Obligation which was given to perform c. Gawdy conceived that it is an agreement For in such case I agree that I am possessed of it for every thing contained in the deed is an Agreement and not only that which I am bound to perform As if I recite by my deed that I am possessed of such an interest in certain Land and assign it over by the same deed and thereby covenant to perform all Agreements in the deed if I be not possessed of such Interest the covenant is broken And it was moved if that recital be within these words of the condition which are or ought to be performed on my part And some were of opinion that it is not within those words for that extends only in futurum but this recital is of a thing past or at the least present Recital 2 Cro. 281. Yyl. 206. Clench Recital of it self is nothing but being joyned and considered with the rest of the deed it is material as here for against this recital he cannot say that he hath not any thing in the Term. And at the length it was clearly resolved that if the party had not that Interest by a good and lawful conveyance the Obligation was forfeited CLXV Page and Jourdens Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trepass betwixt Page and Jourden the case was A Woman Tenant in tail took a Husband who made a Feoffment in Fee and died The Wife without any Entry made a Lease for years It was moved that the making of this Lease is an Entry in Law. As if A. make a Lease for years of the Land of B. who enters by force of that Lease A general entry amounts to a disseisin now the Lessor without any Entry is a Disseisor And it was resolved that by that Leasâ— the Free-hold is not reduced without an Entry CLXVI Havithlome and Harvies Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. 1 Cro. 130. 3 Cro. Goodwin vers West HAvithlome brought an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. against Harvy and his Wife for the penalty of ten pounds given by the said Statute against him who was served with process ad testificandum c. and doth not appear not having any impediment c. and shewed that process was served upon the Defendants Wife and sufficient charges having regard to her degree and the distance of the place c. tendred to her and yet she did not appear And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration is not good because the Plaintiff in setting forth that he was damaged for the not appearance of the Wife according to the process hath not shewed how damnified Also it was moved that a Feme Covert is not within the said Statute for no mention is made of a Feme Covert and therefore upon the Statute of West 2. cap. 25. If a Feme Covert fail of her Record she shall not be holden disseisseress nor imprisoned Also here the Declaration is that the Plaintiff tendered the charges to the Wife where he ought to have tendered the same to the Husband To these three Exceptions it was answered 1. That although the party be not at all damnified yet the penalty is forfeited 2. Feme Coverts are within the said Statute otherwise it should be a great mischeif for it might be that she might be the only witness And Feme Coverts if they had not been expresly excepted had been within the Statute of 4 H. 7. of Fines 3. The wife ought to appear therefore the tender ought to be to her And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXVII Dellaby and Hassels Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case 1 Cro. 132. the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant in consideration that he had retained the Plaintiff to go from London to Paris to Merchandize diverse goods to the profit of the Defendant promised to give to him so much as should content him and also to give him all and every sum of money which he should expend there in his Affairs and further declared that he was contented to have twenty-pounds for his labour which the Defendant refused to pay And exception was taken to the Declaration because there is
plead it specially but as our case is here is no Act to be done but a permittance as abovesaid and it is in the Negative not a disturbance in which case permisit is a good plea and then it shall come on the other side on the Plaintiffs part to shew in what Lands the Defendant non permisit Which difference see agreed 17 E. 4. 26. by the whole Court. And such was the opinion of the whole Court in the principal case 1 Co. 127. Another Exception was taken to it that the Defendant had covenanted that his brother Edward should pay to the Plaintiff the said Rent To which the Defendant pleaded that his said brother had payed to the Platntiff before the said Feast of Michaelmas in full satisfaction of the said Rent three shillings and that was holden a good plea and upon the matter the Covenant well performed for there is not any Rent in this Case for here is not any Lease and therefore not any Rent For if A. covenant with B. that C. shall have his Land for so many years rendring such a Rent 1 Roll. 847. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 97. here is not any Lease and therefore neither Rent But if A. had covenanted with C. himself it had been otherwise because it is betwixt the same parties And if the Lessee covenant to pay his Rent to the Lessor and he payeth it before the day the same is not any performance of the Covenant causa patet contrary of a sum in gross Another Covenant was that the said Humphry solveret ex parte dicti Edwardi 20 l. to which the Defendant pleaded that he had paid ex parte dicti Humfridi 20 l. and that defect was holden incureable and therefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXVII Geslin and Warburtons Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 128. IN an Ejectione firmae by Joan Geslin against Hen. Warburton and Sebastian Crispe of Lands in Dickilborough in the County of Norf. Mich. 30. 31 Eliz. rot 333. upon the general Issue the Iury found a special verdict that before the Trespass supposed one Martin Frenze was seised of the Lands of which the Action was brought in tail to him and his Heirs males of his body so seised suffered a common Recovery to his own use Devises and afterwards devised the same in this manner I give my said Land to Margaret my Wife until such time as Prudence my Daughter shall accomplish the age of nineteen years the Reversion to the said Prudence my Daughter and to the Heirs of her body Lawfully begotten upon condition that she the said Prudence shall pay unto my said Wife yearly during her life in recompence of her Dower of and in all my Lands 12 pounds and if default of payment be made then I will that my said Wife shall enter and have all my Lands during her life c. the Remainder ut supra the Remainder to John Frenze in tail c. Martin Frenze died Margaret entred the said Prudence being within the age of fourteen years Margaret took to Husband one of the Defendants John Frenze being Heir male to the former tail brought a Writ of Error upon the said Recovery and assigned Error because the Writ of Entry upon which the Recovery was had was Praecipe quod reddat unum Messuag and twenty acras prati in Dickelborough Linford Hamblets without naming any Town And thereupon the Iudgment was reversed And it was further found that in the said Writ of Error and the process upon it Hutt 106. 2 Cro. 574. 3 Cro. 196. no Writ of Scire facias issued to warn dictam Prudentiam ten existentem liberi ten praemissorum ad ostendendam quid haberet vel dicere sciret quare Judicium praedict non reversaretur The Iury further found that the said Margaret depending the said Writ of Error was possessed virtute Testamenti ultimae voluntatis dict Martini reversione inde expectant dictae Prudentiae pro ut lex postulat And they further found Error that six pound of the said tewlve pounds were unpaid to the said Margaret at the Feast c. and they found that the said John Frenze praetextu Judicii sic reversat entred into the premisses as Heir male ut supra And so seised a Fine was levyed betwixt John Frenze Plaintiff and one Edward Tindal Owen 157. Dyer 321. 1 Cro. 471. 739. and the said Prudence his Wife Deforceants and that was to the use of the said John Frenze And that afterwards Humphry Warburton and the said Margaret his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against the said John Frenze Edw. Tindal and Prudence his Wife of the said Lands The said Edward and Prudence made default and the Demandants counted against the said Frenze and demanded against him the moity of the third part of the said Lands To which the said Frenze pleaded that the default of the said Edward and Prudence idem John Frenze nomine non debet quia he said that he the said John was sole seised of the Lands aforesaid at the time of the Writ brought c. and pleaded in Bar and it was found against the said John and Iudgment given for the Demandants of the third part of the whole Land and seisin accordingly And that afterwards 17 Eliz. the said Frenze levyed the Fine to the said Tindal to the use of the said Tindal and his Heirs And they found that after the said Feast the said Henry Warburton and Margaret his Wife came to the Messuage aforesaid half an hour before Sun-set of the said day and there did demand the Debt of the said twelve pounds Dower to the said Margaret by the said Martin Frenze devised to be paid unto them and there remained till after Sun-set of the said day demanding the Rent aforesaid and that neither the said Tindal nor any other was there ready to pay the same And first it was moved if the said yearly sum of twelve pounds appointed to be paid to the said Margaret were a Rent or but a sum in gross And the opinion of the Court was that it was a Rent and so it might be fitly collected out of the whole Will where it is said that Prudence his Daughter should have the Land and that she should pay yearly to Margaret twelve pounds in recompence of her Dower c. But if it be not a Rent but a sum in gross it is not much material to the end of the case For put case it be a Rent the same not being pleaded in Bar the Dower is well recovered and then when default of payment is made if the Wife of the Devisor shall have the whole was the Question And the Court was clear of opinion that by the suit and Iudgment in the Writ of Dower the Wife of the Devisor had lost all the benefit which was to come to her by the devise For the said Rent was devised to her in recompence of
the Plaintiff and thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCV Read and Nashes Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an action of Trespass by Read and his Wife against Nash for entring into a house called the Dayry-house upon Not guilty pleaded The Iury found this special matter Sir Richard Gresham Knight was seised in Fee of the Mannours of I. and S. and of diverse other Lands mentioned in his Will and 3 Edw. 6. devised the same to Sir Thomas Gresham his Son for life the Remainder to the first son of the said Sir Thomas Gresham in tail the Remainder to the second son c. the Remainder to the third son c. The Remainder to Sir John Gresham his brother Proviso That if his Son go about or made any Alienations or discontinuance c. whereby the premisses cannot remain descend and come in the form as was appointed by the said Will otherwise than for Ioyntures for any of their Wives for her life only or leases for 21. years whereupon the old and accustomed Rent shall be reserved That then such person shall forfeit his estate Sir John Gresham dyed Sir Thomas Gresham his son built a new House upon the Land and 4 Mariae leased to Bellingford for one and twenty years rendring the antient Rent And afterwards 2 Eliz. he levyed a fine of the said Manours and of all his Lands and 5 Eliz. he made a Iointure to his Wife in this manner sci He covenanted with certain persons to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of his Right Heirs and afterwards 18 Eliz. he leased unto Read and his wife for one and twenty years to begin presently which was a year before the expiration of the said Lease made unto Bellingford which Lease being expired Read entred It was argued by Cook That here upon the words contained in the Proviso Sir Thomas had power and authority not being but Tenant for life to make a Lease for years or Iointure and that upon implication of the Will which ought to be taken construed according to the intent of the parties for his meaning was to give a power as well as an estate otherwise the word otherwise should be void and it is to be observed That the parties interessed in the said conveyance were Knights and it is not very likely That the said Sir Richard Gresham did intend that they should keep the Lands in their own manurance as Husbandmen but set the same to Farm for Rent And it is great Reason although he willeâ— that the order of his Inheritance should be preserved yet to make a Provision for Iointure and it is great reason and cause to his family to enable and make them capable of great Matches which should be a strengthning to his posterity which could not be without great Iointures wherefore I conceive it reasonable to construe it so That here they have power to make Iointures for their Wives It hath been said That no grant can be taken by implication as 12 E. 3. Tit. Avow 77. Land was given to I. and A. his wife and to the heirs of the body of I. begotten and if I. A. dy without heir of their bodies betwixt them begotten that then it remain to the right heirs of I. and it was holden that the second clause did not give an estate tail to the wife by implication being in a grant but otherwise it is in Case of a devise as 13 H. 7. 17. and there is no difference as some conceive when the devise is to the heir and when to a stranger but these cases concern matter of Interest but our case concerns an Authority And admit that Sir Thomas hath power and authority to make this lease Then we are to consider if the Iointure be good for if it be Then being made before the Lease Use cannot rise out of a power it shall take effect before and the woman Iointress is found to be alive But I conceive That this Iointure is void and then the Lease shall stand for an use cannot rise out of a power but may rise out of an estate of the Testator and out of his Will 19 H. 6. A man deviseth That his Executors shall sell his reversion and they sell by Word it is a good Sale for now the Reversion passeth by the Will. But an use cannot be raised out of an use and a man cannot bargain and sell Land to another use than of the Bargainee And it is like unto the case of 10 E. 4 5. The disseisee doth release unto the disseisor rendring Rent the render is void for a rent cannot issue out of a right so an use cannot be out of a Release by the disseisee for such release to such purpose shall not enure as an Entry and Feoffment Also here after that conveyance Sir Thomas hath built and erected a New house and no new Rent is reserved upon it and therefore here it is not the ancient Rent for part of the sum is going out of the new house But as to that It was said by the Iustices do not speak to that for it appears that the Rent is well enough reserved Another matter was moved for that That a year before the Expiration of the Lease made to Billington this Lease was made to Reâ—d for 21 years to begin presently from the date of it although by the same authority he cannot make Leases in Reversion for then he might charge the Inheritance in infinitum But yet such a Lease as here is he might make well enough for this Lease is to begin presently and so no charge to him in the Reversion as in the Case betwixt Fox and Colliers upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. A Bishop makes a Lease for three years before the Expiration of a former Lease to begin presently It was holden a good Lease to bind the Successor for the Inheritance of the Bishop is not charged above one and twenty years in toto But if a Bishop make a Lease for years and afterwards makes a Lease for three lives the same is not good 8 Eliz. Dy. 246. Tenant in tail leaseth to begin at Michaelmas next ensuing for twenty years it is a good Lease by the Statute of 32 H. 8. so is a lease for 10 years and after for eleven years and yet the Statutes are in the Negative but this power in our Case is in the Affirmative and the Inheritance is not charged in the whole with more than one and twenty years CCVI. Kinnersly and Smarts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 〈◊〉 upon a usurious Contract 1 Cro 155. IN Debt upon a Bond The Plaintiff declared That the Bond was made in London The Defendant pleaded That an usurious Contract was made betwixt the parties at D. in Stafford-shire that the Obligation was made for the same contract The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Bond was made bona
Mich. 31. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae by Richard Sutton against Robert Holloway and Thomas Dickons Sâ—vil 99. Owen 96. Co. 1 Inst 227. a 3 Cro. 77. upon not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That the said Thomas Dickins had not any thing in the Lands in question at the time of the making of the Lease upon which the Action is brought scil Who leased by Indenture to the Plaintiff for certain years who entred and afterwards the said Thomas Dickins contra Indenturam suam praedictam intravit upon the Plaintiff and If the same should be a good Lease by Estoppel was the question the Iury having found the truth of the matter scil That the Lessor had not any thing at the time of the demise Walmesley objected That the Iury ought not to find the Indenture because it was not pleaded for the Plaintiff doth not declare upon any Indenture Hob. 227. but the Exception was not allowed but in old time the Law was such 22 E. 3. but at this day the Law is otherwise See Scholastica's Case 14. Eliz. Plowd 411. But where a Release or other writing ought to be pleaded there it ought to be shewed to the Court. VValmesley In rei veritate the Lease is void for a man cannot let Land in which he hath not any thing but in respect of the parties themselves the Lessors and Lessee both are concluded to say That is no Lease for none of them can say to the contrary But here the Iury which is a third person Estoppel is not estopped to say the truth but they may find the special matter and the truth of the Case and the Estoppel hath not place there but the truth of the matter appearing to the Iudges the Iudges ought to adjudge upon the same scil If a man may make an effectual lease of Lands in which he hath not any thing At another day it was moved by Shuâ—l Although that the Iury be not estopped yet the parties themselves are estopped for the Law makes the Estoppel betwixt the parties and the Law will not permit a man to say any thing against his own Deed being indented nor any matter contained in it Periam and Anderson clearly for the Plaintiff That it is a Lease by Estoppel and by Periam It hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench That the Iury in such case are compellable upon pain of Attaint to find the Estoppel VValmesley Here the Estoppel is out of Doors for the truth of the matter disclosed by the Verdict not by the parties only maketh the Estoppel he much replied upon the case of Littleton 149. a. A woman seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Husband who alieneth to another in Fee the Alienee leaseth to the Husband and Wife for their lives now the Wife is remitted and seised in Fee as before here if the Alienee i. e. the Lessor brings an Action of Wast against the Husband and Wife the Husband cannot bar the Plaintiff by the truth of the matter scil the Remitter of his Wife for he is estopped to say against his own Feoffment and his retaking of the particular estate to himself and his Wife But if in an Action of Wast the Husband make default at the Grand Distress and the Wife prayeth to the received she may well shew the whole matter So here the Iury VVindham The Plaintiff ought to have demurred upon the Evidence Periam What if the Defendant will not joyne with the Plaintiff in the Demurrer VVindham there the Court ought to over-rule them if the parties had demurred upon the Evidence we should have adjudged upon that Evidence that a man cannot lease lands in which he hath not any thing And here the Estoppel could not be pleaded for the Defendant hath pleaded the general Issue but if he had pleaded Non demisit then the Estoppel should have holden place CCLXXXVII Mills and Snowballs Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Iury did surmise at the Bar that he was a Tenant in Ancient demesne and had his Charter in his hand Priviledge of Exemption from Juries 1 Cro. 142. and prayed to be exempted from the Iury and discharged but the Court did not regard it but caused him to be sworn And Windham said that he might have his remedy against the Sheriff and Nelson Prothonotay said if he had made default and lost Issues he might shew his Charter in the Exchequer upon the Amercement estreated and there he should be discharged In that Case it was holden by the Court That if a Feoffment be made of a House and the Deed be delivered in the House without other circumstance the same doth not amount to a Livery of seisin but if he do any act by which the intent of the Feoffor appeareth that the Feoffee should have Livery and Seisin Livery of seisin as if the parties go of purpose to the place intended to pass to the intent that the Deed may be delivered in that kind the same doth amount to a Livery by Anderson and the whole Court. CCLXXXVIII Bradstocks Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco RObert Bradstock seised in Fee of certain Lands made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself in tail Estates and for want of such Issue to the use of John Bradstock his Brother in tail and for want of such Issue to the use of Henry Bradstock another Brother in tail Conditions Provided always That if the said John or Henry do go about to avoid any estate or demise by Copy made or to be made of the Premisses or any part thereof that then his estate should cease Robert died without Issue John entred and levyed a Fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. of the Land And the opinion of the whole Court was That this Fine was not any offence against the said Proviso for these words made or to be made do not extend to estates made or limited by the said Feoffment but only to estates before made and to be made afterwards CCLXXXIX Long and Hemmings Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Quare Impedit by Long against Hemming and the Bishop of Gloucester or the Church of Frombillet upon the pleading the Issue was Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 209. If Tho. Long Father of the Plaintiff did enfeoff the Plaintiff of the Manor of From. to which the Advowson of the said church was appendant before he granted the Advowson to one Strengtham who granted it to the Def. or not And the Iury gave a special Verdict scil That the Abbot of S. was seised of a capital Messuage in Frombillet of one hundred Acres of Land there And that there was a Tenancy holden of the said capital Messuage by such Services and that the said capital Messuage had been known time out of mind by the name of the Manor of Frombillet and that the Advowson was
chargeth the Defendant with cutting of Wood without the assent and assignment of the Lessor so he would compel us to prove more than we ought for if he did it with their assent only or by their assignment only it is sufficient but if the Covenant had been in the copulative both was necessary And for the nature of Copulatives he cited the Case where two Churchwardens bring an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleads That the Plaintiffs are not Churchwardens upon which they are at Issue The Iury find That the one was Church-warden and the other not and for that the Plaintiffs could not have Iudgment for if the one of them be not Churchwarden then the Plaintiffs are not Churchwardens for the copulatives ought not to be disjoyned And he cited the case lately ruled in the Common Pleas betwixt Ognel and Underwood concerning Crucifield Grange A. leased unto B. certain Lands for forty years B. leased part of the same to C. for ten years A. grants a Rent-charge out of the Lands in tenura occupatione B. It was resolved That the Lands leased to C. should not be charged with that Rent for although it was in tenura B. yet it was not in his occupation and both are exquisite because in the copulative So here the Lessee may cut Wood with the assent of the Lessor without any assignment Also here the substance of the covenant cannot charge the Defendant for although it be in the Negative yet it is not absolute in the Negative but doth refer unto the covenant precedent for the words are That the Lessee shall not cut Woods aliter quam according to the intent of the Indenture where the covenant precedent is not that the Lessee shall not cut Woods but in the Dole but that the Lessor might cut down any Trees in the Dole leaving sufficient for the Lessee which covenant in it self doth not restrain the Lessee to cut down any Trees in any part of the Lands demised nor abridgeth the power which the Law giveth to him by reason of the demise Then when this last covenant comes i. e. That the Lessee will not cut aliter then according to the meaning of the Indenture without the assent c. the same doth not restrain him from the power which the meaning of the Indenture gives and so no breach of covenant can be assigned in this For by virtue of the Lease the Lessee of common Right may take necessary Fuel upon any part of the Land leased Also this first covenant being in the Affirmative doth not abridge any Interest as 28 H. 8. 19. The Lessor covenants That the Lessee shall have sufficient Hedge-boot by assignment of the Baily It is holden by Baldwin and Shelley That the Lessee may take it without assignment because there are no Negative words non aliter So 8 E. 3. 10. A Rent of ten pounds was granted to Husband and Wife and if the Husband overlive his Wife that he shall have three pounds Rent and if the Wife do over-live the Husband she shall have forty shillings there it was holden that the Rent of ten pounds continued not restrained by the severance of any of them And although peradventure it appeareth here that the meaning of the parties was That the Lessee should not cut down any Wood but in the Dole yet forasmuch as such meaning doth not stand with the Law it shall be rejected as it was holden to be in the case betwixt Benet and French where a man seised of divers Lands devised parcel of it called Gages to the erecting of a School and another parcel unto B. in fee and all his other Lands unto one French in Fee The devise of Gages was holden void because too general for no person is named and it was further holden that it passed by the general devise to French and yet that was not the meaning of the Devisor Also the Plaintiff is not Assignee but of parcel of the Reversion for if the Reversion is granted to him for years Owen Rep. 152. 1 Co. 215. and such Assignee cannot have an Action of Covenant for a Covenant is a thing in Action and annexed to the Reversion so that if the Reversion doth not continue in its first course as it was at the time of the creation of the Covenant but be altered or divided the Covenant is destroyed and therefore it was holden 32 H. 8. betwixt Wiseman and Warringer where a Lease for years was made of one hundred Acres of Lands rendring ten pound Rent and afterwards the Lessor granted fifty Acres of it that the Grantee should not have any part of the Rent but all the Rent was destroyed So in our case here the Grantee hath but parcel of the estate a Term for years and so is not an Assignee intended as the case betwixt Randal and Brown in the Court of Wards â— Co 96â—â—â—â— Randal being seised of certain Lands covenanted with B. that if he pay unto him his Heirs and Assigns five hundred pounds that then he and his Heirs would stand seised to the use of the said B. and his Heirs Randal devised the Land to his Wife during the minority of his Son the Remainder to his Son in Fee and died having made his Wife his Executrix Brown at the day and place tendred the money generally the Wife having but an estate for years in the Land took the money It was holden that the same was not a sufficient tender for the Wife is not Assignee for she hath an Interest but for years and here the Son is to bear the loss for by a lawful Tender the Inheritance shall be devested out of him and therefore the Tender ought to be made to him and not to his Wife Also as the case is here he is no Assignee for although Charles Grice and his Wife hath the Reversion to them and the Heirs of the body of Charles and levy a Fine without Proclamations nothing passeth but his own estate and then the Conusee hath not any estate Raph. Rep. 91. â— Câ—o. 804. â—05 but during the life of Charles and then when a man is seised to him and his Heirs during the life of another he hath not such an estate as he can devise by the Statute and then when he deviseth it to his Wife for years it is void c. It was adjorned CCCXL Smith and Hitchcocks Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assumpsit â— Câ—o. 201. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas the Defendant was indebted to him 19 Maii 30 Eliz. The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear to sue him until such a day after promised at the said day to pay the debt The Defendant pleaded how that 29 Maii 29 Eliz. he was indebted unto the Plaintiff in the said sum for assurance of which afterwards he acknowledged a Statute to the Plaintiff upon which he had Execution and had levied the money absque
Request the said Feoffees or their Heirs should be seised of the said House to the use of the said Ann and her Heirs Afterwards the seventh of April 16 Eliz. Ann demanded of William Ramsey Son and Heir of John Ramsey six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence being due to the said Ann ut supra the which sum the said William Ramsey did refuse to pay by force of which and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the said Ann Ramsey was thereof seised and died seised and from her descended the said House to William Ramsey The Plaintiff confessed the Feoffment to Crofton and Langhton to John Ramsey and others and shewed further That the said Ann required the surviving Feoffees to enfeoff one Robert Owen of the said House who three days after made the Feoffment accordingly Robert Owen enfeoffed John Owen who died thereof seised and from him the said House descended to Israel Owen Crafton died Langhton having issue two Daughters died All the Feoffees but one died Ann the time aforesaid demanded the said six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence of the said William Ramsey in another House in London due at the Feast of St. Michael last before who denied to pay it the second Daughter of Langhton entred and thereof enfeoffed the said Israel Owen Rents 3 Cro. 210 211. who leased the same to the Plaintiff and upon that Evidence the Defendant did demur in Law And first it was resolved by the whole Court That the said sum to be paid to the said Ann was not a Rent but a sum in gross because reserved to a stranger c. which see Lit. 79. Reversion And by Munson Iustice If the words of the reservation had been twenty Nobles Rent yet it had been but a sum in gross but otherwise it had been by devise Also there is not any condition for the payment of it but only a Limitation for the word subsequent which limits the future use takes away all the force of the words of the Condition as 27 H. 8. 24. Land given in tail upon condition that the Donee and his Heirs shall carry the Standard of the Donor when he goes to battel and if he fail thereof then the same to remain to a stranger the limiting of the Remainder hath taken away the condition and hath controlled it and now the Condition is become a Limitation But where the words subsequent are against Law as if upon failer that then it shall be lawful for a stranger to enter Feoffments upon condition c. these words because they are against Law for a Rent cannot be reserved to a Stranger c. do not destroy the Condition by Mead contrary by Munson for the Condition is utterly gone And by Mead Feoffment in Fee upon condition That if the Feoffor shall do such a thing that he shall re-enter and retain the Land to the use of a stranger the use is void 1 Cro 401 402 and the Feoffor shall hold the Land to his own use A Feoffment in Fee upon condition That the Feoffee shall marry my Daughter and if he refuse to marry her that then he shall be seised to the use of I.S. the same is not a Condition but a Limitation and in all cases afterwards of a Condition where an Interest is limited to a stranger there it is not a Condition but a Limitation And Mead said That the said annual sum is not demandable but the party ought to pay it at his peril Lit. 80. But by Munson it ought to be demanded for so this word Refuse doth imply Regula And when at the Request of Ann the Feoffment is made by Munson Mead and Windham the Rent is gone but Dyer contrary unless the Feoffment be made to Ann her self And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 19 Eliz. Rot. 748. There was a Case betwixt Shaw and Norton Shaw and Nortons Case One Green devised his Lands to A. and devised also the said A. should pay a Rent to B. and that B. might distrain for it and if A. fail of the payment of it that the Heirs of the Devisor might enter the same is a good Distress and a good Condition And by Munson Demand ought to be made of the Rent for the words are Refuse which cannot be without Demand or Request And it was certified That such a Clerk refused to pay his Tenths and because it was expresly set down in the Certificate that he was requested c. for that cause he was discharged And it was also holden That if Request be necessary that in this case Request is to be made That it ought to be made to the surviving Feoffee or his heir and not to the heirs of any of the Feoffees who are dead CCCLXIII Lacyes Case Hill. 25. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictments Co. 13. Rep. 53. LAcy was indicted of the death of a man upon Scarborough Sands in the County of York between the high water-mark and the low water-mark and the same Indictment was removed into the Kings Bench and being arraigned upon it he shewed that the said Indictment was sued by vertue of a Commission which issued the first day of May directed to the Iustices of Assize and other Iustices of Peace in the said County Commission repealed to enquire of all Murders Felonies c. and pleaded further That the second day of May aforesaid issued another Commission directed to the Lord Admiral and others upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 15. by force of which the said Lacy was indicted of the same murder whereof he was now arraigned and the said last Commission was ad inquirendum tam super altum mare quam super littus maris ubicunque locorum infra jurisdictionem nostram maritimam And that the said Indictment taken before the Admiral was taken before this upon which he was arraigned and upon the whole matter prayed to be dismissed And the opinion of all the Iustices was that the first Commission was repealed by the second and so the Indictment upon which he was arraigned taken coram non Judice 10 E. 4. 7. If a Commission for the Peace issueth into one County and afterwards another Commission issueth to a Town within the same County and parcel of it the first Commission is repealed which Gawdy granted if notice be given c. but Wray denied it but the whole Court by this last Commission to the Lord Admiral the first Commission as to the Iurisdiction in locis maritimis is determined and repealed for these two Commissions are in respect of two several Authorities the first Commission meerly by the Common Law the other by the Statute aforesaid and thereupon the party was discharged against the Queen as to that Indictment Note that in the Argument of this Case it was said by Coke and agreed by Wray That if a man be struck upon the high sea 2 Co. 93. whereof he dieth in another County
afterwards that this murder is dispunishable notwithstanding the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. CCCLXIV The Queen and Braybrooks Case Pasch 25 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 3 Co. 1 2 c. THe Queen brought a Writ of Error against Braybrook The Case was this That King Ed. 4. was seised of the Manor of Marston and gave the same to Lionel Lord Norris and A.M. and the Heirs of the body of the Lord the Remainder to H. Norris in Tail L and A. entermarry L. suffered a common Recovery against himself only without naming the said A. Hen. Norris is attainted of high Treason by Act of Parliament and by the same Act all his Lands Tenements Hereditaments Rights Conditions c. the day of the Treason committed or ever after c. Hen. Norris is executed Lionel dieth without issue the Queen falsified the said Recovery for one moiety by Scire facias because Anne who was joint-tenant with Lionel was not named party to the said Recovery and afterwards the Queen granted to the Lord Norris Son of the said Hen. Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem and now upon the said Recovery the Queen brought a Writ of Error and it was argued by Egerton the Queens Sollicitor that this right to a Writ of Error is such a right as is transferred to the Queen by the Act of Parliament for the words are omnia jura sua quaecunque and here is a right although not a present right yet a right although in futuro so it is a right of some quality as A. Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to B.A. makes a Feoffment in Fee B. is attainted of high Treason and by such Act all his Lands c. given to the King. A. dieth without issue the Queen shall have a Formedon in the Remainder and although the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem yet by such general words a Writ of Error doth not pass which See 32 H. 8. Br. Patents 98. And also this Action rests in privity of record and cannot be displaced from thence but by Act of Parliament see Br. Chose in Action 14. 33 H. 8. for when the King will grant a thing in Action he ought in his Patent to recite all the circumstances of the matter as the Right and how it became a Right and because the Queen here doth not make mention of this Right as of the Entail the Recovery and the Attainder for that cause the Right doth not pass The Case betwixt Cromer and Cranmer 8 Eliz the Disseisee was attainted of Treason the Queen granted to the Heir of the Disseisee all the Right which came unto her by the Attainder of his Ancestor nothing passed Causa qua supra And always where the King grants any thing which he cannot grant but as King that such a grant without special words is to no purpose Coke contrary he agreed the Case put by Egerton for at the time of the Attainder B. had a Right of Remainder but in our Case Hen. Norris had not any Right but a possibility of a Right of Action i.e. a Writ of Error And he said that this Writ of Error is not forfeitable for it is an Action which rests in privity no more than a condition in gross as a Feoffment in Fee is made upon condition of the party of the Feoffor who is attainted ut supra This word Right in the Act of Attainder shall not transfer this Condition to the Queen and of the Act of Attainder to Hen. Norris it is to be conceived That the makers of the Act did not intend that by the word Right every right of any manner or quality whatsoever should pass to carry a Condition to the Queen and therefore we ought to conceive that the makers of the Act did not intend to touch Rights which rested in privity And as to the Grant of the Queen to the Lord Norris of the Mannor of Merston Et omnia jura sua in eodem he conceived that thereby the Right of the Writ of Error did pass for it is not like Cranmers Case but if in the said Case the Land it self had been set down in the Grant it had been good enough as that Cranmer being seised in Fee of the Manor of D. was there of disseised and so being disseised was attainted of high Treason now the Queen grants to his Heirs totum jus suum in his Manor of D c. and so in our Case the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura sua in eodem c. at another day it was moved by Plowden that this Right of Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen by the Act but such Right might be saved to a stranger c. the words of the Act are omnia jura sua and this word sua is Pronomen possessionis by which it is to be conceived that no Right should pass but that which was a present Right as a Right in possession but this Right to a Writ of Error was not in Hen. Norris at the time of his Attainder but it was wholly in him against whom the erroneous Iudgment was had and therefore if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant vouch and loseth and Iudgment is given and before Execution the Tenant is attainted by Act of Parliament by words ut supra and afterwards he is pardoned the Demandant sueth for Execution against the Tenant now notwithstanding this Attainder the Tenant may sue Execution against the Vouchee and afterwards Wray chief Iustice openly declared in Court the opinion of himself and all his companions Iustices and also of all the other Iustices to be That by this Act of Parliament by which all Lands Tenements Hereditaments and all Rights of any manner and quality whatsoever Henry Norris had the day of his Attainder or ever after Lionel then being alive and over-living the said Hen. Norris that this Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen And that the said Act by the words aforesaid could not convey to the King this possibility of right for at the time of the Attainder the Right of the Writ of Error was in Lyonel and Hen. during the estate tail limited to Lyonell had not to do with the Land nor any matter concerning it And Iudgment was given accordingly And it was holden That he in the Reversion or Remainder upon an Estate tail might have a Writ of Error by the common Law upon a Recovery had against Tenant in tail in Reversion CCCLXV Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the common Pleas. Copy-holder IN Trespass brought by a Copy-holder against the Lord for cutting down and carrying away his Trees c. It was found by special Verdict That the place where c. was Customary lands of the Plaintiffs holden of the Defendant and that the Trees whereof c. were Chery Trees de
If now because the Tithes are not expresly named in the Habendum the Grantee shall have them for life only was the Question It was moved by Popham Attorney General That the Grantee had the Tithes but for life and to that purpose he cited a Case adjudged 6 Eliz. in the Common Pleas A man grants black Acre and white Acre Habendum black Acre for life nothing of white Acre shall pass but at will and in the argument of that case Anthony Browne put this case Queen Mary granted to Rochester such several Offices and shewed them specially Habendum two of them and shewed which in certain for forty years It was adjudged that the two Offices which were not mentioned in the Habendum were to Rochester but for life and determined by his death And so he said in this Case The Tithes not mentioned in the Habendum shall be to the Grantee for life and then he dying his Executors taking the Tithes are Intrudors But as to that It was said by Manwood chief Baron That the cases are not alike for the Grants in the cases cited are several intire and distinct things which do not depend the one upon the other but are in gross by themselves But in our Cases The Tithes are parcel of the Rectory and therefore for the nearness betwixt them i. the Rectory and the Tithes the Tithes upon the matter pass together with the site of the Rectory for the term of twenty years and Iudgment was afterwards given accordingly CCCLXXXI The Lord Darcy and Sharpes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas Mich. 27 28 Rot. 2432. Debt THomas Lord Darcy Executor of John Lord Darcy brought Debt upon a Bond against Sharpe who pleaded that the Condition of the Bond was That if the said Sharpe did perform all the Covenants c. contained within a pair of Indentures c. By which Indentures the said John Lord Darcy had sold to the said Sharpe certain Trees growing c. And by the same Indentures Sharpe had covenanted to cut down the said Trees before the seventh of August 1684. and shewed further That after the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture the said Lord Darcy now Plaintiff Razure of Deeds 11 Co. 27. caused and procured I. S. to raze the Indenture quod penes praedict Querentem remanebat and of 1684. to make it 1685. and so the said Indenture become void And the opinion of the whole Court was clear against the Defendant for the razure is in a place not material and also the razure trencheth to the advantage of the Defendant himself who pleads it and if the Indenture had become void by the razure the Obligation had been single and without Defeasance CCCLXXXII Rollston and Chambers Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Costs where Damages are given 2 Len. 52. ROllston brought an Action of Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible Entry against Chambers and upon Issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages assessed by the Iury and costs of suit also and costs also de incremento were adjudged And all were trebled in the Iudgment with this purclose quae quidem damna in toto se attingunt ad c. and all by the name of Damages It was objected against this Iudgment that where damages are trebled no costs shall be given as in Wast c. But it was clearly agreed by the whole Court That not only the costs assessed by the Iury but also those which were adjudged de incremento should be trebled and so were all the Presidents as was affirmed by all the Prothonotaries and so are many Books 19 H. 6. 32. 14 H. 6. 13. 22 H. 6. 57. 12 E. 4. 1. And Book of Entries 334. and Iudgment was given accordingly And in this case it was agreed by all the Iustices That the party so convicted of the force at the suit of the party should be fined notwithstanding that he was fined before upon Indictment for the same force CCCLXXXIII Jennor and Hardies Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin. 27 Eliz. Rot. 1606. THe Case was Lands were devised to one Edith for life upon condition that she should not marry and if she died or married Devises that then the Land should remain to A. in tail and if A. died without Issue of his body in the life of Edith that then the Land should remain to the said Edith to dispose thereof at her pleasure And if the said A. did survive the said Edith that then the Lands should be divided betwixt the Sisters of the Devisor A. died without Issue living Edith Shutleworth Serjeant Edith hath but for life and yet he granted That if Lands be devised to one to dispose at his will and pleasure without more saying That the Devisee hath a Fee-simple but otherwise it is when those words are qualified and restrained by special Limitation As 15 H. 7. 12. A man deviseth that A. Goldsb 135. Shepherds Touch-stone 439. shall have his Lands in perpetuum during his life he hath but an estate for life for the words During his life do abridge the Interest given before And 22 Eliz. one deviseth Lands to another for life to dispose at his will and pleasure he hath but an estate for life And these words If A. dieth without Issue in the life of Edith That then the Lands should remain to Edith to dispose at her pleasure shall not be construed to give to Edith a Fee-simple but to discharge the particular estate of the danger penalty and loss which after might come by her marriage so as now it is in her liberty And also he said That by the Limitation of the latter Remainder i. That the Lands should be divided betwixt the Daughters of his Sister the meaning of the Devisor was not that Edith should have a Fee-simple for the Remainder is not limited to her Heirs c. if A. dieth in the life of the said Edith for the Devisor goeth further That if A. overlives Edith and afterwards dieth without Issue that the said Land should be divided c. Walmesley contrary And he relyed much upon the words of the Limitation of the Remainder to Edith Quod integra remaneat dictae Edithae and that she might dispose thereof at her pleasure Ante 156. for the said division is limited to be upon a Contingent i. if A. survive Edith but if Edith survive A. then his intent is not that the Lands should be divided c. but that they shall wholly remain to Edith which was granted by the whole Court and the Iustices did rely much upon the same reason and they were very clear of opinion That by those words Edith had a Fee-simple And Iudgment was given accordingly Anderson conceived That it was a Condition but although that it be a Condition so as it may be doubted if a Remainder might be limited upon a Condition yet this devise is as
b. Sur Conusans de droit come ceo que il ad of the gift of the Husband that the same is not any Bar to the Wife of her Dower for the Election is not given to the VVife to claim her Ioynture or her Dower until after the Death of her Husband And so in the principal case Iudgment was given for the VVife CCCLXXXVII Le es Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NIcholas Lee by his will devised his Lands to William his second Son Devise 1 Cro. 26. 3 Len. 106. And if he depart this VVorld not having issue Then I will that my Sons in Law shall sell my Lands the Devisor at the time of his devise having sir Sons in Law dyed William had Issue John and dyed John dyed without Issue one of the Sons in Law of the Devisor dyed the five surviving Sons in Law sold the Lands First it was clearly resolved by the whole Court That although the words of the Will are ut supra If William my Son depart this world not having Issue c. And that William had Issue who dyed without Issue here although it cannot be litterally said That William did depart this World not having issue yet the intent of the Devisor is not to be restrained to the letter that such construction shall be made That whensoever William dyeth in Law or upon the matter without Issue that the Land shall be subject to sale according to the authority committed by the Devisor to his Sons in Law And now upon the matter William is dead without Issue As in a Formedon in Reverter or Remainder although that the Donee in tail hath issue yet if after the estate tail be spent the Writ shall suppose that the Donee dyed without Issue a fortiori in the Case of a Will or Devise such construction shall be made As to the other point concerning the sale of the Lands Wray asked If the Sons in Law were named in the Will and the Clerks answered No See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 31. and 39 Ass 17. Executors 117. such a sale good in case of Executors See also 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. and Dyer 4 5. Phil. and Mary Lands devised in tail and if the Devisee shall dye without Issue that then the Land shall be sold pro optimo valore by his Executors una cum assensu A. if A. dyeth before sale the power of the Executors is determined And afterwards it was clearly resolved by the whole Court That the sale for the manner was good and Iudgment was given accordingly CCCLXXXVIII Sir Gilbert Gerrard and Sherringtons Case Pasch 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SIr Gilbert Gerrard Master of the Rolls Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Sherrington and A. his Servant for Tithes parcel of a Rectory whereof the said Sir Gilbert was Fermor to the Queen It was moved by Egerton Solicitor General That against the Kings Fermor a Prohibition doth not lye But the opinion of the whole Court was That a Prohibition doth lye and so it hath been adjudged before And afterwards Exception was taken to the surmise because the said Sir Gilbert had Libelled against the said Sherrington and his Servant severally Owen Rep. 13. Yelv. Rep. 128. and now in the Kings Bench they both had made a joynt surmise whereas they ought to have severed in their surmises according to the several Libels And it was so adjudged by the Court and therefore they were driven to make several surmises And afterwards Exception was taken because the said Sherrington and his Servant had delivered their surmises and suggestions by Attorney where they ought to be in proper person See the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. The party shall bring and deliver to the hands of some of the Iustices of the same Court c. the true Copy of the Libel c. subscribed or marked with the hand of the Party c. and under the Copy shall be written the surmise or suggestion And although it was affirmed by the Clerks of the Court that the common use and practice for twenty years had been not to exhibit such surmises or suggestions by Attorney Yet it was resolved by the whole Court that it ought to be by Attorney CCCLXXXIX Short and Shorts Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit to pay mony to the Plaintiff upon Request It was agreed Request That the Plaintiff by way of Declaration ought to alledge an actual Request and at what place and at what day the Request was made And it is not sufficient to say as in an Action of Debt Licet saepius requisitus c. and so it was adjudged CCCXC Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was Endicted in the County of Linc upon the Statutes of Wâ—st Indictment upon the Statute of news 1. Cap. 33. and 2 R. 2. Cap. 5. of News and the words were That Campian was not executed for treason but for Religion and that he was as honest a man as Cranmer the Bill was endorsed Billa vera but whether ista verba prolata fuerunt malitlose seditiose or e contr ignoramus The same Indictment being removed into the Kings Bench the party for the causes aforesaid was discharged CCCXCI Cole and Friendships Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the Case was That Fricarrooâ— was seised Leases 4 Len. 64. and by Indenture betwixt himself of the one part and one Friendship his Wife and the Children betwixt them begotten at the Assignment of the Husband of the other part leased the said Land to the said Husband his Wife and their Children at the Assignment of the Husband for years they having at the time of the said Lease but one Child â— a Son Assignment afterwards they had many Children the wife dyed the Husband by his will assigned his second Son born after the making of the Lease to have the residue of the said Term and by the opinion of the Court nothing can come to the said Son by that Lease or by that assignment for if the Interest doth not vest at the beginning it shall never vest And afterwards is was moved In as much as nothing could vest in any of the Children born after the Lease made if these words At the Assignment of the Husband should be void and then the case should be no more but that Land is devised to the Father and Mother and their Children At another day viz. Trin. 26 Eliz. the case was moved again and as to the first Point the Court was of opinion as before That the Child assigned after the Lease made should not take And then it was moved That because Friendship and his Wife at the time of the making of the said Lease had one Son that he should take with his Father and Mother and that the words at the Assignment of Friendship should be void is matter of surplusage and the
Recovery against Massey Error And in the said Recovery four Husbands and their VVives were vouched and now the Plaintiff brought this Writ of Error as heir to one of the Husbands and Exception was taken to his Writ because the Plaintiff doth not make himself heir to the Survivor of the four Husbands Egerton The Writ is good enough for there is a difference betwixt a Covenant personal and a Covenant real for if two be bound to warranty and the one dyeth the Survivor and the heir of the other shall be vouched and he said each of the four and their heirs are charged and then the heir of each of them being chargeable the heir of any of them may have a Writ of Error And afterwards the Writ of Error was adjudged good Ante 86. And Error was assigned because the Vouchees appeared the same day that they were vouched by Attorney which they ought not to do by Law but they might appear gratis the first day without Proces in their proper persons and so at the sequatur sub suo periculo See 13 E. 3. Attorn 74. and 8 E. 2. ib. 101. Another Error was assigned Because the Entry of the warrant of Attorney for one of the Vouchees is po lo. suo I.D. against the Tenant where it should be against the Demandant for presently when the Vouchee entreth into the warranty he is Tenant in Law to the Demandant Coke As to the first Error Although he cannot appear by Attorney yet when the Court hath admitted his appearance by Attorney the same is well enough and is not Error As to the other Error I confess it to be Error but we hope that the Court will have great consideration of this case as to that Error for there are one hundred Recoveries erronious in this point if it may be called an Error And then we hope to avoid such a general mischief that the Court will consider and dispense with the rigor of the Law As their Predecessors did 39 H. 6. 30. In the Writ of Mesne But I conceive That the Writ of Error is not well brought for the Voucher in the said Recovery is of four Husbands and their Wives and when Voucher shall be intended to be in the right of their Wives which see 20 H. 7. 1. b. 46 E. 3. 28. 29 E. 3. 49. And so by common intendment the Voucher shall be construed in respect of the Wife So also the Plaintiff here ought to entitle himself to this Writ of Error as heir to the Wife And for this cause The Plaintiff relinquished his VVrit of Error And afterwards he brought a new VVrit and entituled himself as heir to the wife CCCXCIX The Queen and the Dean of Christchurch Case Mich. 26 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Praemunire 3 Len. 139. THe Queens Attorney General brought and prosecuted a Praemunire for the Queen and Parret against Doctor Matthew Dean of Christ-church in Oxford and others because they did procure the said Parret to be sued in the City of Oxford before the Commissary there in an Action of Trespass by Libel according to the Ecclesiastical Law in which suit Parret pleaded Son Franktenement and so to the Iurisdiction of the Court and yet they did proceed and Parret was condemned and imprisoned And after that suit depended The Queens Attorney withdrew the suit for the Queen And it was moved If notwithstanding that the party grieved might proceed See 7 E. 4. 2. b. The King shall have Praemuire and the party grieved his Action See Br. Praemunire 13. And by Brook none can have Praemunire but the King Coke There is a President in the Book of Entries 427. In a Praemunire the words are ad respondendum tam Domino Regi quam R.F. and that upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. and ib. 428 429. Ad respondendum tam Domino Regi de contemptu quam dict A. B. de damnis But it was holden by the whole Court That if the Kings Attorney will not further prosecute the party grieved cannot maintain this suit for the principal matter in the Praemunire is The conviction and the putting of the party out of the protection of the King and the damages are but accessary and then the principal being released the damages are gone And also it was holden by the Court That the Presidents in the Book of Entries are not to be regarded and there is not any Iudgment upon any of the pleadings there but are good directions for pleadings and not otherwise CCCC Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Fines levied 1 Cro. 35. THe Case was A. gave Lands in tail to B. upon condition That if the Donee or any of his heirs alien or discontinue c. the Land or any part of it that then the Donor do re-enter The Donee hath issue two Daughters and dieth One of the two Daughters levieth a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo Forfeiture to her Sister Heale Serjeant the Donor may enter for although the Sisters to many intents are but one Heir yet in truth they are several Heirs and each of them shall sue Livery 17 E. 3. If one of the Sisters be discharged by the Lord the Lord shall lose the Wardship of her and yet the Heir is not discharged And if every Sister be heir to diverse respects then the Fine by the one Sister is a cause of Forfeiture Harris contrary For conditions which go in defeating of estates shall be taken shortly Conditions and here both the Sisters are one Heir and therefore the discontinuance by the one is not the Act of the other Clench Iustice The words are Or any of his heirs therefore it is a forfeiture quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam And Iudgment was given accordingly CCCCI Mich. 26 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Assumpsit Hutt Rep. 34. Hob. 284. A Woman seised of a Rent-charge for life took Husband the Rent was arrear the wife died the Tenant of the Land charged promised to pay the Rent in consideration that the Rent was behind c and some were of opinion Because that this Rent is due and payable by a Deed that this Action of the Case upon Assumpsit will not lye no more than if the Obligor will promise to the Obligee to pay the mony due by the Obligation 3 Cro. 5. an Action doth not lye upon the Promise but upon the Obligation But it was holden by the whole Court That the Action did well lye for here the Husband had remedy by the Statute of 32 H. 8. And then the consideration is sufficient and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCII. Williams and Blowers Case Hill. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. REignold Williams and John Powell brought a Writ of Error against the Bishop of Hereford and Blower Error upon a Recovery had in a Writ of Disceit by the said Bishop and Blower against the said
Iustice It was a great offence in the Plaintiff but the same ought to be punished according to Law but the Constable cannot imprison a Subject at his pleasure but according to Law i. to stay him and bring him before a Iustice of the Peace to be there examined Wray If the Defendant had pleaded that he stayed the Plaintiff upon that matter to have brought him before a Iustice of Peace it had been a good Plea. Fennor The justification had been good if the Defendant had pleaded that the Plaintiff refused to carry away the Child so all the Iustices were of opinion against the Plea but they would not give Iudgment by reason of the ill Example but they left the parties to compound the matter CCCCLXIII Cole and Walles Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ejectione Custodiae lieth not upon a Copy-hold Estate 1 Cro. 224. IN an Ejectione Custodiae the Plaintiff declared that A. was seised of the Manor of D. within which Manor are diverse Copyholds of Inheritance and that the Custom of the Manor is that if any Copy-holder of Inheritance of the said Manor dieth his heir within the age of 14 years that then the Lord of the Manor might grant the custody of his Body and Lands to whom he pleased and shewed that one Clevertie a Copyholder of Inheritance of the said Manor died his son and heir within the age of 14 years Hob. 215. Dyer 302 303. upon which the Lord of the Manor committed the custody of his Body and Lands to the Plaintiff and the Defendant did eject him and upon Not guilty it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment That this Action would not lye upon a Copyhold estate Quod tota Curia concessit and yet it was said that an Ejectione firmae lieth upon a demise of Copy-hold Land by Lease of a Copyholder himself but not upon a demise by the Lord of the Copyhold Quod fuit concessum and afterwards the Case was moved on the Plaintiffs side and it was said That this was but an Action upon the Case in the nature of an Ejectione firmae and this interest is not granted by Copy but entred only into the Court Roll so it is not an interest by Copy but by the Common Law for the words are Quod Dominus commisit custodiam c. and doth not say in Curia and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCLXIV Bond and Bailes Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Judgment upon a Bond where satisfied before a Statute â— Len. 37â— Roll. 926. BOnd brought a Scire facias against Bailes Administrator of one T. B. upon a Recovery had against the Intestate in Action of Debt The Defendant pleaded That before the said Iudgment given the Testator did acknowledge a Statute Staple to one C. and that the Son was not paid in the life of the Testator nor after and that they have not in their hands any goods of the Intestate beyond what will satisfie the said Statute upon which there was a demurrer in Law. And Coke argued That the Bar is not good for here is not pleaded any Execution upon the Statute and then the Iudgment the Statute being of things of as high nature that of which Execution is sued shall be first served and if this Action had been brought upon a Bond the Plea had not been good for although that Brian saith 21 E. 4. That Recognizances shall be paid by Executors before Bonds yet that it is to be intended when a Scire facias is to be sued upon it otherwise not And 4 H. 6. 8. in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment fully administred at the day of the Writ brought is a good Plea by which it appeareth That if the Executors had paid the Debt upon the Obligation before the Writ brought it had been good See 12 E. 3. Executors 73. in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment in Debt given against the Testator Enquiry shall be what goods the Executors had the day of the Scire facias and he said it was moved by Anderson 20 Eliz. in this Court. In Debt upon a Bond against Executors the Defendant pleaded that the Testator was indebted by Iudgment to A. and that they had not more than to satisfie the same and it was holden no plea if not that he pleaded further that a Scire facias was sued upon it Wray said The same is not Law and there is a difference when the Iudgment is given against the Testator himself and where against the Executors for where Iudgments are given against Executors the Iudgment which was given before shall be first executed but if two Iudgments be given against the Testator he who first sues Execution against the Executors shall be first satisfied because they are things of equal nature and before Suit it is in the election of the Executor which of them he will pay See 9 E. 4. 12. As if two men have Tallies out of the Exchequer he which first offers his Tally to the Officer shall be first paid but before that it is in the choice of the Officer which of them shall be first satisfied and therefore 19 H. 6. If the Lease enrolled be lost the Enrolment is not of any effect and Pasch 20 Eliz. our very case was moved in the Common Pleas in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment given against the Testator the Executor pleaded That the Testator had acknowledged a Statute before not satisfied Ultra quae c. and it was holden no Plea for a Statute is but a private and pocket Record as they called it and 32 Eliz. betwixt Conny and Barham the same Plea was pleaded and holden no Plea. Also if this Plea should be allowed Conny and Barhams Case great mischiefs would follow for then no Debts should be satisfied by the Executors for it might be that the Statute was made for performance of Covenants which Covenants perhaps shall never be broken and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCLXV Crew and Bails Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas Error 1 Cro. 216. in a Bill of priviledge brought by an Attorney of the said Court upon an Obligation and upon the said Iudgment issued forth process of Execution upon which the Defendant was Outlawed and the Error was assigned in this That upon that Iudgment process of Outlawry doth not lie for Capias is not in the original Action Priviledge and so was the opinion of the whole Court being upon a Bill of priviledge and the Outlawry was reversed and the Error was assigned in the first Iudgment because there were not fifteen days betwixt the Teste of the Venire facias and the return of it but that was not allowed for it is helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 14. CCCCLXVI Wade and Presthalls Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings
shall not supply the defect of the words in the grant V. Gilbert and Sir George Harts Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. GIlbert brought Debt upon Escape against Sir George Hart Sheriff of Kent and declared Escape 1. Cro. 188. 271. That he recovered a certain debt against A. who was taken in Execution c. And the Case was That the said A. was taken in Execution in the time of the old Sheriff and escaped also then and afterwards the Defendant being Sheriff the Plaintiff again sued a Scire facias against the said A. upon the Iudgment aforesaid upon which Execution was awarded by default and thereupon issued a Capias ad satisfaciendum by which A. was taken and escaped And by the opinion of all the Iustices the Defendant in this Case shall be charged for notwithstanding that A. was once in Execution which was determined by escape in the time of the old Sheriff yet when Execution was now awarded against him upon his default in the Scire facias the same shall bind the Sheriff out of whose custody he escaped VI. Moor and Farrands Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. MOore leased Lands to Farrand upon condition that he 1. Cro. 26. Condition where shall not bind Administrators 1. Anders 123. Dy. 6. 1 Cro. 26. 757 3. Len. 67. his Executors or Assigns should not alien without the leave of the lessor Farrand died intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and aliened without leave and by Periam Iustice she is not within the penalty of the Condition for the Administrator is not meerly in by the party but by the Ordinary And by Meade and Periam If a Lease for years upon such a Condition be extended upon a Recognisance the same is not an alienation against the Condition But if feme lessee for years upon such Condition taketh a Husband and dieth the Husband is within the danger of the Condition for he is Assignee If the King grant to a Subject bona catalla felonum and the lessor for years upon such a Condition be out-lawed upon which the Patentee enters Now by Periam the Patentee is not bound by the Condition Meade contrary for the Condition shall go with the Land. VII Maynyes Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exechequer MAyney seised of Lands in Fee took a Wife Co. 1. Inst 41. â— made a Feoffment to a stranger committeth Treason and thereof is attainted and hath a Charter of Pardon and dieth It was moved by Plowden in the Exchequer if the Wife of Mayney shall have Dower against the Feoffee Dower Manwood Chief Baron by reason of this Attainder Dower cannot accrue to the Wife for her title begins by the Enter-marriage and ought to continue and be consummated by the death of the Husband which cannot be in this Case for the Attainder of the Husband hath interrupted it as in the Case of Elopement Attainder where an Estoppel And this Attainder is an universal Estoppel and doth not run in privity only betwixt the Wife and him to whom the Escheat belongs but every stranger may bar her of her Dower by reason thereof for by the Attainder of her Husband the Wife is disabled to demand Dower as well as to demand his Inheritance and he cited the Resolution of all the Iustices of England in the Case of the Lady Gates 4. Ma. Dyer 140. and the Pardon doth not help the matter for the same extends but to the life of the Offender but doth not take away the Attainder by which she is barred to demand Dower during the said Attainder in force See the Statute of 5. E 6. cap. 11. Vid. Fitz. Dower 82. 13. E 3. 8 E 3. Dower 106 Fitz. Utlag 49. 8 Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer 4. Len. 117. Leases for three lives of Copy-hold estate are not within Stat. 41. Eliz. IN the Exchequer it was found by special verdict That the Guardians and Chanons Regular of Otlery were seised of the Mannor of O c. and that 22 H 7. at a Court holden there granted the Lands in question to W. and W. his Son for their lives by Copy according to the Custom of the said Mannor and that afterwards 30 H 8. They leased the Lands by Indenture to H. rendering the ancient and accustomed Rent and afterward surrendred their Colledge c. and afterward W. and W. dyed And if that Lease so made during the customary estate for life notwithstanding the Statute of 31 H 8. be good or not was the Question being within a year before the surrender c. It was argued by Egerton Sollicitor that the said Lease is void by the Statute the words of which are whereof or in the which any estate or interest for term of life year or years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his being or continuance and was not then determined finished or expired and therefore we are to see if that right or possession which W. had at the time of the making of the Lease were an interest or an estate for life And as to this word estate it is nothing else than measure of time for an estate in Fee-simple is as much as to say an interest in the Lands for ever and the like of other estates and therefore here W. and W. had at the time of the making of this Lease an estate for life in the thing demised And although such customary Tenants are termed in Law Tenants at will yet they are not simply so nor meerly Tenants at will but only Tenants at will secundum Consuetudinem Manerii Copy-holdeâ—â— Interest which Custom warrants his possession here for his life and therefore it is a more certain estate than an estate at will for the Copyholder may justifie against his Lord so cannot a Tenant at will whose estate is determined at the will and pleasure of his Lessor And although this estate is but by Custom and by no Conveyance the estate is raised it is as material so as it be an estate and this estate being supported by Custom is known in Law an estate and so accounted in Law and the Law hath notably distinguished Copy-hold Tenancies by Custom and Tenancies at will by the Common Law for a Copy-holder shall do Fealty shall have aid of his Lord in an Action of Trespass shall have and maintain an Action of Trespass against his Lord his Wife shall be indowed the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie without new admittance and it was adjudged in the Common Pleas 8. Eliz. That if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of another for years the Lessee dieth his Executors shall have the residue of the Term without any admittance M 14. and 15. Eliz. a Copy-holder made a Lease for years by Indenture warranted by the Custom it was adjudged that the Lessees should maintain Ejectione firm although it was objected that if it were so then if
the Plaintiff doth recover Post 16 2 Len. 119. he should have Habere facias possessionem and then Copyholds should be ordered by the Laws of the Land 10 Eliz. Lord and Copy-holder for life the Lord grants a Rent-charge out of the Mannor whereof the Copy-hold is parcel the Copy-holder surrenders to the use of A. who is admitted accordingly he shall not hold it charged but if the Copy-holder dieth so that his estate is determined and the Lord granteth to a stranger de novo to hold the said Lands by Copy this new Tenant shall hold the Land charged and so was it rated and adjudged in the Common Pleas. It was adjorned IX The Lord Paget and the Bishop of Coventry and Leichfields Case Mich. 25. 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. THE Bishop of Coventry and Leichfield was endicted of Trespass in the County of Srafford Endictment of breaking and entring of the Close of Thomas Lord Paget called the Vineyard Challenge the Bishop traversed the Endictment and at the day of appearance of the Iury the Bishop challenged the Array because that he being a Peer of Parliament no Knight was returned c. Vpon which challenge the Queens Counsel did demur in Law but at last for expedition c. the Court delivered to the Councel of the Bishop a Bill sealed to save him the advantage of the said challenge And the Enquest was taken de bene esse who found that one A. by the Commandment of the Bishop entred into the said Close called the Vineyard being then in the occupation of one B. at will of the said Lord Paget and did the Trespass viz. digged a Turff there and there left it and so departed The matter of challenge was many times argued and it was argued against the said challenge because that the King is party against whom no Lord of Parliament shall have such Prerogative To which it was answered on the other side that so much the rather the challenge lyeth in the Case for where a Peer of the Parliament is to be tryed upon an Endictment of Treason or Felony it shall be per pares if upon appeal of Murder or Felony by ordinary tryal See 33. H. 8. Br. Tryal 42 and Br. Enquest 49. It was said on the Plantiffs side that here the Bishop is quodam modo and the Venire facias issued at his own Sute and therfore the mismaking of the Pannell is his own fault But by Gaudy Iustice the Venire facias in this Case is reputed in Law the Sute of the Queen notwithstanding that the parry endicted for his expedition doth pay the Fees for the Process for that the Clarks of the Court have encroached for their gain for otherwise there should be none paid by the Queen and by the better opinion of the Court the challenge was holden good Another matter was moved because the Endictment is clausum Domini Paget and it appeareth by the Verdict that the said close at the time of the Trespass was in the occupation of B. at the will of the Lord Paget for the Lord Paget cannot have an Action of Trespass against the said Bishop or the said A. upon the matter and by Wray the Lord Paget cannot have Trespass Quare clausum fregit intravit upon this matter but for digging upon the Land demised or cutting of Trees an Action lyeth 19 H. 6. Tit. Trespass 36. But here the Endictment is that one F. entred by the commandment of the Bishop upon which matter no Action lyeth against the Bishop by the Lord Paget and especially in this case where the said A. did not carry away the said Turff from thence But by Wray notwithstanding that the Action of Trespass doth not lye for the Lessor yet it is well enough by way of Endictment Another exception was taken to the Endictment because it is alleadged 2 Len. 183. that A. by Commandment of the Bishop entred and did the Trespass and no place is shewed where the commandment was and for this cause the Bishop was discharged X. Stonley and Bracebridges Case Mich. 25 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Stonley against Bracebridge the case was Pâ—o. Com. 417. 418. Thomas Bracebridge Father of the Defendant was seised of the Mannor of Kingsbury to him and to the heirs males of his body and 32 H. 8. Leased a Field called Stalling parcell of the said Mannor to Tho. Coke for years and afterwards 4 E. 6. Leased the said Field the first Lease being in esse to Sir Geo. Griffith for seventy years who assigned the same to A. Bracebridge Brother of the Lessor and to Joyce Wife of the Lessor and afterwards 5 E 6. the said Tho. Bracebridge the Lessor by his Deed Indented gave the said Mannor to the said Sir George by these words dedi concessi barganizavi vendidi Proviso and upon condition That the said Sir George should pay to the said Thomas Bracebridge within fifteen days after ten hundred pounds and if he fail of payment thereof that then after the said fifteen days the said Sir George should be seised of a Tenement parcel of the said Mannor of the yearly value of three pounds now of sate in the occupation of Thomas Smith to the use of the said Thomas Bracebridge for his life and after to the said Sir George until he had levyed five hundred pounds for the payment of the debts and the education of the children of the said Thomas Bracebridge and after to the use of the Defendant in tail And of the residue of the said Mannor to the use of the said Tho. Bracebridge and of the said Joyce his Wife for their lives c. Tho. Bracebridge made livery to the said Sir George in one place parcel of the said Mannor which was in his own occupation in the name of the whole Mannor the fifteen days incur without payment of the said ten hundred pounds the Indenture is enroled Coke attorns Joyce dyes Tho. Bracebridge grants the Lands to a stranger by Fine and before Proclamations Thomas his Son and Heir apparent within age enters in the name of the Feoffees by reason of the forfeiture Proclamations are made Tho. Bracebridge the Father dyeth the Term of Coke expireth A. enters and leaseth to the Plantiff who enters upon whom Tho. Bracebridge the Son enters upon which Entry the Action is brought it was argued by Beamount the elder Although here in the Indenture of bargain and sale there is not an express consideration set down in the common form of a consideration yet because the consideration is implied in the condition it is good enough see the Proviso and condition ut supra that the said Sir George should pay c. As if I bargain and sell to you my Land Proviso that you pay to me for the same at such a day one hundred pounds that consideration set down in the form of a condition is as effectual as if it had been
extend ad veritatem facti which is set forth in the Avowry but only to reputation and so both stand together well enough Rent charge parcel of a Mannoâ— And that a Rent charge may be parcel of a Manor see 22 E 3. 13. 31. E 3. 23. in the Lord Tiptofts Case where it is ruled that title made to a Rent charge as parcel of a Manor is a good title and the Assize awarded upon it and in our Case the Reputation is enforced by the sute at the Court which was also reserved upon the said Feoffment together with the said Rent so as the intent of the parties to the Feoffment was that this Rent so reserved and accompanyed with the said sute shall be esteemed a Rent service and so parcel of the Manor and as to the continuance of Reputation it sufficeth if at the time of the bargain and sale aforesaid which was 26 H 8. it was by many reputed parcel of the Manor and he cited the Case of the Marquess of Winchester The King gave to his Ancestor the Manor of Dale and all lands then antea reputed parcel of the said Manor and in a Bill of Intrusion against the said Marquess he pleaded the grant with averment that the Land then antea reputed parcel Manerii praedict And because he did not shew certainly at what time the Land was reputed parcel of the Manor Iudgment was given for the Queen for it might be for any thing in his Plea that the said Land was reputed parcel of the said Manor before time of memory which Reputation would not serve but such Reputation ought to be within time of memory and understanding He cited also the Case of the Earl of Leicester King Edward the sixth seised of the Manor of Clibery of which a Wood was parcel granted the said Wood in Fee which afterwards escheated to the King for Treason Queen Mary granted the said Wood to another in Fee who granted it to the now Queen who granted the said Manor omnes boscos modo vel ante hac cognit vel reputat ut pars membr vel parcel Maner praedict to the Earl of Leicester and it was resolved in the Exchequer that by that grant the said Wood did pass to the Earl and Iudgment was given against the Queen Dy. 362 â— for it was part of the Manor in the time of E 6. at which time an t ' hac without the word unquam shall be extended ad quoddamcunque tempus praeteritum And Reputation needs not so ancient a Pedigree for to establish it for general acceptance will produce reputation As the house of the Lord Treasurer now called Tibould was of late a private Manor but now hath a new name by which it is known and that within these twenty years which is not so long a time as we have alleged for our Reputation and would pass in a conveyance by such name so None-such But as to Reputation I conceive that Reputation is not what this or what that man thinketh Reputation quid but that which many men have said or thought who have more reason to know it quaenam est inter illos reputatio There was a Case ruled in the Exchequer 13 Eliz. in a Bill of intrusion the Case was that King Hen. 6. was seised of a Manor to which a Neif was regardant who purchased Lands which the King seised and let by Copy as parcel of the said Manor and so continued until the time of E 6. who granted the same to Allice Hardwick and all Lands Tenements reputed parcel of the said Manor And it was adjudged that the said Land so purchased by the said Neif and demised by Copy did pass by the said grant to Hardwick And afterwards the same Term the Iustices without any solemn Argument shewed their opinions in the principal Case viz. That this Rent did not pass by the bargain and sale made as above by Anthony Wingfield to Bohan father of the Avowant for here in the premisses of the Avowry is not any matter set forth importing Reputation or by which it may appear that the Rent in question was ever reputed parcel of the said Manor but rather to the contrary and the bare averment of Reputation in the conclusion of the Avowry is not sufficient to induce Reputation But if the Avowant had set forth in his Avowry any special matter to induce the Court to conceive a Reputation upon the matter of the Avowry as to shew that the Bayliffs of the said Manor had always received the said Rent as parcel of said Manor and as Bayliffs of the said Manor had accounted for it as parcel of the Manor and that the Lessees of the said Manor had enjoyed the said Rent as parcel of the said Manor the same had been good matter to induce a Reputation to have incorporated the said Rent with the said Manor and so judgment was given against the Avowant and of such opinion as was affirmed by Wray was Anderson chief Iustice of the Common Pleas and Manwood chief Baron of the Exchequer XIX Cham and Dovers Case Pasch 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Ejectione firmae IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was that one Michel was seised of the Manor of D. within which diverse parcels of Land part of the said Manor where customary Tenements demised and demisable by copy c. according to the Custom of the said Manor for one two or three lives within which Manor there was a Custom scil that the Lord of the Manor for the time being might grant Copy-hold estates for life in Reversion The Lord granted such Lands for life by copy in possession took a wife and granted the same Copy-hold to a stranger in Reversion for life and died the Copy-holder in possession died the Land demised by copy is inter alia assigned to the Wife for her Dower who had Iudgment to recover in a Writ of Dower who entred and made a Lease thereof to the Defendant who entred against whom the Lessee of the Copy-holder brought Ejectione firmae Custom ad pasturandum non ad colendum and all this matter was found by Verdict and further found that every Copy-holder of the said Manor might Lease his Copy-hold for a year ad pasturandum sed non ad colendum and that the Lease made to the Plaintiff was for a year ad pasturandum 1. Cro. 469. Wells versus Partridge Post 100. Popham Attorny General of Council with the Defendant took exception to the Declaration because the Plaintiff had declared a Lease at the common Law and the Iury have found a Lease by the custom which cannot stand together And such a Verdict doth not maintain the Declaration as if the Plaintiff had declared upon a Lease for years of Lands and the Iury found a devise for years c. but the exception was disallowed by the Court. As to the matter in Law he argued that the Tenant in Dower should
such Tithes which are of such nature as Tithe-corn and Tith-hay And Manwood chief Baron held clearly that the Lease of these Tithes is good enough notwithstanding the defect by the special Reservation which is limited and appointed by the Statute and so by him a Lease of a House Rent Mill Ferry c. are out of the said Statute And as to the Tithes notwithstanding the words of the Statute are general any Tithes yet he conceived the Statute ought to be intended of Tithes of common Right and not of such customary Tithes as those of London are and therefore if all the Parishoners prescribe in modo Decimandi scil to pay a certain sum of mony for all manner of Tithes upon demise of such a Rectory such special Reservation is not necessary for these are Tithes against common Right and no Tithes are within the purview of the said Statute but those which are annual and therefore a Lease of Tithe-wood is out of the meaning of this Statute for non renovantur in annum and he said that upon a Lease of the Tithes of Chery Trees a rent ought to be reserved according to the Statute and the Farmer may bring his Cheries to the Market and buy Corn. Shute Iustice contrary for the words of the Statute are general And note that this Lease was of the Rectory of Saint Lawrence in the City of London There was another matter moved in this case because the lease whereof the Action is brought was made by the name of Master or Guardian and the Fellows whereas the true name of their Colledge is Master and Fellows Misnosmer And it was argued by Atkinson that the same is not such a Misnosmer which makes the Lease void for sive custos are words of surplusage v. 7 H. 6. 13. And also the case of the Cooks 20 Eliz. Plow 531. The Corporation was by the name of Masters or Governors and Comonalty mysterii coquorum c. And they made a conveyance by the name of Masters or Governors and Comunalty artis sive Mysterii c. the same is no such Misnosmer as shall make void the conveyance for Art and Mistery are both of one sense XXVI Harvey and Harveys Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Consultation CLare Harvey one of the Daughters of Sir James Harvy Alderman of London Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Sebastin Harvy Son and Executor of the said Sir James for a Legacy bequeathed to her by her Father Sebastian did not appear for which he was excommunicated and taken by a Writ of excommunicat capiendo and imprisoned and afterwards he came into this Court and surmised to the Court That the said Sir James in his life had given to the said Sebastian all his Goods and Chattells and was also bound unto the said Sebastian in a Statute-staple of two thousand pounds whereupon he had prohibition and now the Plaintiffs counsel prayed a Consultation quatenus non agitur ad validitatem facti aut Statuti And Egerton Solicitor of Counsel with the Plaintiff cited a Iudgment given in the like Case betwixt Lodge and Luddington where such a special Consultation was granted But Wray put a difference betwixt the said Case and the Case at Bar for here in this Case is a gift by the Testator himself but in the Case cited the gift was by the Executor and also here is a Statute of two thousand pounds in which Case the Obligations which could not pass by the deed shalll be subject to the said Statute XXVII The Duke of Northumberlands Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe late Duke of Northumberland seised of five Messuages in the Parish of St. Sepulchres London in the Tenure of W. Gardiner Bargain and sale 3 Co. 9. by deed intented and enrolled for money bargained and sold to I. L. all his Tenements situate in the Parish of St. Andrews in Holborn in the Tenure of W. Gardiner to have to the said I. L. for life the remainder to K. his Daughter in Fee. Atkinson The bargain and sale is void by reason of the Misnosmer of the Parish notwithstanding the truth of the Tenure for by the grant and bargain and sale of all his Tenements in the Parish of St. Andrews nothing passeth and the truth of the Tenure subsequent shall not help it And by Manwood chief Baron the sale is utterly void for the falsity doth preceed the truth and certainty And it was argued that I. L. entring by colour of the same bargain and sale is a disseisor as the Case is betwixt Croft and Howel 20. Eliz. Com. 537. Yet if he was but Tenant at Will when he made the Lease for years the same was a Disseisin to the said Duke and then the Duke being disseised he is attainted of treason 10. Mariae And now we are to see what things accrue to the Queen by the said Attainder and as to that it was said that at the Common Law a Right of Entry should Escheat but not without office found thereof no more than Lands in possession And by the Statute of 26 H. 8. it is enacted that every person attainted of high treason shall forfeit all his Lands and Tenements which he had of any estate of Inheritance by which Statute a Bishop Abbot or Tenant in tayl in such Case shall forfeit even without Office But in the Statute of 33 H. 8. there is a saving to every other person all such right possession so as in that Case by that Statute the King shall not be in possession without Office but shall have a right but cannot enter before Office or after And he is to have Sci. facias against him who hath the possession and he shall make his defence as well as he can and the words of the said Statute That the King shall be in actual possession shall not be construed to extend to an actual and absolute possession but such a possession only which he had at the Common Law after Office found so as the Statute doth not give to the King a larger possession but an easier without the circumstance of an Office And of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron and Shute second Baron And then it was moved further by Cook because that the Quen by the Attainder hath but a Right and the Queen makes the grant of the Messuages themselves the same grant is void And he granted that the Queen might grant a real Action and a Right of Entry but such a grant ought to be conceived in special words as to say That the Duke of Northumberland was seised of five Messuages and by such a one disseised and after the Duke was attainted and so granted for the Queen may grant such a Right by reason of her Prerogative and therefore the same ought to be granted by special words as in the Case of Mynes in the Commentaries and according to that was the opinion of the Iustices in Cromers Case 8 Eliz. which Case see
things 1. Leases the number of the years 21 non ultra 2. antiquus redditus vel eo amplior yet in reason and good understanding we ought to think that the intent of the Act was that the said Manor should now come to the said Lady Frances surcharged with Leases in Reversion or to begin at a day to come for if by this Act the said Earl might make a Lease to begin three months after by the same reason he might make a Lease to begin twenty years after and also to begin after his death It hath been objected that the Lord Treasurer had a Commission to make Leases of the Queens Lands and that by virtue thereof he made Leases in Reversion I know the contrary to that for every such Lease is allowed by a Bill assigned and not by the ordinary Commission aforesaid the words of our Act are Dimissiones facere pro termino 21. annorum that shall be meant to begin presently As if I lease to you my Lands for one and twenty years it shall be intended to begin presently and he cited the Case betwixt Fox and Collier upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. cencerning Leases made by Bishops That four years of a former Lease being in being the Bishop leased for one and twenty years the same was a good lease notwithstanding the former lease for the lease began presently betwixt the parties And it hath been adjudged that a lease for years by a Bishop to begin at a day to come is utterly void And he cited the Case of the late Marquess of Northampton who by such an Act of Parliament as ours was enabled to make leases of the Lands of his Wife for one and twenty years and of the said Lands an ancient lease was made before the said Act which was in esse and before the expiration thereof he made a lease by virtue of the said Act to commence after the expiration of the former lease and that lease was allowed to be a good lease warranted by the said Statute because that the first lease which was in esse was not made by force of the said Act but if the said former lease had been made by virtue of the said Statute the second lease had been utterly void XLV Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Copy-hold Surrender by Attorney not good A Copy-holder of the Manor of the Earl of Arrundel did surrender his customary Lands to the use of his last Will and thereby devised the Lands to his youngest Son and his Heirs and died the youngest Son being in prison makes a Letter of Attorney to one to be admitted to the Land in the Lords Court in his room and also after admittance to surrender the same to the use of B. and his Heirs to whom he had sold it for the payment of his debts And Wray was of opinion that it was a good surrender by Attorney but Gawdy and Clench contrary 3 Cro. 218. 9 Co. 75. and by Gawdy If he who ought to surrender cannot come in Court to surrender in person the Lord of the Manor may appoint a special Steward to go to the prison and take the surrender c. and by Clench Lessee for years cannot surrender by Attorney but he may make a deed purporting a surrender and a letter of Attorney to another to deliver it XLVI Troublefield and Troublefields Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Dy. 337. b. Co. 1 Inst 15. 2. b. 52. 245. b. 252. 6. Post 51. Entry THe Case was that a Copy-holder did surrender to the use of his Will and thereby devised the Land to his Wife for life the remainder over to his son in tail and died the Wife entred and died a stranger did intrude upon the Lands and thereof made three several Feoffments to three several persons he in the Remainder entred upon one of the said three Feoffees in the name of all the Lands so devised and made a lease of the whole Land And by Clench and Wray it was a good Entry for the whole and by consequence a good lease of the whole Gawdy contrary Note all the Lands were in one County See 16 Eliz. Dyer 337. 9 H. 7. 25. XLVII Parmort and Griffina's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation by Parmort against Griffina a Merchant-stranger the Defendant pleaded Debt that the Obligation was made upon condition for the performance of certain Covenants contained within certain Indentures and shewed what c. and alledged further that in the said Indenture there is a proviso that if aliqua lis vel controversia oriatur imposterum by reason of any clause article or other agreement in the said Indenture contained that then before any sute thereupon attempted the parties shall choose four indifferent persons for the ending thereof which being done the Indenture and Obligation shall be void And in fact saith that Lis controversia upon which the Action is brought groweth upon the said Indenture upon which there was a demurrer in Law. And because the Defendant hath not shewed specially upon what controversie or strife and upon what article certain The Court was clear of opinion that the Bat was not good And also the Court was of opinion Proviso taken strictly that the said Proviso did not extend to subject and submit the breach of every Covenant or Article within the said Indenture to the Arbitrament of the said four persons but only where strife and controversie doth arise upon the construction of any Covenant c. within the said Indenture so as the Defendant ought to have shewed such matter which fell within the Arbitrament by the meaning of the said Indenture and Iudgment was given against the Defendant XLVIII Partridge and Partridges Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower by Partridge against Partridge the Case was Dower that Land was given to the Father for life the reversion to his Son and Heir for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the Father The Father and Son joyn in a Feoffment to the Vncle in Fee scil to the Brother of the Father The Vncle takes a Wife the Father dieth the Son being his Heir in tail the Vncle dieth without issue so as the Land descendeth to the Son as Heir to his Vncle against whom the Wife of the Vncle brought Dower It was moved if the Son being Herein can to his Father and Heir also to his Vncle for the Fee descended be now remitted for then no Dower accrueth to the Wife of the Vncle for the estate of which she demands Dower is gone but if the livery in which the Son joyned with his Father be the livery of the Son Remittâ— the same lies in his way in the impediment and preventing of the Remitter so as during his life he shall be adjudged seised of the Lands in Feesimple by descent from his Vncle Then Dower lyeth for the same
the said Goods to the Defendant at London by force of which he took them at London absque hoc that he took them at Coventry and that traverse not holden good for the Defendant by such a gift might justify the taking of the Goods in any place as well as in the place where the gift was made but if in such case the Defendant had pleaded that the Plaintiff delivered the said goods to him at London to deliver them over to A. by force of which he took them at London and delivered them over accordingly in such Cases the Defendant may well traverse the place supposed by the Declaration for by his Plea he hath confessed an immediate delivery of the said goods to him by the Plaintiff and the delivery and the taking all at one time and at one place and it had not been a good plea for the Defendant to say that the Plaintiff delivered to him the said goods at London by force of which he took them at Coventry for the possession is confessed by the first delivery of the goods at London and the supposal of the Plaintiff of a taking in Coventry and the justification of the Defendant of a taking by reason of a delivery at London cannot stand together But if the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff gave to him the goods in London by force of which he took them there there he may take traverse to the place supposed by the Declaration for by the gift it is lawful to the Defendant to take the goods in any place So see 19 H. 6. 35. In false Imprisonment supposed in the County of W. the Defendant doth justify as Sheriff of the County of B. by force of a Writ to him directed to attach the Plaintiff and so he attached him and imprisoned him at C. in the County of B. there the Defendant traversed the County supposed by the Declaration for otherwise he doth not meet with the Plaintiff and the authority of the Defendant doth not extend to the County supposed by the Declaration See also to the same purpose 22 E. 4. 39. by Hussy where the difference is taken when justification is by reason of a Warrant to take goods in any place whatsoever and where in a place certain as to the traverse of the Foundation absque hoc quod praedict Collegium fundatum fuit per nomen Decani Capituli Ecclesiae colleglatae Sancti Petri de Ethelborough apud Westm he hath here traversed that which was not alledged for the placing of the last words of the traverse scil apud Westminst in the end of the traverse seems by common construction to be intended thereby that there is no such Colledge at Westm and not that the Colledge was not founded at Westm for then the traverse should be absque hoc quod collegium praedictum fundatum fuit at Westminster per nomen c. But the most proper traverse that the Defendant could have taken in this case had been absque hoc quod Decanus Capitulum Ecclesiae collegiat de Ethelborough was seised for the Corporation mentioned in the Bill and that which is mentioned in the Bar are not all one but differ in this manner scil in the Bill the Dean and Chapter c. in the Bar the Dean Cannons and Bretheren and perhaps there are two such Corporations and then both cannot be seised and therefore upon the seisin of one of them the traverse shall be taken And afterward Iudgment was given for the Queen L. The Queen against the Bishop of London and Scot. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Quare Impedit 3 Len. 175. THe Queen brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of London and Scot and the Case was that A. seised of an Advowson in gross holden of the Queen in chief aliened the same by Fine without Licence the Church became void the Conusee presented The Queen without office found brought a Quare impedit the question was if the Queen without office found Office trove should present And it was argued by the whole Court that if the Alienation had been by Deed only that there the Queen without office found should not have had the presentment for upon such an Alienation by matter in fact without Licence no Scire facias should issue without office found of the Alienation Scire facias but upon an Alienation without Licence by matter of Record a Scire facias lyeth before office which was granted by the whole Court And in the last case the Queen shall have the mean profits from the time of the Scire facias returned but in the first case from the time of the office found See for that Stamford Prerogative fol. penult 8 E. 4. 4. It was also moved if the Queen intituled to the presentment as above pardoneth to the Conusee all Alienations without Licence and Intrusions if the estate of the Incumbent be thereby confirmed but the Court would not argue that point but it was adjorned until another day LI. Braybrooks Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Pines levyed THe Case of one Braybrook was moved which was Land was given to A. for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to the said Braybrook in Fee B. being in possession levyed a Fine to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. A. dyed if now Braybrook might enter for the forfeiture was the question And it was agreed by the whole Court that by that Fine the Remainder in Fee is not touched or discontinued Co. 1 Inst 251 b. 252. 2 Forfeiture 9 Co. 104. Post 211 212. 1 Cro. 219. 220. but because B. had done as much as in him lay for the disposing of Fee-simple by the Fine and hath taken that upon him the same amounts to a forfeiture And it was also agreed by Anderson and Periam that if Tenant for life in possession leveyeth a Fine c. if the Lessor doth not enter within five years after he shall be bounden Windham contrary for by him it is in the election of the Lessor to re-enter immediatly for the forfeiture or to expect the death of the Lessee LII Willshalge and Davidges Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber WIllshalge brought Error in the Exchequer Chamber Enâ—r upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. Cap. 8. against Davidge upon a Iudgment given in the â—ings Bench Hill. 28. Eliz. and assigned for Error that where Davidge had heretofore brought Debt against the now Plaintiff and declared upon diverse Contracts scil that he had sold to Willshalge such Merchandizes for so many Portugues and such Merchandizes for so many Ducats which in toto amounted to seven hundred pounds Sterling which sum he demanded scil in Sterling many 2 Cro. 88. 3 Cro. 536. Yel 80. 135. 136. and not in Ducats and Portagues according to the Contract And upon the Declaration the said Willshalge had demurred in Law and the Court
upon the Evidence Notwithstanding that the number set down in the plaint be by the plea of the Defendant quodam modo admitted and the lesser number surmised and the contrary not proved shall go in mitigation of the damages and the Iury shall conform their verdict in the right of damages according to the proof of the number notwithstanding that the number set forth in the plaint be not by the Plea denied by the Defendant and so it was put in ure in this Case for the Plaint was of the taking of one thousand Cattle but the proof extended but to eight hundred sixty five Note also in the same Plea it was holden that whereas one Chock was returned upon several Iuries in two several Courts at Westminster and both the Iuries are adjourned to one day now in which of the said two Courts the said Chock was sworn he shall be discharged of his attendance at the other Court the same day LV. Carters Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CArter brought an Action upon the Case against I.S. and declared Assumpsit that A. was possessed of certain Lands for years the Inheritance thereof being in the Wife of the Plaintiff upon which Lease a Rent was reserved The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would procure the said A. to assign the said Lease to the Defendant promised to pay the said Rent to the Plaintiff for all the residue of the Term It was objected that upon this matter the Action doth not lie because that the Plaintiff hath a higher remedy scil an Action of Debt or Distress but the opinion of the whole Court was that the Action did lie for here upon the promise an Action is given to the Husband alone in his own right whereas the Rent is due to the Husband in the right of his Wife in its nature and the Rent is also to be paid for the Land. But upon this Assumpsit it is payable to the person of the Husband And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LVI Kimpton and Bellamyes Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. GEorge Kimpton brought a Replevin against Wood and Bellamy Replevin who make Conusance as Baylies to George Burgain for Damage Feasance The Plaintiff in Bar of the Conusance sheweth That he himself and all those whose estate he hath in one hundred and forty Acres of Land time out of mind c. have had common for all manner of Cattle in six Acres of Lands whereof the place where c. is parcel and so put in his Cattle c. against which the Defendants say that the Plaintiff c. had common in forty Acres of Land whereof the said six Acres are parcel all lying in Communi campo and that the Plaintiff a long time before the taking had purchased two Acres parcel of the said forty Acres c. upon which there was a demurrer in Law It was argued by Serjeant Shuttleworth that the Replication to the Bar to the avowry is not good for in the Bar to the Avowry the Plaintiff hath shewed that he hath common in six Acres and the same shall be intended common in six acres only for common in forty acres cannot be the common in six acres as 35 H. 6. 38. In Debt for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the Plaintiff declared that he leased to the Defendant ten acres of Land rendring the Rent in demand the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff leased to him the said ten acres and also such a Rectory rendring the same Rent the same is no plea without traverse absque hoc that he leased the ten acres only See Dyer 29 H. 8. 32. And the whole Court was clear of opinion that for want of such traverse Traverse the plea is not good for by Periam the Common supposed in the bar to the Conusans out of the six acres cannot be intended the Common supposed in the Replication scil out of the forty acres And by him if in Trespass the Defendant justifie by reason of Common in six acres of Land upon which the parties are at issue and the Defendant in Evidence shews that he hath common in forty acres whereof the said six acres are parcel the same doth not maintain his title but the issue shall be found against him Post 80 81. But by the Lord Anderson because that this Demurrer is general the other party shall not take advantage of that defect of pleading for the want of the Traverse and that by reason of the Statute of 27 Eliz. For Traverse is but matter of form and the want of the same shall not prejudice the other party in point of Iudgment but the Iudges ought to judge upon the substance and not upon the manner and form of the pleading And as to the matter of the Common Extinguishment the Court was clear of opinion that by the purchase of the said two acres the whole Common was gone LVII Knights Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. KNight brought Debt against three Executors and now surmised by his Counsel that one of the Executors is dead pendant the Writ Debt and prayed the opinion of the Court if the Writ should thereby abate or not for by some it is not like where a Writ is brought against two Executors Abatement of Writ for there if any of them dieth pendant the Writ it shall abate for now the plural number is gone for there is but one Executor but in our Case the plural number continues But notwithstanding that the Court was clear of opinion that the Writ should abate Wherefore the Plaintiff seeing the opinion of the Court prayed that upon his surmise aforesaid he might have a new Writ by Iourneys Accounts which was granted to him The Queen and Middletons Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Quare Imped THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against Middleton and counted that W. Lord Say was seised of the Manor of Bedington in the County of Hertford to which Manor the advowson of the Church was appendant ad Ecclesiam praedict praesentavit Coo Clericum suum and afterwards died seised having issue two Daughters Mary married to the Earl of Essex and Ann to the Lord Mountjoy who make partition and the said Manor of Bedington inter alia was allotted to the said Mary for her part and afterwards the said Earl and Mary died having issue Ann who took to Husband the Marquess of Northampton and afterwards 33 H. 8. a Fine was levyed of the said Manor inter c. Querent and the said Marquess and Ann Deforceants by which Fine the said Manor was granted and rendred to the said Marquess for term of his life the remainder to the said Ann his Wife in tail the remainder over to Hen. the eighth in Fee the Marquess is attainted of High Treason by which the King seised and afterwards Ann died without issue after which
Another Exception was taken to the Writ because here it appears upon the Plaintiffs shewing that Sir Roger Lewknor had three Daughters and that they have all taken Husbands and that they have issue and that one of the said Daughters is dead living her Husband who is not named in the Writ for which cause the Writ shall abate See 22 H. 6. 24 25. But that Exception was also disallowed for as this Case is there is not any reason that the Tenant by the Curtesy should joyn in this Action for no judgment shall be given here that the Plaintiffs shall recover the place wasted for the term is expired as it appeareth by the words of the Writ scil quas tenuerunt and the Tenant by the curtesy is in possession and where Tenant by the curtesie and the Heir joyn in an Action of Wast Tenant for life shall have Locum vastatum and the Heir the damages which see 27 H. 8. 13. As unto the matter of Law upon the Exceptions of Woods and Vnderwoods it was argued by Shuttleworth that the Action of Wast was not well brought against Ford c. for the Assignment made by Shelley to Ford was with an exception of all Woods and Vnderwoods and therefore Shelley remained Tenant and he ought to answer for the Wood and the Vnderwood in the Action of Wast for upon every demise of Lands the Woods there growing are as well demised as the Land it self for so it appeareth by the Writ of Wast in domibus boscis dimissis ad terminum annorum c. which proves that the Trees are parcel of the demise and so may be execepted See Dyer 28 H 8. 19. by Shelley and Baldwin A man leaseth a Manor except Woods and Underwoods the Lessee cuts the Trees an Action of Wast doth not lie against him for the same for the thing in which the Wast is supposed to be committed was not demised c. and therefore the Lessee shall be punished as a Trespassor and not as Farmer Fenner Serjeant contrary and that the Exception of the Woods and Vnderwoods is meerly void for Shelley who assigns his interest with the said Exception hath not any such interest in the Woods and Vnderwoods so as he can make such exception for he had but an ordinary interest in them as Farmer viz. House-boot Hedge-boot c. which interest cannot by any means upon an Assignment be reserved to the Assignor in gross of the estate no more than if one hath common appendant to his Land and he will make a Feoffment of the Land reserving or excepting the common And he who hath the inheritance of the Land hath an absolute property in the Trees but the Lessee hath but a qualified interest and therefore 21 H 6. 46. the Lessor during the term for years may command the Trees to be cut down and 10 H. 7. 3. Lessee for years hath not any interest in the Trees but for the loppings and for the shadow for his Cattle And in the Case cited where Lessee for life and he in the Reversion make a Lease for life unto a stranger and wast is committed Co. 1 Inst 42. 2. and they bring an Action of Wast the Lessee for life shall have the place wasted and he in the Reversion the treble damages for in him was the true and very property of the Trees and therefore the treble damages do belong unto him and not to the Lessee for life who joyneth with him and the reason wherefore the Lessee for life or years shall recover treble damages against a stranger who cuts down any Trees growing upon the Land to him demised is not in respect of any property that the Lessee hath in the Trees cut down but because he is chargable over to his Lessor in an Action of Wast in which he shall render damages in such proportion So see 27 H. 6. Wast 8. A lease for life is made without impeachment of wast a stranger of his own wrong cuts down Trees against whom the Lessee brings an Action of Trespass in such Case he shall not recover treble damages not for the Trees but only for the breaking of the Close and the loppings for he is not chargeable over to his Lessor for the same because that his Lease was made without impeachment of Wast and if the Lessee hath such a slender interest in the Trees where his Lease is without impeachment of wast his interest is less where it is an ordinary lease without any such priviledge And the property which the Lessee for years hath in the Trees in such Case is so appropriated to the possession that it cannot be severed from it Windham and Anderson Iustices were of opinion that the Exception above is meerly void For Ford the Assignee of Shelly is now Termer and Farmer who alone can challenge interest in the Trees against all but the Lessor and Shelley after his Assignment is meerly a stranger The interest of the Lessee and also of his Assignee in the Trees is of necessity and follows the Farm and the Land as the shadow doth the body And by him where Lessee for years by reason of his lease is to have Wind-fals yet he cannot imploy them but to the benefit and profit of his Farm for if he sell them or spend them elsewhere he shall be punished Rhodes and Periam Iustices that the exception is good as the fruits of the Trees Shovelers c. And afterwards the Case was adjudged upon another point in the pleading so as the matter in Law did not come to Iudgment See Saunders Case 41 Eliz. Where Lessee doth assign excepting the Timber Trees it is a void Exception LXIII Gray and Jeffes Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 55. Action of assault and Batterry IN an Action upon the Case by Gray against Jeffe the Plaintiff declared that where he had placed his Son and Heir apparent with the Defendant to be his Apprentice and to learn of him the Art of a Tailor That the Defendant had so beaten his Son with a Spade that he thereupon became lame by reason of which he could not have so much with his Son in marriage of him as otherwise he might have because the same lameness is a disparagement to his said son And further shewed that he himself might spend twenty pounds per annum in Lands Haulton argued for the Plaintiff The Action Quare filium haeredem cepit abduxit is given to the Father in consideration that the marriage of his Son and Heir doth appertain to him by the Law and here by the Battery the Son is become so same that he is not so commendable to a Marriage as before and if the Father had lost the whole marriage then the Father should have had the Action Quare filium haeredem c. but here he hath not lost the whole marriage but the marriage is lessened by it and therefore he shall have this Action
the Land was entailed by the second Fine But that Exception was disallowed by the whole Court and a difference put by Anderson Where a man pleads the grant of an Advowson in gross by Tenant in tail in such case the life of the Tenant in tail ought to be averred for by his death the grant ceaseth But where a man pleads the Lease of Tenant in tail of a Manor with an Advowson appendant in such case such averment is not necessary So accordingly Smith Stapletons Case 15 Eliz. 431. And here it was moved if in as much as by the first Fine an estate for life was rendred to the Wife and by the second Fine in which she did not joyn an estate tail was limited unto her and now when the Husband dieth if he shall be remitted to her estate for life Co. 1 Inst 357. 2 Cro. 489. which Windham granted for that was her lawful estate and the second estate tortious But by Rhodes Periam and Anderson the Wife is at liberty to make her election which of the two estates she will have And as to the Writ to the Bishop for the Queen the Court was clear of opinion that it ought not to be granted upon this matter But all the question was if Regina inconsulta the Court would or ought to proceed And it was holden clearly by the whole Court that the tenure alledged modo forma could not be a tenure in chief for it is said that the Land was holden of the King as of the Castle of Dover in Capite LXXXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Intr. Pasc 28 Eliz. Rot. 602. Wast â— Cro. 40. 4â— WAst was brought by F. and his Wife agaist Pepy and counted that the said Pepy was seised and enfeoffed certain persons to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Wife of the Plaintiff and her Heirs The Defendant pleaded that the said Feoffment was unto the use of himself and his Heirs in Fee c. without that that it was to the uses in the Count Vpon which they were at issue And it was found by verdict that the said Feoffment was unto the uses contained in the Count But the Iury further found that the estate of the Defendant by the limitation of the use was priviledged with the impunity for Wast that is to say without impeachment of Wast And it was moved if upon this verdict the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment And Anderson and Rhodes Iustices he shall for the matter in issue is found for the Plaintiff and that is the Feoffment to the uses contained in the Count and this impunity of Wast is a forrein matter not within the charge of the Iury and therefore the traverse of it but matter of surplusage As if I plead the Feoffment of I. S. To which the other pleads that he did not enfeoff and the Iury find a conditional Feoffment the Court shall not respect the finding of the condition for it was not in issue and no advantage shall ever be had of such a liberty if it be not pleaded 30 H. 8. Dyer 41. In Dower the Tenant pleaded Ne unques seisi que Dower the Tenant pleaded that before the coverture of the Demandant one A. was seised of the Lands of which Dower is demanded in tail who made a Feoffment to a stranger and took the Demandant to Wife and took back an estate in Fee and died seised having issue inheritable Now although upon the truth of the matter she is not dowable de jure yet when the parties are at issue upon a point certain Hob. 53. Owen 91. no foreign or strange matter not in question betwixt the parties shall be respected in the point of the Iudgment But if the Defendant had pleaded it in bar he might have foreclosed the Demandant of her Dower Vide 38 H. 6. 27. 47 E. 3. 19. In a Praecipe quod reddat in the default of the Tenant one cause and shewed how the Tenant who made default was but Tenant for life of the Lands in demand the reversion in Fee to himself and prayed to be received The Demandant did counter-plead the receit saying the Defendant had fee upon which issue was joyned And it was found that neither the tenant nor he which prayed to be received had any thing in the Land In that case the Court did not regard the matter which was superfluous in the verdict for they were at issue upon a point certain that is whether the Tenant was seised in Fee for it was confessed of both sides that he had an estate for life and with that matter the Iury was not charged and they are not to enquire of it and so it was found against the Demandant for which cause the Receit was granted 7 H 6. 20. The parties were at issue upon a dying seised which is found by verdict but the Iury further find that the other party made continual claim this continual claim shall not be regarded in the point of Iudgment because it was pleaded in avoidance of the descent Windh Iustice contrary Forasmuch as it appeareth unto us upon the verdict that the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action and therefore he shall not have Iudgment As in Detinue No advantage of impunity for Wast shall be taken where the same is not pleaded though found by verdict Judgment Hob. 53. Owen 91. The Plaintiff counteth of a bailment by his own hand the Defendant pleadeth that he doth not detain c. the Iury find the Detinue but upon a bailment by another hand In this case notwithstanding that the Detinue be found yet the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment But Rhodes Periam and Anderson in the principal case were of opinion Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for in no case the party shall have advantage of such a Liberty of impunity of Wast if he do not plead it And the Iurors are not to meddle with any matter which is not in issue And if it be but matter of surplusage it is to no purpose And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LXXXVII Bracebridge and Baskerviles Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco AN Action of Debt is brought against three Executors Debt against Executors one of them pleads in Bar a Recovery against himself in the Kings Bench The other two plead plene administr Against the first plea the Plaintiff did aver covin and upon the second plea they are at issue The first issue is found for the Plaintiff and as to the other plea it was found that the Defendants have in their hands thirty pounds of the goods of their Testator not administred Note the debt in demand was one hundred pounds upon which the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover the goods of the Testator and thereupon had execution Now the Plaintiff brought a Scire facias against the said Executors supposing that many other goods of the Testator have come unto their
Plaintiff for certain Beasts which he wrongfully took from the Plaintiff that then c. And he said in facto That the said I. S. had stolen the said Beasts from the Plaintiff Condition against Law. and thereof he was endicted c. and so the condition being against the Law the Obligation was void upon which the Plaintiff did demurr in Law. And it was argued by the whole Court That where the condition of an Obligation shall be said against the Law and therefore the Obligation void the same ought to be intended where the condition is expresly against the Law in express words and in terminis terminantibus Post 103. and not for matter out of the condition as it is in this case And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff C. Hawks against Mollineux Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Replevin by Hawks against Mollineux who avowed for Damage-fesant The Plaintiff in Bar of the Avowry pleaded that Sir Gervase Paston Knight was seised of a Messuage and twenty Acres of Land And that always those whose estate Repleviâ— Yelv. 185. Prescription c. have used to have Common in the place where c. for all their Cattel commonable in this manner viz. If the said Land be sowed by assent of the Commoner then no Common until the Corn be mowed and when the Corn is mowed then Common until the Land shall be sowed again by assent of the Commoners And this Prescription was found by Verdict and exception was taken to this prescription because against common right so as a man cannot sow his Land without the leave of another But the exception was disallowed by the Court for the prescription was holden to be good by the whole Court for by the Law of the Land the Owner of the Land cannot plow the Land where another hath Common but here is a benefit to each party as well for the Owner of the Land against the Commoner as for the Commoner against the Tenant of the Land for each of them hath a qualified Interest in the Land. CI. Baldwin and Cocks Case Intr. Pasch 29 Eliz. Rot. 1410. In Communi Banco Replevin Owen 52. Post 225. 1 Inst 225. 2. BAldwin was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Cocks and upon the pleading the Case appeared to be this That Sir Richard Wayneman was seised of the place where c. and leased the same to one Truepeny and one Eliz. Reade for term of 21 years if the said Truepeny and Eliz. or any child or children betwixt them begotten should live so long Eliz. within the term died without issue If now the term for 21 years be determined was the Question And the Lord Anderson conceived that the estate for years is not determined by the death of Elizabeth And it was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant that upon the matter the term is determined And he put the Case of the Lord Bray 3 Eliz. Dyer 190. Where the Lord Bray sold unto four great Lords the marriage of his Son and Heir to the intent to be married at the appointment and nomination of the said Lords the Lord Bray died one of the said Lords before any marriage 5 Co. 9 1 Brown. 31. 46 47. 80. 101. 2 Br. 83. 148. or appointment or nomination died the Son is married by the appointment c. of the surviving Lords That marriage is not within the intent of the Covenant and adjudged that upon that marrriage no use shall accrue And also he cited this Case adjudged in the Kings Bench. The administration is committed to one durante minore aetaâ—e of two Infants one of them becomes of full age the power of the Administration is determined which Walmesley Serjeant granted for it is but an authority but here in the Case at Bar is a matter of interest And by Anderson all the construction of this lease and grant rests upon this point if this word Or either shall be taken as disjunctive as it is in its nature or as a conjunctive and if it be taken as a disjunctive if it make the whole sentence in the disjunctive as if the limitation had been if the Husband or Wife or any Child c. And Fenner put this Case out of 17 E. 3. as he cited it Land is given to I. S. in Fee so long as A. B. hath issue of his body A. B. dieth without issue his Wife priviment enâ—â—ent Now the estate is determined and upon birth of the issue after shall not revive which Rhodes and Anderson denied for in many Cases the Law shall respect the existency of the child in the mothers belly And see 7 Eliz. Plow 289. where a Copulative shall be taken in the disjunctive as a covenant with B. to make a lease for years of such Lands to the said B. and his Assigns Exposition of words in deeds 244. Post 251. 1 Roll. 444. the same shall be construed or his Assigns And it was clearly agreed by the other parties that if the words had been If Truepeny Elizabeth or any child or children c. so long c. upon the death of any of them the interest is determined And by Rhodes Periam and Windham in the principal Case the lease shall endure as long as any of the persons named in the Proviso shall live and so seemed to be the meaning of the parties And Anderson haesitavit in the words of the limitation i. the Habendum to the said Truepeny and Eliz. for 21 years a festo Sancti Johannis Baptist post terminum annorum the expiration of a former term if the said Truepeny and Elizabeth or any child c. And he conceived that the limitation did go to the commencement of the lease only and not to the expiration or determination as if the lease should not begin if they all were not alive at the commencement of the lease And all the other Iustices were clear of the contrary opinion for by them this limitation shall go and shall be referred to the determination of the Lease and not to the commencement of it Anderson If any cause should be for which the lease should endure untill the years be encurred notwithstanding the death of the Husband or Wife it was because the lease was intended a common advancement to both for it should be in vain to name the Wife in the lease if the lease should cease by the death of the Husband And afterwards after many arguments on both sides it was adjudged that by the death of Elizabeth the lease was not determined for the disjunctive before Child makes all the limitation in the disjunctive CII Zouch and Bamfields Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco THe Case between the Lord Zouch and Bamfield was now argued by the Iustices And Rhodes the puisne Iustice argued 1 And. 165. 3 Co. 88. that the Lord Zouch the Demandant should be barred Four Exceptions have been taken to the bar First because it is not shewed in
their amendment makes alteration of the substance of the pleading or of the Verdict as 20 H. 6. 15. In Trespass the Plaintiff declared of a continuando usque diem impetrationis brevis viz. 18. die Martii where the Teste of the Writ was 2 die Januarij the Defendant pleaded to Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and that Misprision of the Teste or date of the Writ could not be amended And no amendment upon this Stat. of 27 Eliz. two things are to be considered First that the Iudges in such amendment medle not with matter nor alter the substance Secondly that they do not amend but according to their judicial knowledge Anderson to the same intent for as it hath been said before the truth of the Case doth not appear unto us according to which we can judge and I conceive that upon any amendment upon this Statute we cannot take out one Roll and put in another and as our case is we cannot amend this defect without taking out the whole Roll and therefore in the Case of Leonard which was late Custos brevium here where in a Replevin he avowed for a Rent-service and upon especial Verdict the Case was that Sir Henry Isley held of the said Leonard by Fealty and the Rent mentioned in the Avowry and was attainted of high Treason and the King seised and granted the Land to the Plaintiff upon whom Leonard avowed for the Rent-service and I and my companions were agreed that the rent notwithstanding the seisure and grant of the King remained distrainable of common right but Leonard could not have return of the Cattel because he had avowed for a Rent-service now it appeareth to us upon the Verdict that he had right to so much rent but not to such a Rent but a Rent-seck distrainable of common right so a Rent in another degree and we also agreed that the Avowry was not amendable for then upon such amendment we ought to take out a whole Roll which was not intended by this Statute And he conceived also that in debt against Executors in the Debet detinet such a Writ shall not be amended by this Statute and he conceived that his exception to the Bar quod ad medietatem 60. Messuag c. parcel medietatis c. is relieved by this Statute for the meaning appeareth And also the exception that it is not expresly shewed that the Fine was engrossed in the same Term in which it was levied And Periam moved another matter Co. 1 Inst 71. b. 72. a. if now the parties demurring in Law as to part of the Land in demand and being at Issue upon the residue if the Court shall adjudge the matter in Law before the Issue be tried or not 32 H. 6. 5 6. In Trespass for taking of his Cattel the Defendant as to parcel pleaded not guilty and as to the remnant pleaded another Plea upon which the parties did demur and there they proceeded to trial before the matter in Law determined and found for the Plaintiff and he had Iudgment thereupon for the damages but the costs were suspended until c. And the Defendant brought his Writ of Error 48 E. 3. 15. In an Action of Wast as to parcel the Defendant pleads no Wast and as to the rest pleaded matter in Law upon which there was a demurer joyned It was holden that the Issue should not be tried until the matter in Law be determined But it was said by Fulthorpe in Trespass if the Defendant to parcel plead the Enquest and to other parcel matter in Law in such case he should proceed to trial presently and damages should be taxed of the whole as well of that upon which there was a demurrer in Law as of that of which the Issue was joyned ad quod non fuit responsum See also 11 H. 4. 228. In Trespass the Defendant pleaded to Issue for part and for the residue did demur in Law Process for the trial issued before the matter in Law determined And Periam conceived that the Court might proceed in such Case the one way or the other As to the matter in Law whether the issue in tail upon this Fine should have the Averment he conceived that he should not have the said Averment for that it should be very perilous to the Inheritances of the subjects And he argued much upon the dignity of Fines out of Bracton and Glanvil whom he called Actores non Authores Legis that Fines at the common Law were of great authority until the Statute of West 2. And afterwards by the Statute of 34 E. 3. of non-claim from whence they became to be of so little value in Law that they were accounted no other than Feoffments upon Record so as thereby no assurance was of Inheritances but a general incertainty until the Statute of 4. H. 7. by which Statute they were restored to their ancient power and virtue After which Statute many shifts were devised to creep out of it So as the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made to take away all questions and ambiguities which were conceived upon the said Statute of 4 H. 7. And therefore we who are Iudges ought to frame our Iudgments for the maintaining of the authority of Fines for so the possessions and inheritances of the Subjects shall be preserved And that is the reason that if a stranger levy a Fine of my Land in my name that I have not any remedy but a Writ of Deceit against him who levyes the Fine so if a Feme-covert levyeth a Fine of her Land as a Feme-sole the same shall bind her after the coverture if the Husband do not enter upon the Conusee during the coverture and interrupt the possession gained by the Fine And 17 E. 3. and our Books are very plentiful to this purpose that the Law doth aerge admit of such allegations against such Fines A Fine was pleaded in Bar of Land in A. B. and C. he against whom it was pleaded was not received to aver against the supposal of the Fine that there was no such Town or Hamlet as A. 46 E. 3. 5. A woman Tenant in tail had Issue a Daughter who was inheritable to the tail the Daughter took a Husband they both living the Mother and during her seisin levied a Fine of the Land entailed to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. who rendred the Land to the Husband and Wife in specil tail the Husband died having Issue the Wife took another Husband had Issue and died the Husband to entitie himself to the Land as Tenant by the curtesy would in pleading have averred the seisin of the Mother at the time of the Fine levyed and he could not and yet he was a stranger to the Fine but he was privy to the estate and his claim was by her who levyed the Fine 6 E. 3. 46. Fitz. Averment 40. In a Writ of Entry sur dissei sin the Fine of the
Term which reason in construction of the said Statute the Iudges in the case of the Cooks of London 20. Eliz. have observed which see Plowden 538. For although Successors are not mentioned in the said Statute of 4 H. 7. but only Heirs yet the Iudges did construe the said Statute to extend to them that they should be bounden as well as the Heirs for it is in the like mischief and the said Statute was made for the publick good and for the repose of the Inheritances of the Subjects of this Realm and therefore the same ought to be largely extended in the meaning and sense of it and for the benefit of the Possessors of the Lands and to the destroying of former rights which were not claimed It hath been said that this Fine is but a Fine by conclusion and not in verity and therefore not within the Statute But without question Fines by conclusion are within the Statute And that is clear by the Saving scil to all persons other than parties to the said Fines c. And Periam was against the opinion in Stowells Case by Sanders 356. A Disseisor maks a Feoffment in fee upon condition the Feoffee levies a Fine with Proclamation five years pass the condition is broken the Disseissor re-entreth and Periam conceived that in such Case the Disseissee is bounden for by the Fine and five years non-claim the right of every stranger is barred and when the Disseissor entreth for the condition broken the Fine is not annoyed but rather confirmed and former rights shall not be revived Windham to the same intent and vouched the Books before remembred and that the meaning of the Statute of 32 H. 8. made upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. was to bind the Issue in tail as strongly as the heir of Tenant in Fee-simple was bound at the common Law and that Fines by conclusion are as fully within the purview of that Statute as Fines in verity for Fines by conclusion are Assurances And as to the objection against our Fine that it is not rite levatus because that partes ad finem nihil habuerunt c. the same is no reason wherefore this Fine should not be rite levatus for these words rite levatus to the external form of a Fine are to be taken as to a Fine levied coram Edmundo Anderson socijs suis where all the Iustices ought to be named and so it seemed also to Periam and Anderson Our case had little resemblance to the Case where Tenant in tail maks a Lease according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. if he be not seised at the time of the demise it is void for the Stat. speaks seised in tail but so are not penned the Statutes of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. as 4 H. 7. a Fine levied shall bind privies strangers c. 32 H. 8. Fines levied of any Lands entailed to the Conusor or any of his Ancestors and it is not a Fine in respect of the possession which passeth by the Fine but in respect of the Concord and Agreement And Tenant in tail by these Statutes hath as great power to bind the right of the entail although he cannot meddle with the possession as the Tenant in Fee-simple at the common Law. Anderson to the same intent All the matter rests upon this point if the Issue in tail be privy or not for if he be privy then clearly he is bounden And as to that the Issue in tail before the Statute of 32 H. 8. hath been always accounted privy See 29 H 8. Dyer 32. Tenant in tail of the gift of the King levieth a Fine the same shall bind his Issue for they are privy And he argued much upon the Cases cited by the other Iustices before and especially upon the said Case of Stowel and the Lord Zouch how that the Issue in tail is there holden privy and that the Statute of Fines ought to be taken and construed to enfore the operation of Fines against former rights and for the establishment of the present possessions and estates And by him divers rights and persons are excepted by the said Statute but this right in gross of possession nor the Issue in tail whose Ancestor being out of possession levieth the Fine is not excepted therefore both of them comprehended in the Statute And in his argument he stood much upon it how dangerous a matter it should be to receive such averments and allegations which go meerly in avoidance of Fines for so every Fine might fall in the mouth of the Lay-Gens which would be very inconvenient And he concluded his Argument with this Case Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth his discontinnuee and levieth a Fine the discontinuee before the proclamations reentreth the proclamations are made Tenant in tail doth re-enter and dieth seised against this Fine his Issue shall not be remitted See as to the averment 3 H. 627. 33 H. 6. 18. 42 E. 3. 20. 8 H. 4. 8. 12 E. 4. 19. by Fairfax and Needham and fol. 15. by Brian and Choke And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Demandant should be barred CIII Gunerston and Hatchers Case Intr. Pasch 24 Eliz. Rot. 2112. In Communi Banco CHarles Duke of Suffolk was seised of three parts of the Manor of D. and Poole was seised of the fourth part of the said Manor Avowry and afterwards the Duke granted out of the said three parts a Rent-charge of five marks to Gunerston and afterwards the said Duke of the said three parts did enfeoffe Hatcher in Fee after which Poole conveyed his said fourth part of the said Manor to the said Hatcher in Fee and afterwards Hatcher being seised ut supra reciting the said several purchases especially the said fourth part devised to Katherin Hatcher at Will and Gunerston distreined the Cattel of Katherin Hatcher for the arrearages of the said Rent and in a Replevin avowed the distress and by the opinion of the whole Court the Avowry was not maintainable for the fourth part of the said Manor which was in the possession of Poole was not charged with the Rent and although all the Manor be now in the possession of Hatcher yet the Mannor is not so consolidated nor united by this unity of possession but that the owner might well enough single out eandem quartam partem and grant it and the grantee shall hold the same discharged as the said Poole held it and the beasts of the said Katherin shall not be distreined and so Iudgment was given against the Avowant CIV Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Voucher Post 291. IT was moved by Serjeant Walmesley If a common Recovery be to pass at the Bar and the Tenant is ready at the Bar and voucheth to warr A. for whom one is ready at the Bar to appear for the vouchee by his warrant of Attorny It was holden that this appearance is meerly void for in such case the vouchee ought to appear in person
petit quod inquiratur per patriam praedict Brett similiter It was moved that the parties should replead for this matter upon which they are at Issue scil the appearance is not triable by Iury but by the Record And the Court was clear of opinion that the parties should replead for the cause aforesaid And it was moved by the Lord Anderson that if A. be bound to appear in the Kings Bench at such a day and A. at the said days goe to the Court but there no process is returned then the party may go to one of the chief Clerks of the Court and pray him to take a Note of his appearance And by Nelson we have an acient form of entry of such Appearance in such Cases Ad hunc diem venit I. S. propter indemnitatem suam Manucaptorum suorum petit quod comparentia sua in Curia hic recordetur And see for the same 38 H. 6. 17. And afterwards the Lord Anderson inspecto Rotulo ex assensu sociorum awarded a Repleader And so by Nelson it hath been done oftentimes here before and put in ure The same Law is where at the day of appearance no Court is holden or the Iustices do not come c. he who was bound to appear ought to have an Appearance recorded in such manner as it may be and if the other party pleadeth Nul tiel Record it behoveth that the Defendant have the Record ready at his peril for this Court cannot write to the Iustices of the Kings Bench for to certifie a Record hither CXV Baxter and Bales Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt not extinct by administration BAxter brought Debt upon a Bond as Executor of I. against Bale who pleaded that the Plaintiff after the death of the Testator was cited to appear before the Ordinary or his Commissary to prove the Will of the said I. and at the day of his appearance he made default upon which the Ordinary committed Letters of Administration to the Defendant by force of which he did administer so the debt is extinct c. but the whole Court was clear of opinion that the debt was not extinct for now by the probate of the Will the administration is defeated and although the Executor made default at the day which he had by the Citation before the Ordinary yet thereby he is not absolutely debarred but that he may resort to the proving of the Will whensoever he pleaseth But if he had appeared and renounced the Executorship it had been otherwise and the debt is not extinct by the Administration in the mean time CXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Franchise the parties are at Issue upon a matter triable out of the Franchise And it was moved if now the Record should be sent into the Common Pleas and there tryed and after trial sent back into the Franchise Which Periam and Anderson utterly denied and by Periam there is no reason that we should be their Ministers to try Issues joyned before them And it is not like 2 Len. 37. where in a Liberty or Franchise a Forrein Voucher is to warrant Lands in such cases we shall determine the Warranty but that is by a special Statute of Glocester cap. 12. And Nelson Prothonotary said that such an Issue was tryed here of late Quod nota CXVII The Earl of Arundel and the Lord Dacres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. At Serjeants Inne PHilip Earl of Arundel and the Lord William Howard his Brother marryed the Daughters and Co-heirs of the late Lord Dacres And now came Francis Lord Dacres as heir male of the said Family and claimed the Inheritance c. And after long sute betwixt both parties they submitted themselves to the award of Gilbert Lord Talbot and of Arthur Lord Grey of Wilton and Windham and Periam Iustices And before them at Serjeants Inne the matter was well debated by the Council learned on both sides and as unto Greistock Lands parcel of the Lands in question the Case was That Tenant in tail makes a Feoffment in fee unto the use of himself for his life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son with divers Remainders over with a Proviso that if any of the Entailees do any act to interrupt the course of any entail limited by the said Conveyance that then the use limited to such person should cease and go to him who is next inheritable And afterwards Tenant in tail dieth his eldest Son to whom the use in tail was first limited entreth and doth an Act against the said Proviso and yet held himself in and made Leases the Lessees enter the Lessor dieth seised his Heir being within age and in ward to the Queen It was holden by Shutleworth Serjeant Yelverton Godfrey Owen and Coke who were of Council with the Heirs general of the Lord Dacres that here is a Remitter for by this Act against the Proviso the use Remitter and so the possession doth accrue to the enfant Son of him to whom the use in tail was limited by the Tenant in tail Then when the Tenant in tail after his said Feoffment holds himself in this is a disseissin for a Tenancy by sufferance cannot be after the cesser of an estate of Inheritance But admit that he be but a Tenant at sufferance Hâ—b 255. Dy. 54. yet when he makes Leases for years the same is clearly a disseisin and then upon the whole matter a Remitter and although the Enfant taketh by the Statute yet the right of the tail descending to him afterwards by the death of his Father doth remit him as if Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son inheritable to the first intail notwithstanding that the eldest Son takes his Remainder by the Statute and so be in â—â— force thereof yet when by the death of his Father the right of the Entail descends to him he is remitted CXVIII Butler and Ayres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower BUtler and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Thomas Ayre Son and Heir of Bartholmew Ayre first Husband of the said Margaret Wife of the Plaintiff and demanded Dower of Lands in A. and B the Tenant pleaded never seised que Dower and the Iury found that the said Bartholmew was seised during the Coverture de omnibus tenementis infra script preterquam the Tenements in sic ut dicta Margareta dotari potuit Exception was taken to this Verdict because that this preterquam c. doth confound the Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the preterquam is idle and surplusage for it is of another thing than that which is in demand and the seisin of the first Husband of Lands in A. and B. is confessed and the preterquam works nothing Another matter was objected because here the Iury have assessed damages
which process issued out of the Exchequer to take and seize all the goods and two parts as well of all the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases and Farms of such Offender as of all other the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments liable to such seisure or to the penalties aforesaid by the true meaning of this Act leaving the third part c. And Popham Attorney General moved If a Recusant hath more than a third part of his Lands in Copy-hold land if this Copy-hold as to the surplusage shall be liable to the penalty Manwood chief Baron conceived that the Copy-hold is liable in this Case by the Statute although not directly by express words yet within the intent of it and that by reason of these words all other the lands c. liable to such seisure c. Walmes Serjeant Copy-hold is not liable to a Statute Merchant or Staple also if the Queen hath the Copy-hold how shall the Lord have the services which the Queen cannot do Also a Copy-hold is not an Hereditament within this Statute which extends only to Hereditaments at the common Law and not by custom Also in Acts of Parliaments which are enacted for forfeiture of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments by those words they shall not forfeit Copy-holds Clark Baron this Statute was made to restrain Recusants from taking the benefit of their Livings and Copy-holds are their Livings as well as Free-holds and by this Statute the Queen shall not have every estate in the Copy-hold Land but only the taking of the profits but the scope of the Statute was to impair the Livings of Recusants and that by driving of them for want of maintenance to repair to the Church Walmesley If the Statute had given to the Queen to seise two parts of their livings then the Statute had extended to Copy-holds Manwood when a Statute is made to transfer an estate by name of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments the Copy-hold is not within such Statute but if the Lords Signiory his Customs and Services are not to be impeached or taken away by such Statute then it is otherwise for such Statute doth not make another Tenant to the Lord And by him Copy-holder shall pay Subsidies and he shall be assessed according to the value of his Copy-hold as well as of his Freehold and in this Case the Queen is to have the profits of the Lands only but no estate At another day the case was argued for the Recusants by Snag Serjeant and he said that these words Lands Tenements and Hereditaments are to be construed which are such at the Common Law not by Custom If I give to one all my Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in D. my Copy-holds do not pass and Statutes which are made to take away Possessions and Hereditaments out of persons ought to be strictly taken and not by Equity The Statute of 13 Eliz. of Bankrupts enacts that the Commissioners may sell the Lands and Tenements of the Bankrupts if the Statute had not made a further provision the Commissioners could not sell Copy-hold Lands but there are express words in the Statute for that purpose i.e. as well copy as fee Also the Staute of 13 Eliz. cap. 4. of Auditors and Receivers of the Queen doth not extend to Copy-holds And it should be a great prejudice to the Lords of such Copy-holds that the Queen should have the Land. Popham the intention of the Law somtimes causes a liberal construction of a Statute in the letter of it What Statutes extend to Copy-holds somtimes a strict and precise exposition and here it appeareth that the intention of the Statute was that the Queen should have all the goods of the offender and two parts of the Lands c. Leases and Farms and the Recusant but the third part of all his Lands only And therefore the Recusant is not to have any other thing but only that which is allotted to him by the Statute and that is the third part which is all the maintenance which the Law allows him and then if Copy-holds be not within this Statute a Recusant who hath great possessions in Copy-holds and hath no Free-hold should be dispunishable and hath his full maintenance against the meaning of the Statute And he said that many things are within the meaning of a Statute â—y 5. 6. Co. 3. Inst 109 Yel 60. 12 Co. 12. which are not within the words as Bonds Obligations and Specialties made to Recusants shall pass to the Queen by this Statute by force of the word goods according to the meaning of the Statute and all personal things are within the Statute c. profits of the Lands Advowsons and the like and the very scope of the Statute was to take away from Recusants all personal things whatsoever and two parts of real things as Leases Farms Lands Tenements c. with the intent that with the superfluity of their goods and possessions she should not maintain Iesuits and Seminary Priests people more dangerous than the Recusants And by him Lands in ancient demesne are liable to the penalties by the Statute although not by express words So if a Recusant hath Lands extended by him upon a Statute acknowledged unto him that Interest is not properly a Lease or Farm yet it is Land within this Statute liable c. And if I be Tenant by Elegit or Statute c. of Lands in D. not having other Lands in the said Town and I grant all my Lands in D. my Interest ut supra shall pass contrary If I have other Lands there And I grant that if I have Copy-hold Lands in D. and none other and I grant all my Lands in D. Copy-hold Land shall not pass by such assurance because that Copy-hold cannot pass but by surrender If I put out a Copy-holder out of his Lands the same is a Disseisin to the Lord of whom the Copy-hold is holden And if I levy a Fine of such Lands and five years pass not only the Lord is bounden as to his Free-hold and Inheritance but also the Copy-holder for his possession for the intent of the Statute of 4 H. 7. was to take away controversies litibus finem imponere 5 Co. 124. and contention may be as well for Copy-hold as for Land at the common Law. One hath a Lease for years to begin at a day to come he who hath the Free-hold thereof is disseised the Disseisor levieth a Fine five years pass he who hath the Free-hold is bound by it but not he who hath the Interest for years in futuro as it hath been lately adjudged But he said That if that point were to be handled again the Law would be taken to the contrary but it is clear that a Lease in possession shall be bound by such Fine And as unto any prejudice to the Lord it is clear that notwithstanding that the Queen hath the Copy-hold Land yet the Lord shall have the Rent during the possession of the Queen which is the
in the Case which gives cause of suit in Chancery for they will not order a matter there which is directly against a Rule and Maxim of the common Law. As if a Feme Covert be bound c. and the Obligee bring her into the Chancery and if a man threaten me that if I will not pay to him ten pounds he will sue me in Chancery upon which I promise to pay it him no Action will lye And an Infant is not chargeable upon any contract but for his meat drink and necessary Apparel 19 Z. 4. 2. And in Debt upon such necessary Contract the Plaintiff ought to declare specially so as the whole certainty may appear upon which the Court may judge if the expense were necessary and convenient or not and upon the reasonableness of the price for otherwise if the necessity of the thing and reasonableness of the price doth not appear the Chancellor himself would not give any remedy or recompence to the party Wray Justice conceived that the Action would not lye for the contract was void and the Infant in an Action against him upon it may plead Nihil debet And if an Infant sell goods for money and doth not deliver them but the Vendee takes them he is a Trespassor but if the Infant had been bounden in an Obligation with a surety and afterwards at his full age he in consideration thereof promiseth to keep his surety harmless upon that promise an Action lyeth for the Infant cannot plead non est factum which see Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Case of one Edmunds And afterwards it was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLVII Charnock and Worsleys Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot 833. In the Kings Bench. Owen 21. 1 Cr. 129. CHarnock and his Wife brought a Writ of Error against Worsley the Case was that the Husband and Wife the Wife being within age levyed a Fine and the Wife upon inspection was adjudged within age it was moved if the Fine should be utterly reversed or as to the Wife only should stand against the Husband by Godfrey the Book of 50 E. 3. 6. was vouched where it is said by Candish that where such a Fine is reversed the Plaintiff shall not have execution till after the death of the Husband and by Coke and Atkinson a Fine acknowledged by the Husband and Wife is not like to a Feoffment made by them for in case of Feoffment something passeth from the Husband but in case of a Fine all passeth out of the Wife and the Conusee is in by her only And Atkinson shewed a Precedent in 2 H. 4. where the Fine was reversed for the whole and also another Precedent P. b. H. 8. Rot. 26. A Fine levyed betwixt Richard Elie Plaintiff and N. Ford. and Jane his Wife Deforceants the Wife being within age and Iudgment was given quod finis praedict adnulletur pro nullo penitus habeatur and that the Husband and Wife should be restored and thereupon a Writ issued to the Custos Brevium to bring into Court the Foot of the Fine and it was presently cancelled in Court. Wray this is a strong Precedent and we will not varse from it if other Precedents are not contrary Gawdy who was the same day made Iustice the Fine cannot be reversed as to one and stand as to the other and resembled it to the Case of Littleton 150. where Land is given to Husband and Wife in tail before coverture and the Husband aliens and takes back an estate to him and his Wife for their lives they both are remitted for the Wife cannot be remitted if the Husband be not remitted And a Precedent was cited to the contrary 7 Eliz. where the Case was that the Husband and Wife levyed a Fine the Husband died the Wife being within age the Wife took another Husband and they brought a Writ of Error and the Wife by inspection adjudged within age Fine reversed as to one to stand good against another and the Fine was reversed as to the Wife and her Heirs And it was argued by Golding that here the Writ of Error ought to abate for the Writ is too general whereas it ought to be special Ex querela A.B. nobis humillime supplicantis accepimus c. See the Book of Entries 278. Also the purclose of the Writ is ad damnum impsorum the Husband and the Wife whereas the Wife only hath loss by it and as to the Fine it self he conceived that it should be reversed but as to the Wife as if a man of full age and a man within age levy a Fine in a Writ of Error brought the Fine shall be reversed as to the Infant only and shall stand against the other and he cited the Case of the Lord Mountjoy 14. Eliz. Where a man seised in the right of his Wife acknowledged a Statute and afterwards he and his Wife levyed a Fine and he said that during the life of the Husband the Conusee of the Fine should hold the Land charged with the Statute Also in the Precedent of 2 H. 4. the Iudgment is that propter hunc alios errores the Fine should be reversed and I conceive that another Error was in the said Writ for which the Fine might be reversed in all viz. the Fine was levyed of two parts of the Manor of D. without saying in tres partes dividend And see that where two parts are demanded in a Writ 3 Co. 58 59. Modern Rep. 182. the Writ shall say so Brief 244 Coke contrary and as to the last matter I confess the Law is so in a Writ but not in a Fine for the same is but a Conveyance for it I be seised of a Manor and I grant to you two parts of the said Manor it is clear it shall be intended in three parts to be divided And as to the principal matter I conceive when the Fine is levyed by the Husband and Wife it shall be intended that the Land whereof c. is the Inheritance of the Wife if the contrary be not shewed and therefore if the party will have an especial Reversal he ought to shew the special matter as in Englishes Case A Fine was levyed by Tenant for life and he in the reversion being within age bringeth a Writ of Error now the Fine shall be reversed as to him in the Reversion but not as to the Tenant for life but here it shall be intended the Inheritance of the Wife and that the Husband hath nothing but in the right of his Wife and therefore she shall be restored to the whole for nothing passeth from the Husband but he is named with his Wife only for conformity 11 H. 7. 19. A. takes to Wife an Inheretrir who is attainted of Felony the King shall not have the Land presently by which it appeareth that all is in the Wife and she shall be restored to the whole and the Iudgment shall be according to the Presidents cited
before And as to the President cited 7 Eliz. the same is not to the purpose for the second Husband was a stranger to the Fine for it would be absurd to reverse the Fine as against him Egerton Solicitor General Presidents are not so holy quod violari non debeant as to be rules to other Iudges in perpetuum and I conceive that the Fine shall be reversed as to the Wife only for the Fine is but a Conveyance and the Husband may lawfully convey the Land of his Wife for his life and if the Husband alone had levyed the Fine the same had bounden the Wife during his life If a woman Lessee for life taketh to Husband him in the Reversion and they joyn in a Fine the Fine shall stand as to the Inheritance of the Husband but shall be reversed as to the Interest of the Wife Coke it shall be intended here all the Interest and estate in the Land to be in the Wife as 20 H. 7. 1. Where the Husband and Wife are vouched it shall be intended by reason of the Warranty of the Wife only and so the Counter-plea shall be of the seisin of the Wife and her Ancestors Wray when the Husband and Wife joyn in the Fine it shall be presumed the Inheritance of the Wife and if it be otherwise it ought to be specially shewed and as to that which hath been said that if the Husband alone had levyed a Fine it should have bounden the Wife during the life of the Husband the same is true but such Fine is but a discontinuance but the right continueth in the Wife but when the Husband and Wife joyn in the Fine all passeth out of her and if the Fine in such case for the Inheritance shall be reversed in all to whom belongs the Free-hold to whom shall he be attendant Gawdy 12 H. 7. 1. In a Praecipe quod reddat against three they vouch severally the Voucher was not received and yet they might have several Causes of Voucher but the Law presumes they are Ioynt-tenants and have a joynt cause of Voucher if the contrary be not shewed And afterwards Iudgment was given quod finis predict reversetur and Wray said he had conferred with many of the other Iustices who were of the same opinion Gawdy the Fine shall be reversed in all for this is an Error in Law of the Court F. B. 21. D. For by this Fine the Husband giveth nothing divided from the estate of the Wife but all passeth from the Wife and therefore all shall be reversed and if the Fine should be reversed as to the Wife only then the Fine levyed now by the Husband alone is a discontinuance by which the Wife by the common Law shall be put to her Cui in vita and that is not reason Also we cannot by this Reversal make the Conusee to have a particular estate during the life of the Wife And therefore the Fine is to be reversed for the whole and as void for the whole to the Conusee CLVIII Cage and Paxlins Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 125. 3 Len. 16. DAniel Cage brought an Action of Trespass against Thomas Paxlin for Trespass done in a Close of Wood called the Frith-Close and in the Park and for taking of certain Loads of Wood the Defendant pleaded that the Earl of Oxford was seised of the Mannor of W. of which the place where c. is parcel and leased the same to J. S. for years excepting all Woods great Trees Timber-trees and Vnderwoods c. And covenanted with the Lessee and his Assigns that he might take Hedg-boot and Fire-boot super dicta premissa and shewed further that the said I. S. assigned his Interest unto the Defendant and that he came to the said Close called the Frifth-Close Lease of Lands excepting the wood and cut the Wood there for Fire-boot as it was lawful for him to do c. And note that after the Lease aforesaid the said Earl had assured the Inheritance thereof to Cage the Plaintiff And it was argued by Godfrey that the Lessee cannot take Fire-boot in the said Close for the wood c. is excepted and was never demised and by the exception of the wood the soil thereof is excepted See 46 E. 3. 22. A. leased for life certain Lands reserving the great wood by that the soil also is reserved vi 33 H. 8. Br. Reservation 39 28 H. 8. 13. 3 Len. 16. And by the words of the Covenant the intent of the Lessor appeareth that the Lessee shall have his Fire-boot out of the residue of the Lands demised for praemissa here is equivalent with praedimissa And he cited the Case moved by Mountaine cheif Iustice 4 E. 6. in Plowden in the Case betwixt Dive and Manningham 66. A. leaseth unto B. a Manor for years excepting a Close parcel of it rendring a Rent and the Lessee is bounden to perform all Grants Covenants and Agreements contenta expressa aut recitata in the Indenture if the Lessee disturb the Lessor upon his occupation of the Close excepted he hath forfeited his Obligation c. But our Case is not like to that Post 122. And if I let the Manor of D. for years except Green-meadow and afterwards I covenant that the Lessee shall enjoy the Premisses the same doth not extend to Green-meadow Snagg Serjeant to the contrary and by him praemissa are not restrained to praedimissa but to all the Premisses put in the former part of the Indenture of Demise therefore the Lesse shall have Fire-boot in the one and the other 2 Roll. 455. 2 Cro. 524. Post 122. and he put a difference betwixt all Woods excepted and all woods growing excepted for in the one case the soil passeth in the other not And as to the Case cited before in Plowden 66. that is true for exception is an Agreement And he said that by that exception the soil it self is excepted and these woods which are named by name of woods contrary where a Close containeth part in woods and part in Pasture And by the exception of Timber-trees and Vnder woods all the other woods are excepted but not the soil As if a man grant all his Lands in D. Land Meadow Pasture and woods thereby passeth by exception of this Close of wood the soil also is excepted and he conceived that although all the woods be excepted yet by the Covenant an Interest passeth to the Lessee Select Case 155 Hob. 173. Dy. 19 198 314. 21 H. 7 31. More 23. 1 Roll. 939. so as he may take Fire-boot without being put to his Action of Covenant As 21 H. 7. 30. A. leaseth unto B. for life and Covenants in the Indenture of lease that he shall be dispunished of Wast although the same be penned by way of Covenant yet it is a good matter of Bar being all by one Deed And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff as to that
the limitation for the life of the Wife cannot extend to both And as to the Book of 24 H. 8. Br. Forfeiture 87. 3 Cro. 167 168. Tenant for life aliens in Fee to B. Habendum sibi haeredibus suis for Term of the life of the Tenant for life the same is not a forfeiture for the whole is but the limitation of the estate And afterwards it was adjudged that it was a forfeiture Gawdy continuing in his former opinion And VVray said that he had conferred with the other Iudges of their House and they all held clearly that it is a forfeiture CLXXII Toft and Tompkins Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 528. UPon a special Verdict the case was that the Grand-father Tenant for life the Remainder to the Father in tail Discontinuance 1 Cro. 135. that the Grand-father made a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the Father in Fee And afterwards they both came upon the Land and made a Feoffment to Tompkins the Defendant Coke There is not any discontinuance upon this matter for the Father might well wave the advantage of the forfeiture committed by the Grand-father then when the Father joyns with the Grand-father in a Feoffment the same declares that he came upon the Land without intent to enter for a forfeiture It was one Waynmans Case adjudged in the common Pleas where the Disseissee cometh upon the Land to deliver a Release to the Disseissor that the same is no Entry to revest the Land in the Disseissee Then here it is the Livery of the Tenant for life and the grant of him in the Remainder and he in the Remainder here was never seised by force of the tail and so no discontinuance Godfrey Here is a Remitter by the Entry and afterwards a discontinuance for by the Entry of both the Law shall adjudge the possession in him who hath right c. Gawdy This is a discontinuance for when the Father entreth ut supra he shall be adjudged in by the forfeiture and then he hath gained a possession and so a discontinuance for both cannot have the possession Clench The intent of him in the Remainder when he entred was to joyn with the Grand-father and when his intent appeareth that the estate of the Grand-father and his own also shall passe that doth declare that he would not enter for the forfeiture Shute agreed with Gawdy CLXXIII Broake and Doughties Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 798. Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Case for words Action upon the Case for words 1 Cro. 135. viz. Thou wast forsworn in the Court of Requests and I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Action will not lye for these words for he doth not say that he was there forsworn as Defendant or witness And Trin. 28 Eliz. betwixt Hern and Hex thou wast forsworn in the Court of Whitchurch And Iudgment given against the Plaintiff for the words are not Actionable and as to the residue of the words I will make thee stand upon the Stage for it they are not Actionable as it was adjudged between Rylie and Trowgood If thou hadst Iustice thou hadst stood on the Pillory and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Daniel contrary thou wast forsworn before my Lord chief Iustice in an Evidence these words are Actionable for that is perjury upon the matter and between Foster and Thorne T. 23 Eliz. Rot. 882. Thou wast falsly forsworn in the Star-Chamber the Plaintiff had Iudgment for it shall be intended that the Plaintiff was Defendant or a Deponent there And yet the words in the Declaration are not in the Court of Star-Chamber Wray Thou art worthy to stand upon the Pillory are not Actionable for it is but an implication but in the words in the Case at the Bar there is a vehement intendment that his Oath was in the quality of a Defendant or Deponent which Gawdy granted In the Case 28 Eliz. Thou wast forsworn in Whit-Church Court there the words are not actionable for that Court is not known to you as Iudges And it may be it is but a great House or Mansion house called Whit-church Court But here in the principal case it cannot be meant but a Court of Iustice and before the Iudges there juridice and the subsequent words sound so much I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXXIV Gatefould and Penns Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prescription for tythes 1 Cro. 136. 3 Len. 203 265. Antea 94. GAtefould Parson of North-linne libelled against Penne in the spiritual Court for tythes in Kind of certain pastures The Defendant to have prohibition doth surmise that he is Inhabitant of South-linne and that time out of mind c. every Inhabitant of South-linne having pastures in North-linne hath paid tythes in Kind for them unto the Vicars of South-linne where he is not resident and the Vicar hath also time out of mind payed to the Parson of North-linne for the time being two pence for every acre Lewis This surmise is not sufficient to have a prohibition for upon that matter Modus Decimandi shall never come in question but only the right of tythes if they belong to the Parson of North-linne or to the Vicar of South-linne and he might have pleaded this matter in the spiritual Court because it toucheth the right of tythes as it was certified in the Case of Bashly by the Doctors of the Civil Law. Gawdy This prescription doth stand with reason for such benefit hath the Parson of North-linne if any Inhabitant there hath any Pastures in South-linne And afterwards the whole Court was against the prohibition for Modus Decimandi shall never come in debate upon this matter but who shall have the tythes the Vicar of South-linne or the Parson of North-linne and also the prescription is not reasonable CLXXV Gomersal and Bishops Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 175. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 136. BIshop libelled in the Spiritual Court for tythe Hay the Plaintiff Gomersal made a surmise that there was an agreement betwixt the said parties and for the yearly sum of seven shillings to be paid by Gomersal unto Bishop Bishop faithfully promised to Gomersal that Gomersal should have the tythes of the said Land during his life And upon an Attachment upon a Prohibition Gomersal declared that for the said annual sum Bishop leased to the Plaintiff the said tythes for his life And upon the Declaration Bishop did demur in Law for the variance between the Surmise and the Declaration for in the Surmise a promise is supposed for which Gomersal might have an Action upon the Case and in the Declaration a Lease But note that the Surmise was not entred in the Roll but was recorded
by it self and the Declaration only enrolled Godfrey It was resolved in the Case betwixt Pendleton and Hunt Prohibition for tythes that an Agreement betwixt the Parson and any of his Parishioners is a good cause to grant a Prohibition if he libel in the Spiritual Court against such Agreement because the Spiritual Court cannot try it and they will not allow such Plea. Curia The Surmise is as a Writ for which if variance be betwixt the same and the Declaration all his naught CLXXVI Colebourn and Mixstones Case Intrat Hill. 31. Eliz. Rot. 146. Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. COlebourn was sued in the Spiritual Court for that being Executor to one Alice Leigh he had not brought in a true Inventory of all the goods of the said Alice but had omitted and left out a lease of two houses and this suit was at the pursuit of two Daughters of the Testator Colebourn sueth for a Prohibition and surmises and declares how this Lease is extinct and the matter was this H. Leigh was seised of a house called the Marigold and two other houses in London and leased the said two houses to one Alice Cheap for 21 years if she should live so long and afterwards made a Lease in Reversion of the said two houses to the said Alice Leigh for 21 years and afterwards he devised these two houses Devises and also the house called the Marigold to the said Alice Leigh for her life for to bring up his children and died after whose death the said Alice Leigh entred into the said house called the Marigold and took the rents and profits of the said two houses for the space of 7 years virtute testament praedict upon which Declaration the Defendants do demurr in Law. Coke the Declaration is not good and for the matter of it it is clear that by this devise unto Alice her Term in futuro is not extinct without her agreement to it And also in this Case the Devise is not for the benefit of the said Alice Leigh but of her children and she hath liberty to accept or refuse the said estate by devise and to make her election Extinguishment And the Plaintiff hath declared that she hath accepted the Rent reserved upon the Lease of the said two houses for 7 years And therein the Declaration naught in divers respects 1. He hath declared that the said Alice Leigh hath accepted the Rents of the said two houses by reason of the reversion virtue testament praedict by 7 years which is double and treble for acceptance of a Rent at one day scil one rent day is a sufficient election As if the Issue in tail after the death of his Ancestor who hath made a Lease not warranted by the Statute once accepts the Rent the Lease is affirmed but if in plea pleading the acceptance of the said Rent for 3 years be pleaded the same clearly is not good for no good Issue can be taken thereupon 2. This acceptance is not pleaded as the Law wills and in the phrase of the Law viz. to which devise she agreed but pleads the acceptance of the Rent which is matter of evidence the which is not good pleading As 5 H. 7. 1. One sweareth another to enter into his Land and the same to occupy for a certain time Estate executed the same is a Lease in Law and if in pleading the party is to make his title to the same Land he ought to plead it as an expres Lease and not as a Licence and if the Lease be traversed he may give the Licence in evidence Tanfield presently by the devise the estate for life is in the Devisee and the Term extinct by it and that is sufficient for the Plaintiff And if there was any disagreement the same is to be shewed on the other side But if Alice had not notice of the Devise but dieth before notice the same amounteth unto a disagreement And as to the pleading of the Agreement I conceive it s well enough pleaded for if the Lease had not been she might have entred and then if such Entry had been pleaded it had been good enough and then because she could not enter by reason of the said Lease she hath taken the rents and profits which is an actual agreement and as strong as an Entry Also we have shewed that she had entred into the house called the Marigold Assent not to be apportioned of which the Devisor died seised in possession and that is a sufficient agreement for the whole for it is an entire Legacy As 18 E. 3. Variance 63. If the Reversion of three acres be granted and the Tenant for life attorneth for one acre it is a good attornment for the whole for he cannot apportion his assent and 2 E. 4. 13. If the Executor deliver unto the Devisee goods to him devised to redeliver them to him again at such a day the same is a good assent and execution of the Devise and the words of the re-delivery are void Gawdy The devise doth not vest the estate in the Wife until agreement where a man takes in a second degree as in a Remainder the same vests presently before agreement but where he taketh immediatly it is otherwise and he held the agreement was well enough pleaded Wray Presently upon the death of the Testator the Free-hold rested in the Devisee and it was not an Agreement ut supra by taking of the Rents yet the entry into the Marigold was a consent and an Execution of the whole Legacy and as to the rest he agreed with Gawdy Clench The Free-hold rested presently in Alice Leigh before agreement also the entry into the Marigold is an execution of the whole Legacy to the Devisee for her entry shall be adjudged most beneficial for her and that is for all the three houses CLXXVII Stransham and Medcalfes Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 178. STransham libelled in the Court of the Bishop of Norwich against Medcalfe for a portion of Tithes as Farmor of the Rectory of Dunham the Parson of Stonham came in and said that the Land whereof the Tithes are demanded is in his Parish of Stonham and not in the Parish of Dunham and afterwards sentence passed against Stransham who brought an Appeal and notwithstanding that by the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7. the spiritual Iudges may proceed to make process against the Appellant for costs for the principal matter scil parcel or within such a Parish or not is tryable at the Common Law. Cook now prayed a Consultation and he confessed ut supra that the matter was tryable at the Common Law but yet the costs were not given for the matter but for the unjust vexation No Prohibition for costs in the spiritual Court. and it was his suit and own act to prosecute the same in the Spiritual Court. Note that Stransham had a Prohibition to stay the proceedings for the costs for
second Lessee and declared upon a Lease made for years without speaking of the Indenture And Gawdy Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court if the Defendant might safely plead no Wast And they conceived that it should be dangerous so to do Then it was demanded if the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff had nothing tempore dimissionis whereof he had counted if the Plaintiff might estop the Defendant by the Indenture although he had not counted upon it and if such Replication be not a departure And it seemed to Periam and Leonard Custos brevium that it was not for it is not contrary to the Declaration but rather doth enforce the Declaration CCXXI Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAlmesley Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court upon this matter Land is given to Husband and Wife in special tail during the Coverture they have issue the Husband is attainted of Treason and dieth the Wife continues in as Tenant in tail the issue is restored by Parliament and made inheritable to his Father saving unto the King all advantages which were devolded unto him by the Attainder of his Father the Wife dieth And he conceived that the issue was inheritable for the Attainder which disturbed the inheritance is removed and the blood is restored and nothing can accrue to the King for the Father had not any estate forfeitable but all the estate did survive to the Wife not impeachable by the said Attainder And when the Wife dieth then is the Issue capable to enherit the estate tail Windham and Rhodes prima facie thought the contrary yet they agreed that if the Wife had suffered a common Recovery the sâ—me had bound the King. CCXXII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Assumpsit that he had delivered to the Defendant diversa bona ad valentiam 10 li. the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise to pay to the Plaintiff the Debt owing pro bonis praedictis and did not shew that the Defendant bought the said goods of the Plaintiff and so it doth not appear that there was any Debt and then a promise to pay it is meerly void which was agreed by the whole Court. CCXXIII. Seaman and Brownings Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. GEorge Seaman brought Debt upon a Bond against W. Browning and others Executors of one Marshal the condition was Debt that where the said Marshal had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff if the said Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoy the said Lands against the said Marshal c. and assigned the breach in this that the said Marshal had entred upon him and cut down five Elms there upon which the parties were at issue And it was found that A. servant of the said Marshal by commandment of his said Master had entred and cut c. in the presence of his said Master and by his commandment for he is a principal Trespassor And it was so holden by the Court. CCXXIV. Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IF the Kings Tenant by Knights service dieth his Heir within age 8 Co. 172. and upon Office found the King seiseth the Body and Land yet the Heir during the possession of the King may sell the Lands by Deed enrolled or make a Lease of such Land and the same shall bind the Heir notwithstanding the possession of the King but if he maketh a Feoffment in Fee it is utterly void for the same is an intrusion upon the possession of the King but where the King by Office found is entituled to the Inheritance as that his Tenant dieth without Heir whereas it is false for which the King seiseth in such case the Tenant of the King before his Ouster le mayne cannot make a Lease for years or sell the Land by Deed enrolled The Case depended in London before the Iudges of the Sheriffs Court. The King by colour of a false Office which doth falsly entitle him to the Inheritance is seised of certain Land he who hath right leased the same for years by Deed indented and then an Ouster le mayne was sued and he enfeoffed a stranger And it was holden that the Lease should not bind the Feoffee although it was by Deed indented for the Feoffee is a stranger to the Indenture and therefore shall not be estopped by it 18 H. 6. 22. A stranger shall not take advantage of an Estoppel and therefore shall not be bound by it As if one take a Lease for years by Indenture of his own Lands the same shall bind him but if he dieth without Heir it shall not bind the Lord in point of Escheat CCXXV. Gibbs Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 861. Owen 27. GIbbs brought an Action upon the Case upon Trover and Conversion of a Gelding and the Case was that one P. had stolen the said Horse and sold the same unto the Defendant in open Market by the name of Lister and the said false name was entred in the Toll-book And it was holden clear by the Court that by that sale the property was not altered CCXXVI Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Owen 45. Hutton 105. 1 Cro. 734. Post 322. TEnant in Socage leased his Lands for four years and died his Heir within the age of eight years the Mother being Guardian in Socage leased the Land by Indenture to the same Lessee for fourteen years It was holden by the Court that in this Case the first lease is surrendred but otherwise upon a Lease made by Guardian by Nurture CCXXVII Kimpton and Dawbenets Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass the Defendant did justifie by a grant of the Land where c. by Copy The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Land is customary Land ut supra and claimed the same by a former Copy The Defendant by Rejoynder saith that well and true it is that the Lord may grant Copies in possession at his pleasure and also estates by Copy in Reversion with the assent of the Copy-holder in possession but all estates granted by Copy in Reversion without such assent have been void It was argued that this custom is not good for it is not reason that the Lord in disposing of the customary possessions of his Manor should depend upon the will of his Tenant at will and the same is not like to the case of Attornment for there the Attendancy is to be respited which is not to be done here for the Copy-holder in possession shall continue attendant to his Lord notwithstanding such a grant in Reversion And see for the unreasonableness of the custom 19 Eliz. 357. in Dyer Sallfords Case It was moved on the other side that the Custom was good enough and 3 H. 6. 45. was vouched That every Freehold of a Manour upon alienation might surrender his Land c. It was adjourned CCXXVIII Marriot and Pascalls Case in a Writ of
is not of any effect but utterly void So is the grant of the presentment to the Church where the Church is void for it is a thing in action See the Lord Dyer 28 H. 6. 26. 3 Ma. Dyer 129. 11 Eliz. Dyer 283 Walmsley Serjeant put this Case Two Ioint-tenants of a Rent the one may release to the other but if the Rent be behind now the one cannot Release his Interest in the Arrearages to the other And afterwards in the Principal case Iudgment was given that the Release was void CCXXXIII Sammes and Paynes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intr. Trin. 29 Eliz. Rot. 721. IN an Ejectione firmae the case was That the Mother being seised of certain Lands had issue two Daughters Tenant by the curtesie 1 And. 184. Goldsb 81. 82. 8 Co. 34. and by Indenture covenanted with diverse persons to stand seised to the use of Eliz. her eldest Daughter in tail upon condition that the said Eliz. should pay to her other Daughter within a year after the death of the Mother or within a year after the said other Daughter should come to the age of eighteen years 300 l. And if the said E. should fall in the payment of the sum aforesaid or should dye without issue before such payment then to the use of the said second Daughter in tail The Mother dieth E. taketh Husband hath issue afterwards dieth without issue before the day of payment And if the Husband shall be tenant by the curtesie or not was the Question And by the Court cleerly he shall be For as to the condition of payment of the said Sum the same is not determined for she died without issue before the day of payment scil before the second Daughter came of the age of eighteen years as to that there is no condition broken as to the point of dying without issue The same is not a condition but rather a Limitation of the Estate and the same is no more than what the Law saith and the estate tail in Elizabeth is spent and determined by the dying without issue and doth not cease or is cut off by any Limitation and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Tenant by the curtesie And by Anderson If a Feoffment be made to the use of I. S. and his heirs until I. D. hath done such a thing and then unto the use of I. D. and his heirs the thing is done and I. S. dieth his wife shall be endowed CCXXXIV Bowry and Popes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Roll. 676. Plow Queries vers finem BOwry brought an Action upon the Case against Pope and declared that in the time of E. 6. the Dean and Chapter of Westminster leased two houses in Saint Martins in London to Mason for sixty years The which Mason leased one of the said Houses to one A. and covenanted by the Indenture of Lease with the said A. that it should be lawful for the said A. his Executors and assigns to make a window in the shop of the house so to him assigned and afterwards in the time of Queen Mary a window was made accordingly where no window was there before And afterwards A. assigned the said house to the Plaintiff And now Pope having a house adjoining had erected a new building super solum ipsius Pope ex opposito the said new Window Nusance so as the New Window is thereby stopped The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment that here upon the Declaration appeareth no cause of action for the window in the stopping of which the wrong is assigned appears upon the Plaintiffs own shewing to be of late erected scil in the time of Queen Mary The stopping of which by any act upon my own Land was holden lawful and justifiable by the whole Court. But if it were an antient window time out of memory c. there the light or benefit of it ought not to be impaired by any Act whatsoever and such was the opinion of the whole Court. But if the case had been That the house soil upon which Pope had erected the said building had been under the estate of Mason who covenanted as abovesaid Then Pope could not have justified the nusance which was granted by the whole Court. CCXXXV Lee and Maddoxes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Mich. 29 30 Eliz. Rot. 1737. Covenant WIlliam Lee brought a Writ of Covenant against Richard Maddox Isabel his Wife and declared That one Errington the first husband of the said Isabel was endebted to the Plaintiff in 20 l. and that one Georgy Ashley was also endebted to the said Errington in the like sum of 20 l. And also that the said Errington made and constituted the said Isabel his Executrix and died and afterwards the said Isabel by Indenture dum ipsa sola fuit reciting that whereas her said late husband was endebted to the Plaintiff in the sum aforesaid and whereas the said George Ashley was also endebted unto her said late Husband in the like sum Now for the better satisfaction of the Plaintiff for his said Debt she appointed and constituted the Plaintiff atturnatum suum irrevocabilem ad petendum levandum recuperand recipiend ad usum suum proprium in nomine dict Isabellae de dicto Georgio the said twenty pounds And the said Isabel covenanted quod ipsa ad requis dict quer de tempore in tempus adjuvaret manu teneret quamlibet omnes sectam sectas quam vel quas dictus querens commensaret prosequeretur in nomine dictae Isabellae against the said George to the use of the Plaintiff Non existendo Non-suit voluntarie or making any Discontinuance Release Revocations Anglice Countermand without the assent of the Plaintiff And declared further that the Plaintiff had brought a Suit against the said George for the said Debt and shewed all in certain And that the said Isabel depending the said Suit Countermand had taken to Husband the Defendant without the assent of the Plaintiff And if by this Marriage the said Suit be countermanded was the Question And first it seemed to the Court that the Declaration was insufficient Request because there is not any request surmised in the Declaration for the words of the Covenant are Quod ipsa ad requisitionem c. So as it seemed to the Iustices that the Plaintiff ought to have notified to Isabel that he had commenced such Suit otherwise the Action will not lye And also the Court was of opinion that here is not any Countermand for by the taking of the Husband the Writ is not abated but only abateable and therefore the Plaintiff ought to have shewed 1 Roll. 781. that by the taking of the Husband the Writ by Iudgment was abated otherwise it is not any Countermand and
Godfrey in arrest of Iudgment That it is apparent upon the Declaration That the Trespass was done in the time of their Predecessors of which the Successor cannot have action and actio personalis moritur cum persona See 19 H. 6. 66. But the old Church-wardens shall have the action Cook contrary and that the present Church-wardens shall have the action and that in respect of their office which the Court granted And by Gawdy Church-wardens are a Corporation by the Common Law. See 12 H. 7. 28. by Frowick That the New Church-wardens shall not have an action upon such a Trespass done to their Predecessors contrary by Yaxley See by Newton and Paston That the Executors of the Guardian in whose time the Trespass was done shall have Trespass CCXLIX Hauxwood and Husbands Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared for disturbing of him to use his common c. and shewed that A. was seised of certain Lands to which this Common was appendant Prescription 1 Cro. 153. for the term of his Life the Remainder to B. in tail and that the said A. and B. did demise unto him the said Lands for years c. Pepper The Declaration is not good for it is not shewed how these particular estates did commence See 20 E. 4. 10. By Piggot Lessee for life and he in the Remainder cannot prescribe together and he in the Remainder cannot have common Also he declares That Tenant for life and he in Remainder demised to him whereas in truth it is the demise of Tenant for life and the Confirmation of him in the Remainder also he doth not aver the life of Tenant for life Popham He needs not to shew the commencement of the particular estates for we are a stranger to them the Prescription in them both is well enough for all is but one estate and the Lease of both See 27 H. 8. 13. The Lessee for life and he in the Reversion made a Lease for life and joyned in an action of wast and there needs no averment of the life of the Tenant for life for he in the Reversion hath joyned which Gawdy granted as to all And said the particular estates are but as conveyance unto the action Wray conceived the first Exception to be material c. CCL Sweeper and Randals Case Rot. 770. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and carrying away his goods by Sweeper against Randal upon Not guilty pleaded i Cro. 156. The Iury found That one John Gilbert was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff at Will who sowed the Land and afterwards the Plaintiff agreed with the said Gilbert to surrender to him the said Land and his interest in the same and the said Gilbert entred and leased to the Defendant who took the Corn. It was moved if these words I agree to surrender my Lands be a present and express surrender Gawdy It is not any surrender for Tenant at will cannot surrender but it is but a relinquishing of the estate if it be any thing Surrender but in truth it is not any thing in present but an act to be done in future Wray I agree A. demiseth the Manor of D. at will it is no Lease no more shall it be here any Surrender or any relinquishing of the estate Clench conceived That the intent of the Party was to leave his estate at the time of the speaking otherwise those words were void for he might leave it at any time without those words Gawdy If such was his intent the Iury ought to find it expressly and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCLI Ward and Blunts Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 146. IN an Action upon the Case of Trover of certain Loads of Corn at Henden in Middlesex and the conversion of them The Defendant pleaded That before the conversion he was seised of certain Lands called Harminglow in the County of Stafford and that the Corn whereof c. was there growing and that he did sever it by force of which he was possessed and the same casually lost and that the same came to the hands of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff casually lost the same and the same came to the hands of the Defendant at Henden aforesaid and he did convert the same to his own use as it was lawful for him to do upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Atkinson The Plea is good for the conversion is the point of the action and the effect of it For if a man take the same and do not convert he is not guilty And here the Defendant doth justifie the conversion wherefore he cannot plead Not guilty The general issue is to be taken where a man hath not any colour but here the Defendant hath colour because the Corn whereof c. was growing upon his Land which might enveigle the Lay people and therefore it is safest to plead the special matter But admit that it doth amount but to the general issue yet there is not any cause of Demurrer but the Plaintiff ought to shew the same to the Court and pray that the general issue be entred and the Court ex officio ought to do it Egerton the Queens Solicitor contrary The Plea in Bar is not good The Plaintiff declares of a Trover of his goods ut de bonis suis propriis and the Defendant pleads That he took his own goods which is not any answer to the Plaintiff See 22 E. 3. 18. In Trespass of taking and carrying away his Trees The Defendant pleads That they were our Trees growing in our own soil and we cut them and carryed them away and the plea was challenged wherefore the Defendant pleaded over without that that he took the Trees of the Plaintiff So 26 Ass 22. and 30 E. 3. 22. Another matter was The Plea in Bar is That before the time of the Conversion the Defendant was seised of the Land and sowed it and that after the Corn was severed but he doth not say that he was seised at the time of the severance and then it might be that he had severed the Corn of the Plaintiff c. and that was holden by the Court to be a material exception wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But as to the first Exception the same was disallowed For the Court ex Officio in such case ought to cause the general issue to be entred but the Plaintiff ought not to demur upon it CCLIV Cheiny and Langleys Case Hill. 31. Eliz. Rott 638. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe case was That Tenant for life of certain Lands leased the same for years by Indenture with these words I give grant 1 Cro. 157. Leases bargain and sell my interest in such Lands for twenty years To have and to hold
good will of I.S. which he cannot obtain the same remainder is not good And if one covenant to stand seised to the use of Salisbury plain for the life of I. S. and after the remainder to A it is a plain case That he in the remainder shall take presently 37 H. 6. 36. Cestuy que use willed That his Feoffees should make an estate to A. for life the remainder to C. in fee A. would not take the estate C. shall have a Subpoena against the Feoffees after the death of A. See there the case And if Land deviseable be devised to one for life the Remainder over to another in Fee and the Devisee for life doth refuse Quaere if the Devisee in Remainder shall enter presently See Fitz. Subpoena And also he put the Case where Land is devised to a Monk for life the Remainder over to another in Fee he in the Remainder shall enter presently see the same Case in Perkins 108. for the Monk never took any thing by the devise notwithstanding that there is not any particular estate upon which a Remainder can depend yet the intent of the Devisor shall be observed in as much as it may and the particular estate limited to the Monk is meerly void of which every stranger shall take advantage c. And it was resembled to a Case in Baintons Case where an use in Remainder limited upon good consideration shall be good in Law although the particular use be not grounded upon good consideration so faileth And he urged a Case alleadged by Popham in the Case of the Earl of Bedford that if in Cranmers Case the estate for years limited to the Executors 2 Leâ— 5. 6. had been limited to Administrators it had been meerly void and the use in tail limited in tail should begin presently that was by reason of the interval betwixt the death of Cranmer the taking of the Letters of Administration in which mean time there is not any person capable and therefore the Remainder shall vest presently which is a fit case to prove the Case at Bar And he remembred that in the Argument of Cranmers Case Lovelace Serjeant would have an Occupancy in the Case of such a Term limited to Administrators quod omnes Justiciarii negaverunt and in the said Case of Cranmer it was holden that the Lease for years being void the estate in the Remainder did begin presently without expecting the effluxion of the years c. And truly a Term imports in it self an Interest but if the limitation had been after the Term of twenty four years c. the same implyeth but a bare time And to that purpose he cited the Case 35 H. 8. Br. Exposition 44. A. Leaseth to B. for ten years it is covenanted betwixt them that if B. pay unto A. within the said ten years one hundred pounds that then he shall be seised to the use of B. in Fee B. surrenders his Term to A. and within the said ten years pays the one hundred pounds to A. here B. shall have Fee for the years are certain contrary if the Covenant had been If he pay within the Term. Popham Attorney General Contrary The use shall not go beyond the Contract here the Term doth not vest in that it was Limited for want of sufficient consideration of the Lord Paget the intent was not that his son should have possession of the land before the term of 24. years expired Use what it is A use is a thing in Conscience according to confidence to be guided by the intent of the parties upon such Case at the Common Law W. Paget should not have a Subpoena before the years expired and this word Term doth not alter the Case and there is a great difference betwixt an use raised by Feoffment and an use raised by Covenant For in the first case the Feffor doth dipossess himself utterly if it takes not effect to one purpose it shall take effect to another purpose But in the Case of a Covenant it is otherwise for the use riseth according to the contract not otherwise here the Contract is That W. Paget shall have the Land not immediatly after the death of his Father but after the 24 years expire Owen Serjeant It hath been agreed of both sides That every use shall go according to the intent of the parties and here it appeareth That it was the intent of the Lord Paget to put all the use out of himself and I see not any difference betwixt an use raised by Covenant and a use raised by Feoffment For a use limited utrovis modo to Pauls Steeple for the life of A. and after to the use of B. in Fee the first use is void but the second good and here the meaning of the Lord Paget plainly appears for there is a Proviso in the Indenture That after the said debts and legacies paid the use limited for 24 years shall cease and it is exprestly averred that they are paid 11. H. 4. A. leaseth for life the remainder in tail to himself the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee the mean Remainder limited by A. to himself is void and the remainder over shall be immediate to the estate for life Egerton The words of the Indenture and the intent of the parties are the rules of uses The first use is void For the intent of the Lord Paget was void because contrary to the Law and Eusal to whom the use for years was limited could not take presently for his estate is limited to begin after the death of the Lord Paget and there is a great difference betwixt uses raised by Covenant and by Feoffment For when a use is raised by Feoffment there all is out of the Feoffor the land is gone the use is gone the trust is gone nothing remaineth but a bare authority to raise uses out of the possession of the Feoffees being new uses there although some of them be void yet the other shall stand but where a use is raised by way of Covenant there the covenantor continues in possession there the uses limited if they be according to Law shall raise draw the possession out of him but if not the possession shall remain in him until a lawful use shall arise which before its time shall not rise for any defect in the precedent use And here is no Term therefore no end for that which hath not a begining hath no ending And if there be no estate then no Term if there be so then it is to be taken for the time of 24. years which is not as yet expired and then was there in the Lord Pawlet an estate descendable for 24 years which by the Attainder doth accrue unto the Queen And he cited the Case of 13 Eliz. Dyer 300. Feoffment to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of a woman which he entendeth to marry until the issue which he
accordingly Vi. 9 H. 7. 23. And the clear opinion of the Court was that the Count was good notwithstanding that exception As to the matter of the Plea the Court doubted of it for the Plea was that the Bishop demanded of the clerk presented his Letters of Orders and Letters Testimonial of his good behaviour and his Letters Missive and he did not shew them but requested of the Bishop the space of a week to satisfie the Bishop in those points which was allowed unto him but he never returned for which cause the Bishop afterwards refused c. And it was said upon that Plea that the Clark who is presented ought to make proof to the Bishop that he is a Deacon and that he hath Orders otherwise by the Statute of 13 Eliz. the Bishop is not bound to admit such Clark Degg 75. but the Statute doth not compel the Clark to shew his Orders for perhaps he hath lost them but how his Orders should be proved it was much doubted Anderson The Bishop may examine him upon oath if he hath Orders or not But as to the Letters Testimonial of his good behaviour and sufficiency the Bishop ought to examine the same himself and if he give day and defer the Admission because he is not resolved therein he is a Disturber if the Clark come to him in a convenient time And the Bishop cannot refuse a Clark for the want of Letters Testimonial CCCXIII. Linacers Case Pasch 33. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 2 Leon. 96. Co. 5. Rep. 86. IN an Audita Querela brought by Linacer It was said by Anderson chief Iustice That if a man be in execution by his Body and Lands upon a Statute If the Sheriff permit the Conusor to go at Liberty yet the Execution of the Land is not discharged But if he go at large by the consent of the Conusee then the whole Execution is discharged And the Conusor shall have his Land again presently CCCXIV Brownsall and Tylers Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was that Tenant in tail brought a Writ of Entry Sur disseisin and the Writ was general and it was moved if the Writ was good and 21 H. 6. 26. was vouched where it is holden that the Writ ought to be special scil to make mention of the tail But it was holden by the Court that the general Writ is good enough And then the Count ought to be special Vi. Fitz. 191. CCCXV. Ward and Knights Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the case the Plaintiff declared Toll 1 Cro. 227. That whereas Lostock parcel of the Mannor of E. in the County of Suffolk is an ancient Town and ancient Demesn of the Crown of England and that time out of mind c. all the men and Tenants of ancient Demesn ought to be quitted of Toll in all places within the Realm for them their Goods and Chattels c. And whereas the Queen by her Letters Patents the tenth of September the nineteenth of her Reign commanded all Mayors Bayliffs Constables c. to permit and suffer the men and Tenants of ancient Demesn to be quit of Toll Murage and other exactions throughout the whole Realm And whereas the Plaintiff was an Inhabitant and Tenant in Lostock aforesaid and such a day and year carried his Goods to Yarmouth in the said County the Defendant not ignorant thereof had taken and carried away a Cable of the Plaintiffs goods of the value of eight pounds for Toll to dis damage c. The Defendant pleaded by Protestation that Lostock was not ancient Demesn and by Protestation that the Tenants of ancient Demesn ought not to be quit of Toll he said That the Town of Yarmouth is an ancient Borough Prescription and that they had been incorporated by the name of Bayliff and Burgesses c. And that they have had time out of mind c. an Officer called a Water-Baly and that time out of mind c. they and their Predecessors have had and taken Toll of the Tenants and Inhabitants of Lostock for any of their goods brought thither to Merchandize with and if it be not paid they have used time out of mind to distrain for it by their Water-Bayly And said that the Plaintiff such a day brought to the said Town of Yarmouth two thousand weight of Cable Ropes to sell for which there was due for Toll six pence for Murage six pence for Thronage four pence and the Defendant being Water-Bayly demanded of the Plaintiff the said sum which he refused to pay for which he took the said Cable nomine districtionis for the said Thronage c. Golding for the Plaintiff the Defendant hath not set forth in himself any authority to demand the duty For he shews that they have used to distrain by their Water-Bayly but not that they have used to demand it by him and it may be that they have several Officers one to demand it and another to distrain for it And always when a man demands a thing against common Right he is to shew authority express in the whole And as to the matter in Law scil The Prescription to have Toll of the Tenants in ancient Demesn it cannot have a lawful beginning As 21 H. 7. 40. The Lord of a Mannor says that he hath had a Pound within his Mannor time out of mind c. And that he hath used to have of every one who breaks his Pound three pounds the same is a void custom to bind a stranger for it cannot have a lawful beginning and see 5 H. 7. 9. b. One prescribed that if any Cattel be taken in such a place Damage Feasant that he might distrain them and put them in Pound until the Owner had made amends at the will of him who distrained them the same is a void Prescription for it cannot have a lawful beginning and time cannot make such a thing to be good The King may grant Tollage Pontage c. but not to the prejudice of another as 22 E. 3. 58. The King cannot grant to one Thorough-toll to pass by Highways for it is an oppression to the people for every High-way shall be common to every one see 16. E. 3. Grants 53. and here the Tenants of ancient Demesn are quit of Toll by the common Law and not by Prescription which see Fitz. 14. and such Tenants have an Inheritance in such Liberties which the King by his grant cannot take away and then if it cannot have a lawful beginning it cannot be good by Prescription also this Prescription is against the Common-wealth therefore it is a void Prescription and the Common-wealth is much respected in Law and things which in themselves are justifiable by reason are not justifiable if they be injurious to others as 21 E. 4. 8 E. 4. 18. Fishers may prescribe to dry their Nets upon the Lands of others and none can prescribe against such a Prescription so here
of her Dower of all his Lands and dyed and the said A. took to Husband the Defendant And that after betwixt the Plaintiff and Defendant colloquium quoddam habebatur c. upon which conference and communication the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to pay to him the said one hundred pounds promised to make to him a discharge of the said one hundred pounds and also of the Dower of his Wife and shewed further that notwithstanding that the said Pett was ready and offered the said one hundred pounds and Dower also yet c. Vpon which there was a Demurrer in Law It was moved by Tan. that here is not any cause to have a prohibition for the agreement upon the communication is not any cause for it doth not appear that it was performed Coke A Prohibition lieth for the Wife cannot have both money and Dower for that was not the meaning of the Devisor and therefore it hath been holden that if a man deviseth a Term for years to his Wife in satisfaction and recompence of her Dower if she recovereth Dower she hath lost her Term Also here is modus and conventio which alters the Law scil mutual agreement So if the Parson and one of the Parishioners agree betwixt them that for forty shillings per annum he shall retain his Tithes for three years c. as it was in the Case betwixt Green and Pendleton c. it is good CCCXIX. Martingdall and Andrews Case Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In Banco Regis Action upon the case for Wast IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that one Mildmay was seised of a House in A. and that he and all those whose estate c. time out of mind c. have had a way over certain Lands of the Defendants called C. pro quibusdam averiis suis and shewed that the said Mildmay enfeoffed him of the said House and that the Defendant stopt the said way to his damage c. And it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the title to the way is not certainly set forth i.e. pro quibusdam averiis suis quod omnes Justiciarii concesserunt But Gawdy Iustice conceived that the same was no cause to stay Iudgment For it appeareth to us that the Plaintiff hath cause of Action although that the matter be incertainly alleadged and of this incertainty the Defendant hath lost the advantage having surceased his time by pleading to it as 20 E. 3. Trespass for taking and carrying away of Charters the Defendant pleaded Not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff to the damage c. And Error was brought because the Plaintiff had not set down in his Declaration the certainty of the Lands comprized in the Charters But non allocatur for the Defendant ought to have challenged that before and also 47 E. 3. 3. In a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiff declared of a Covenant by which the Defendant covenanted with the Plaintiff to assure to him all his Lands and Tenements which he had in the Counties of Gloucester and Lincoln and declared that at a certain day he required the Defendant to make him assurance of all the Lands c. And the Writ of Covenant was general quod teneat conventionem de omnibus terris quas habeat in c. And it was objected as here that the Writ wanted certainty as how many Acres or such a Mannor but non allocatur for here the Plaintiff is not to recover Land but only Damages and the Writ was awarded good Fenner Iustice the Cases are not like to the Case at Bar for in the said Cases the certainty is not needful but for the taxing of the Damages but here the certainty of the number of the Cattel is part of the title CCCXX Beale and Taylors Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon Evidence to a Iury Leases 1 Cro. 222. it was holden by Gawdy and Clench Iustices that if a Lease for years be made and the Lessor covenants to repair during the Term if now the Lessor will not do it the Lessee himself may do it and pay himself by way of Retainer of so much out of the Rent which see 12 H. 8. 1. 14 H. 4. 316. Retainer of Rent A Lease for years by Indenture and the Lessor covenants to repair the Houses and afterwards the Lessor commands the Lessee to mend the Houses with the Rent who doth it accordingly and expends the Rent in the charges c. So 11 R. 2. Bar. 242. The Lessor covenants that the Lessee shall repair the Tenements when they are ruinous at the charge of the Lessor In debt for the Rent the Lessee pleaded that matter and that according to the Covenant he had repaired the Tenements being then ruinous with the Rent and demanded Iudgment if action Jones 242. Yelv. 43. c. and good Fenner Iustice contrary for each shall have action against the other if there be not an express Covenant to do it Quaere If the Lessor covenant to discharge the Land leased and the Lessee of all Rent-Charges issuing out of it If a Rent-charge be due if the Lessee may pay it out of his own Rent to the Lessor ad quod non fuit responsum CCCXXI. Offley and Saltingston and Paynes Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. OFfley and Saltingston late Sheriffs of London Escape 1 Cro. 237. brought an Action upon the Case against Payne because that he being in Execution under their custody for fifty three pounds in which he was condemned at the Suit of one Spicer made an escape the debt not satisfied by reason whereof they were compelled to pay the money The Defendant confessed all the matter but further pleaded that after the Escape Spicer had acknowledged satisfaction being after the Escape upon Record of the sum recovered upon which there was a Demurrer Owen Serjeant argued that the acknowleding of satisfaction being after the Escape was not any Plea for when the Plaintiffs Sheriffs have paid the money recovered there was no reason that Spicers acknowledging satisfaction should stop the Sheriffs of their Remedy against Payne It was holden by the Iustices that the Plaintiffs in this Action ought to shew that they had been impleaded by him who recovered for they cannot have this Action before they are sued For perhaps the Plaintiffs who recovered must be contented to hold themselves to the Defendant and to be satisfied by him It was said by Glanvil Serjeant that by the Escape the Debt was cast upon the Sheriffs and the Defendant discharged and that it was the Case of Sir Gervas Clyfton who being Sheriff suffered him who was in Execution and in his custody to go and see a Play and the same was adjudged an Escape and the party could not be in Execution again And then he said that this acknowledgment of satisfaction could not be any Bar to the
Nonage of every Heir but admitting that the Custom were void yet this Action doth not lye for the Defendant hath not entred and taken the profits as Prochein amy in which Case although he was not Prochein amy c. he is chargeable Oâ—â—â—â— Rep. 36 â—3 84. as Prochein amy according to his Claim but here he claimeth by the Custom and Grant of the Lord and not in the right of the Heir and therefore it was adjudged in this time of this Quaere that if one entreth into Lands claiming by Devise where in truth the Land devised is entailed he should not be charged in accompt c. CCCLVIII 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was holden by the whole Court Exposition of the Statute of 32 and 34. Of Wills. That the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. of Wills did not extend to Lands in London but that the devise of the whole is good And if Houses in London parcel of the possessions of Abbies came to the Crown by Dissolution and he grants them over to hold in chief by Knights service these Lands are devisable But it was holden That the said Statutes as Acts executed extended to Lands in London and shall be good but for two parts And if a man hath Lands in tail and in Fee-simple which are of double the value of the Lands in tail and deviseth all his Lands all the Land in Fee-simple shall pass Dyer One seised of three Manors the one in Capite in Fee and two in Socage in tail and deviseth all his Land in Capite it is good against the King for all Capite Land and he shall be tied to have the Lands in Socage but it shall not bind the Heir And a devise of the third part where all is devised is void as well against the Heir as against the King. And he said That if a man be seised of twenty Acres in Socage and ten Acres in Capite and deviseth two parts of his Lands it is reasonable to say That all the Socage Lands shall pass but if the devise was of two parts of all his Lands it is otherwise for this word All implies that the two parts shall be per my per tout as well Capite as Socage i. e. It was argued by Fenner That the Lands in London are now devisable as they were before the Statute for if the Devisee of Lands in London be disturbed he shall have Ex gravi Querela otherwise it is of Lands at the Common Law and if an Assize of Mortdancester be brought of Lands in London it is a good Plea to say That the Lands are devisable But in an Assise of Mortdancestor of Lands at the Common Law it is not any Plea And if a man gives Lands at the Common Law i. e. not devisable by the Common Law he cannot devise the Reversion for the Statute shall not do wrong to the person i.e. to the Donee who there shall lose his Acquittal But of Lands devisable by custom it is otherwise And if Land in a Burrough was devisable for life by the Custom and afterwards came the Statute of 23 H. 8. which made all Lands devisable now that Land is devisable for life by the Custom and the Reversion by the Statute CCCLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Wast of Wast assigned in a Wood Wast the Iury viewed the Wood only without entring into it And it was holden that the same was sufficient for otherwise it should be tedious for the Iury to have had the view of every stub of a Tree which had been felled Yet Meade Iustice said That if Wast be assigned in several corners of the Wood then the Iury is to have the view of every corner but contrary where Wast is assigned in the whole Wood Vieâ— And if Wast be assigned in every Room of a House the view of the House generally is sufficient And Dyer Iustice said That if Wast be assigned in several places and of some of them the Iury had not the view of that they may find no Wast done CCCLX Sir Thomas Lees Case 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden per Curiam That whereas Sir Thomae Lee was seised of a Manor Election and aliened the Manor except one Close parcel of the said Manor called Newdick and there were two Closes parcel of the said Manor called Newdick the one containing nine Acres and the other containing three Acres That the Alienee should not chuse which of the said Closes he would have but the Alienor or Feoffor should have the Election which of the said Closes should pass CCCLXI. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail the Remainder in tail c. Tenant in tail in possession Fines levied by Tenant in tail in Remainder 3 Cro. 211. makes a Lease for three lives according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. and afterwards dieth without issue he in the Remainder before any Entry levieth a Fine the same is good for by the death of Tenant in tail without issue the Free-hold is vested in him in the Remainder in tail And of that opinion was the whole Court. CCCLXII Ferrand and Ramseys Case 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae brought of a House in London the Defendant pleaded That long time before the Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing c. One Ann Ramsey was seised in Fee and died seised and that the same descended to William Ramsey as Son and Heir to the said Ann who was disseised by Israel Owen who leased to the Plaintiff upon whom the said William Ramsey did re-enter The Plaintiff Replicando That the said Ann did not die seised said That before the Ejectment one Robert Owen was seised and died seised and from him descended the said House to Israel Owen as Son and Heir of the said Robert absque hoc that the said Israel did disseise the said Ann upon which they were at issue and at Nisi prius in London it was given in Evidence of the Defendants part That Crofton and Langhton were seised in Fee of the said Messuage and by Deed indented conveyed it to one John Ramsey Robert Dakins and four others and their Heirs upon condition that the said Feoffees their Heirs or Assigns should pay to the said Ann and her Heirs six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence And also should enfeoff the said Ann if to the same they were required by the said Ann in her life or within four days next following such Request in Fee unto the use of the said Ann and her Heirs cum quando ad hoc per eandem Annam requisit fuerint and if the said Ann died before such Request that then the said Feoffees or their Heirs should enfeoff such issues of the said Ann or such other persons which the said Ann should name cum quando ad hoc per eandem Annam requisit fuerint or within four days after such
Surrenders from the said Husband and Wife the Remainder over to the said John Buck in Fee upon condition to pay a certain sum of money c. It was moved That the Surrender is void and without warrant for the warrant was ad capiendum unum fursum redditionem and here are two several Surrenders and so the warrant is not pursued and then the Surrender is void Another matter was because the Remainder to John Buck by the words of the Deputation was absolute and without Condition and now in the Execution of it it is conditional so as this conditional estate is not warranted by the Deputation But the whole Court was clear of a contrary opinion in both the points and that all the proceedings were sufficient and well warranted by the Deputation Another matter was objected because that this Surrender and regrant is entred in the Roll of a Court dated to be holden the second of Maij and the Letter of Deputation bears date the third of June after But as to that The Court was clear of opinion that the mis-entry of the date of the Court should not prejudice the party for this Entry is not matter of Record but is but an Escape and if the parties had been at Issue upon the time of the Surrender made or of the Court holden the same should not be tryed by the Rolls of the Manor but by the Country and the party might give in Evidence the truth of the matter and should not be bound by the Roll and according to this Resolution of the Court Iudgment was given CCCXCVI Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Fines levied THe Case was Tenant in tail leased for sixty years and afterwards levyed a Fine to Lee and Loveday Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. with a Render to him and his Heirs in Fee And upon a Scire facias against the Conusees supposing the Lands to be ancient Demesn the Defendants made default for which the Fine was avoided and now the Issue in tail entred upon the Lessee for years and he brought an Ejectione firmae Sene facias â— Len. 117. and it was found That the Land was Frank Fee And all the question was If by the Reversal of the Fine by Writ of Disceit without suing forth a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant should bind him or should be void only against the Conusee and not against the Lessee Atkin. It shall not bind the Lessee for years For a Fine may bind in part and in part not as bind one of the Conusees and not the other 7 H. 4. 111. A Fine levied of Lands part ancient Demesn and part at the common Law the same was by Writ of Disceit reversed in part as to the Land in ancient Demesn and stood in force for the residue 8 H. 4. 136. And there by award of the Court issued forth a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenants and the Iustices would not adnul the Fine without a certificate that the Land was Ancient Demesn notwithstanding that the Defendant had acknowledged it to be so but as to them who were parties to the Fine the Fine is become void as to the said parties and and he who had the Land before might enter i. And he said it should be a great inconvenience if no Scire facias or other Proces should be awarded against the Ter-tenant for he should be dispossessed and disinherited without privity or notice of it where upon a Scire facias he might plead matter of discharge in Bar of the Writ of Disceit as a Release c. which see Fitz. N.B. 98. And so although the Fine be reversed yet he might retain the Land and he resembled this case to the case of 2 H. 4. 16 17. In a Contra formam collationis against an Abbot a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Feoffee and so by the same reason here And for the principal matter he said That the Fine should be avoided against the parties but not against the Lessee Kingsmill The Scire facias brought against the parties only is good enough for they were parties to the Disceit and not the Ter-tenants It was adjorned CCCXCVII Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error Appearance by Attorney Dyer 135. b. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment in a Quid juris clamat It was assigned for Error that the Tenant did appear by Attorney whereas he ought not but in person because he is to do an Act in proper person if it be not in case of necessity where the Attorney may be received by the Kings Writ or plead matter in Bar of the Attornment as if he claim Fee c. or other peremptory matter after which Plea pleaded he may make Attorney 48 E. 3. 24. 7 H. 6. 69. 2â— E. 3. 48. 1 H. 7. 27. Another Error was because it is not shewed in the Quid juris clamat what estate the Tenant hath Another matter was If the Grantee of the estate of Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall be driven to attorn â— Len â—â— and it was said he should not for the priviledge doth pass with the grant See 43 E. 3. 1. Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall not be driven to attorn 46 E. 3. 13. 27. Ergo neither his Grantee Williams contrary As to the appearance of the Tenant by Attorney because the same is admitted by the Court and the Plaintiff the same is not Error which see 1 H. 7. 27. by Brian and Conisby 32 H. 6. 22. And he said That the Grantee should be driven to attorn for no other person can have the estate of the Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct but the party himself therefore not the priviledge and although he himself be dispunishable of Wast yet his Grantee shall not have such priviledge As if Tenant in Dower or by the curtesie grant over their estates the Heir shall have Wast against the Grantors for Wast done by the Grantee but if the heir granteth over his Reversion then Wast shall be brought against the Grantees See Fitz. N.B. 56. And it two Coparceners be and the one taketh a Husband and dieth the Husband being Tenant by the curtesie a Writ of Partition lyeth against him but if he granteth over his estate no Writ of Partition lyeth against the Grantee 27 H. 6. Stathams Aid If the Grantee of Tenant after possibility shall attâ—rn Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall not have Aid but his Grantee shall have Aid Clark The Grantee of Tenant in tail shall not be driven to attorn If Tenant in tail grant totum statum suum the Grantee is dispunishaple of wast so if his Grantee grant it over his Grantee is also dispunishable c. It was adjorned CCCXVIII Gravenor and Masseys Case Mich 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. GRavenor brought a Writ of Error upon a common
But if they be collateral considerations which are not pursuant as if I in consideration that you are of my Counsel and shall ride with me to York promise to give to you 20 l. in this case all the considerations ought to be proved otherwise the Action cannot be maintained So in our case the considerations are collateral and therefore they ought to be proved and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCVI Fooly and Prestons Case Hill. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 200. 2 Len. 105. That whereas John Gibbon was bound unto the Plaintiff in quodam scripto obligatorio sigillo suo sigillat and coram c. recognito in forma Statuti Stapul The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would deliver to him the said Writing to read over promised to deliver the same again to the Plaintiff within six days after or to pay to him 1000 l. in lieu thereof upon which promise the Plaintiff did deliver to the Defendant the said Writing but the Defendant had not nor would not deliver it back to the Plaintiff to the great delay of the Execution thereof and the Defendant did demur in Law upon the Declaration It was objected that here is no sufficient consideration appearing in the Declaration upon which a promise might be grounded but it was the opinion of the whole Court that the consideration set forth in the Declaration was good and sufficient and by Anderson it is usual and frequent in the King Bench If I deliver to you an Obligation to rebail unto me I shall have an Action upon the Case without an express Assumpsit and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCVII Wallpool and Kings Case Hill. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WIlliam Wallpool was bound to King by Recognizance in the sum of 400 l. and King also was bound to Wallpool in a Bond of 100 l. Wallpool according to the Custom of London Attachment in London affirmed a Plaint of Debt in the Gulldhall London against the said King upon the said Bond of 100 l. and attached the debt due by himself to Wallpool in his own hands and now King sued Execution against the said Wallpool upon the said Recognizance and Wallpool upon the matter of Attachment brought an Audita querela and prayed allowance of it and by Gawdy Serjeant such a Writ was allowed in such case 26 Eliz. Anderson at the first doubted of it but at last the Court received the said Writ de bene esse and granted a Supersedeas in stay of the Execution and a Scire facias against King but ea lege that Wallpool should find good and sufficient Sureties that he would sue with effect and if the matter be found against him that he pay the Execution CCCCVIII Hill. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Copy-holder with license of the Lord leased for years Copyholder Surrender Hob. 177. 1 Roll. 294 3 Len. 197. and afterwards surrendred the Reversion with the Rent to the use of a stranger who is admitted accordingly It was moved if here need any Attornment either to settle the Reversion or to create a Privity and Rhodes and Windham Iustices were of opinion that the surrender and admittance are in the nature of an Inrolment and so amount to an Attornment or at least do supply the want of it CCCCIX. Ruddall and Millers Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Devise IN Trespass the Case was this William Ruddall Serjeant at Law 18 H. 8. made a Feoffment in Fee to divers persons to the use of himself and his Heirs and 21 H. 8. declared his Will by which he devised his Lands to Charles his younger Son and to the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to John his eldest Son in Fee upon condition That if Charles or any of his issue should discontinue or alien but only for to make a Ioynture for their wives for the term of their lives that then c. and died The Statute of 27 H. 8. came Charles made a Lease to the Defendants for their lives according to the Statute of 33 H. 8. And levied a Fine with Proclamation Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. to the use of himself and his wife and the heirs Males of their two bodies begotten the Remainder to himself and the heirs Males of his body the Remainder to the right heirs of the Devisor John the eldest Son entred for the Condition broken upon the Defendants who re-entred upon which Re-entry the Action was brought Gawdy Fleetwood and Shuttleworth Serjeants for the Plaintiffs This Condition to restrain unlawful discontinuance is good Conditions as a Condition to restrain Wast or Felony See 10 H. 7. 11. 13 H. 7. 23. And before the Statute of Quia Emptores terratum If A. had enfeoffed B. upon Condition That B. nor his heirs should alien the same was a good Condition by Fleetwood which was granted per Curiam And this Condition was annexed to good purpose or the Serjeant well knew that Cestuy que use might have levied a Fine or suffered a Recovery by the Statutes of 1 R. 3. 4 H. 7. And this Condition annexed or tied to the use by the Will is now knit to the possession which is transferred to the use by the said Statute Although it may be objected that the Condition was annexed to the use and now the use is extinct in the possession and by consequence the Condition annexed unto it as where a Seignory is granted upon Condition and afterwards the Tenancy escheats now the Seignory is extinct and so the Condition annexed to it But as to that it may be answered That our Case cannot be resembled to the Cases at Common Law but rests upon the Statute of 27 H. 8. scil Cestuy que use shall stand and be seised deemed and adjudged in lawful seisin estate and possession of and in such Lands to all intents constructions and purposes in Law of an in such like estates as he had in the use and that the estate right title and possession that was in the Feoffee shall be clearly deemed and adjudged to be in Cestuy que use after such quality manner form and condition as he had in the use And therefore in the common assurance by bargain and sale by Deed enrolled if such assurance be made upon Condition As in case of Mortgage the possession is not raised by the Bargainee but by the Bargain an use is raised to the Bargainee and the possession executed to it by the Statute and the Condition which was annexed to the use only is now conjoyned to the possession and so it hath been adjudged So if the Feoffees to use before the Statute had made a Lease for life the Lessee commits Wast the Statute comes now Cestuy que use which was shall have an Action to Wast as it was ajudged in Iustice
Southcotes case Southcotes case So a Title of Cessavit in the Feoffees shall be executed by the Statute So if the King grants to the Feoffees in use a Fair Market or Warren these things shall be executed by the Statute Clerentius case as it was holden in the Case of Clarentius As to the Condition they conceived That it is broken for where the Devisor had allowed to the Devisee to discontinue for life to make a Ioynture to his Wife now he hath exceeded his allowance for he might have made a Ioynture to his wife indefeisable by Fine upon a Grant upon a Render for life c. But this Fine with the Proclamations is a Bar to the former entail which was created by the Devise and hath created a new entail and the former tail was barred by the Fine against the intent of the Devisor Also by this Fine he hath created a new Remainder so as his Issue inheritable to his new entail might alien and be unpunished which was against the meaning of the Devisor And as to the Lease for lives to the Defendants the same is not any breach of the Condition for that is warranted by the Statute of 32 H. 8. which enables Tenant in tail to make such a Lease so as it cannot be said Discontinuance which Anderson and Periam granted But the Fine levied after is a breach of the Condition and then the Re-entry upon the Lessees who have their estates under the Condition is lawful As where the wife of the Feoffee upon Condition is endowed and afterwards the Condition is broken now by the Re-entry of the Feoffor the Dower is defeated And Shutleworth put this case A Feoffment is made upon Condition that the Feoffee shall lease the Lands to A. for life and afterwards grant the Reversion to B. in Fee the Feoffor may re-enter for by this Conveyance he in the Reversion is immediate Tenant to the Lord where by the intended assurance the particular Tenant ought to be Puckering Fenner and Walmesley contrary And by Walmesley By this devise the use only passeth and not the Land it self for the Statute of 1 R. 3. extends only to Acts executed in the life of Cestuy que use and not to devises which are not executed till after the death of the Devisor which see 4 Ma. Dyer 143. Trivilians case See also 6 E. 6. Dyer 74. The Lord Bourchiers case but 10 H. 7. Cestuy que use deviseth That his Executors shall sell the Land now by the sale of the Land in possession for the same is in a manner an Act in his life for the Vendee is in by Cestuy que use and here is a Condition and not a Limitation for the nature of a Condition is to draw back the estate to the Feoffor Donor or Lessor but a Limitation carrieth the estate further And he conceived That the Condition is not broken by this Act for the intent of the Devisor is pursued for his meaning was That the wife should have a Ioynture indefeisable against the issue in tail and that the inheritance should be preserved that both should be observed And he said that this Fine being levied by him in the Reversion upon an estate for life is not any discontinuance but yet shall bar the estate Tail. And the Iustices were clear of opinion that the Condition is broken and also that the intent of the Condition is broken for it might be that Charles had issue by a former wife which by this Fine should be disinherited and a new Entail set on foot against the meaning of the Devisor c. and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCX Simmes and Wescots Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 355. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 147. That in consideration that he would marry the Defendants Daughter the Defendant promised to give him 20 l. and also to procure him all the Corn growing upon such Lands and to provide necessaries for the wedding dinner the Defendant did confess the communication betwixt them and that he promised to give the Plaintiff 20 l. so as he would procure a Lease of certain Lands to his Daughter for her life absque hoc that he promised modo forma The Iury found the promise of the 20 l. but not any other thing it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Assumpsit whereof the Plaintiff hath declared although it consist of divers things yet it is entire and if the whole is not found nothing is found and the Case of 21 E. 4. 22. was cited touching variance of Contract as where an Action of Debt is brought upon a Contract of a Horse and the Iury found a Contract for two Horses the Plaintiff shall never have Iudgment On the other side it was said That the Plaintiff shall recouer damages for the whole that is found i. for the 20 l. See 32 H. 8. Br. Issue 90. In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant did promise to deliver four Woollen-cloaths the Defendant pleaded That he did promise to deliver four Linnen-cloaths absque hoc that he promised c. the Iury found That the Defendant did promise to deliver two Woollen-cloaths and the Plaintiff did recover damages for the two So in Wast the Wast is assigned in succidendo 20 Oaks upon which they are at Issue the Iury find but ten Oaks the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for so much and shall be amerced for the residue Gawdy Iustice Here are several Assumpstis in Law as Br. 5. Ma. Action sur le Case 108. a man in consideration of a Marriage assumes to pay 20 l. per Annum for four years two years incur the party brings an Action upon the Case for the arrearages of the two years Wray In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff ought not to vary from his Case as if a promise be grounded upon two considerations Ragula and in an action upon it the Plaintiff declares upon one only he shall never have Iudgment and here the Iury have not found the same promise Clench If promise be made to deliver a Horse and a Cow and the Horse is delivered but not the Cow the party shall have an Action for the Cow but he shall declare upon the whole matter and afterwards Iudgment was given quod querens nihil capiat per billam CCCCXI Stile and Millers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Tithes 1 Cro. 161 578. 11 Co 13. A Parson Leased all his Glebe Lands for years with all the profits and commodities rendring 13 s. 4 d. pro omnibus exaction ibus demandis and afterwards libelled in the Spiritual Court against his Lessees for the Tithes thereof the Lessee obtained a Prohibition See 32 H. 8. Br. Dis 17. 8 E. 2. Avowry 212. Wray Tithes are not things issuing out of Lands nor any secular duty but spiritual and if the Parson doth release to
his Parishioner all demands in his Lands his Tithes thereby are not extinct and afterwards a Consultation was granted CCCCXII Lee and Curetons Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 902. In the Kings Bench. Debt 1 Cro. 153. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded Non est factum and it was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given and afterwards the Defendant brought Error and assigned for Error that the Declaration was per scriptum suum obligat Error without saying hic in Guria prolat to which it was answered by Coke that the same was but matter of form for which a Iudgment ought not to be reversed for that the Clark ought to put in without instruction of the party and so it was holden in a case betwixt Barras and King 1 Cro. 768. 778. 3 Cro. 22. M. 29 30 Eliz. Another Error was assigned because the Iudgment is entred de fine nihil quia perdonat where it should be quod capiatur although the Plea were pleaded after the General pardon and for that cause the Iudgment was reversed for if the pardon be not specially pleaded the Court cannot take notice of it as it was holden in Serjeant Harris Case CCCCXIII Lacy and Fishers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN a Replevin the taking is supposed in S. which Land is holden of the Manor of Esthall the Defendant made Conusans as Bailiff of the Lord of the Manor aforesaid and issue was taken upon the Tenure Trial. and it was tryed by a Iury out of the Visne of Esthall only Tanfield The trial is good for the issue ought not to have been tried by both Visnes S. and Esthall for two things are in issue If it be holden or not 2. If it be holden of the Manor of Esthall for which cause the Visne ought to be from both places and the opinion of the Court was That for the manner of it it was not good as if an issue be joyned upon common for cause of vicinage it shall be tried by both Towns See 39 H. 6. 31. by Littleton and Danby and the case in 21 E. 3. 12. was cited in a per quae servitia the Mannor was in one county and the Lands holden in another county the Tenant pleaded that he did not hold of the Conusor and that he was tried by a Iury of the County where the Land was See 2 H. 4. Gawdy denied the Book cited of 21 E. 3. to be Law and the reason wherefore the Visne shall come from both places is because it is most likely that both the Visnes may better know the truth of the matter than the one only Another Exception was taken Exposition of Stat. 21. H. 8. cap. 19. because the Conusans as it seems is made according to the Statute of 21 H. 8. 19. and yet the party doth not pursue the said Statute through the whole Conusans for by the Statute in Avowry or Conusans the party needs not to name any person certain to be Tenant to the Land c. nor to make Avowty or Conusans upon any person certain and now in this Conusans he hath not made Conusance upon any person certain but yet he hath named a person certain to be Tenant c. and in as much as this Conusans is not made either according to the Common-Law or according to the Statute it cannot be good But that Exception was dissallowed by the Court for if the Statute remedieth two things it remedieth one and the Conusance made in form as above was well enough by the opinion of the whole Court. CCCCXIV Diersly and Nevels Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded Not-guilty 2 Roll. 682. and if he might give in evidence That at the time of the Trespass the Freehold was to such an one and he as his servant and by his Commandment entred was the question and it was said by Coke That the same might so be well enough and so it was adjudged in Trivilians Case for if he by whose commandment he entreth hath Right at the same instant that the Defendant entreth the Right is in the other by reason whereof he is not guilty as to the Defendant and Iudgment was given accordingly CCCCXV. Savage and Knights Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 546. In the Kings Bench. Error Ante 185. 1 Cro. 106. 2 Cro. 109. 654. Sty 91. Yelv. 164. Sty 115. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in Leicester in Debt Tanfield assigned for Error because in that suit there was not any Plaint for in all inferior Courts the Plaint is as the Original at the Common Law and without that no Process can issue and here upon this Record nothing is entred but only that the Defendant summonitus fuit c. and the first Entrie ought to be A. B. queritur versus C c. Clench Iustice a Plaint ought to be entred before Process issueth forth and this Summons which is entred here is not any Plaint and for that Cause the Iudgment was reversed CCCCXVI Rawlins Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking his Close by Rawlins with a continuando It was moved by Coke that the Plaintiff needed not to shew a Regress to have Damages for the continuance of the first Entry scil for the mean profits and that appears by common experience at this day Gawdy Iustice whatsoever the experience be I well know that our books are contrary and that without an Entry he shall not have damages for the continuance if not in case where the Term or estate of the Plaintiff in the Land be determined and to such opinion of Gawdy the whole Court did incline but they did not resolve the point because a Regress was proved See 20 H. 6. 15. 38 H. 6. 27. CCCCXVII Harris and Bakers Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Accompt Damages 3 Len. 192. Collet and Andrews Case 2 Len. 118. 3 Len 149. IN an accompt damages were given by the Iury and it was moved that damages ought not to have been given by way of damages but the damages of the Plaintiff shall be considered by way of Arrearages but see the Case H. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas betwixt Collet and Andrews and see 10 H. 6 18. In Accompt the Plaintiff shall count to his damage but shall not recover damages vide 2. H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 26. The Plaintiff shall not recover damages expresly but the Court shall adâ— quoddam incromentum to the Arrearages Coke It hath been adjudged that the Plaintiff shall recover damages ratione implicationis non Retentionis CCCCXVIII Mich. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe words of the Statute 32 H. 8. cap. 37. of Rents are that the Executor of a Grantee of a Rent-charge may distrain for the arrearages of the said Rent incurred in the life of the Testator so long as the Land charged doth continue in
be taken or comprehended under the name of a Benefice having Cure of Souls in any Article above specified CCCCXLIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Aâ—iâ—d ONe was bounden to stand to the award of two Arbitrators who award that the party shall pay unto a stranger or his assigns 200 l. before such a day the stranger before the day dieth and B. takes Letters of Administration and if the Obligor shall pay the mony to the Administrator or that the Obligor should be discharged was the Question and it was the opinion of the whole Court that the mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is Assignee and by Gawdy Iustice If the word Assignee had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator quod Coke affirmavit CCCCXLIV Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe sued in the Kings Bench for Costs given upon a Suit depending in the Hundred Court and the sum of the Costs was under 40 s. and the Plaintiff declared Steward That at the Court holden before the Steward secundum consuetudinem Manerii praedict It was objected that the Steward is not Iudge in such Court but the Suitors to which it was answered by the Iustices That by a Custom in a Hundred Court a Steward may be Iudge and so it hath been holden and here the Plaintiff hath declared upon the Custom for the Declaration is secund consuetudinem Manerii also the Subject may sue here in the Kings Bench for a lesser sum than 40 s. as if 10 s. Costs be given in any Suit here Suit to such costs lieth here in this Court. CCCCXLV Pigot and Harringtons Case Mich. 30 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PIgot brought a Writ of Error upon a Fine levied by him within age Error 1 Cro. 11. the Case was That the Husband and Wife were Tenants for life the Remainder to the Infant in Fee and they three levied a Fine and the Infant only brought the Writ of Error It was objected by Tanfield that they all three ought to joyn in this Writ and the Husband and Wife ought to be summoned and severed Atkinson contrary for here the Husband and Wife have not any cause of action but the Infant only is grieved by the Fine 35 H. 6. 19 20 21 c. In conspiracy against many it was found for the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants brought Attaint and assigned the false oath in omnibus quae dixerunt but afterwards abridged the assignment of the false oath as to the damages and so the attaint well lies Two women are Ioynt-tenants they take Husbands the Husbands and their Wives make a Feoffment in Fee Attaint the Husbands dye the Wives shall have several Cui in vita's for the coverture of the one was not the coverture of the other 7 H. 4. 112. In Appeal against four they were outlawed and two of them brought Error upon it and good 29 E. 3. 14. In Assize against three Coparceners they plead by Bailiff nul tenent de Franktenement c. and found that two of them were disseisors and Tenants and that the third had nothing and afterwards the three Coparceners brought attaint and after appearance the third Sister who was acquit was nonsuit and afterwards by Award the Writ did abate Tanfield Although that the cause be several yet the erronious act was joynt and the receiving of the Fine and that Record being entire ought to be pursued accordingly and then the Husband and Wife shall be summoned and severed and it is not like to the case of 29 E. 3. cited before for there the third coparcener had not any cause of attaint for no verdict passed against her Wray As the Error is here assigned the Writ is well brought for the Error is not assigned in the Record but without it in the person of the Infant Fine upon an Infant reversed and that is the cause of the Action by him and for no other Two Infants levy a Fine although they joyn in Error yet they ought to assign Errors severally and they may sue several Writs of Error and afterwards it was holden by the Court that the Writ was good and the Fine reversed as to the Infant only CCCCXLVI Scovell and Cavels Case Mich. 30 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Scovell against Cavel Leases 1 Cro. 89 the Declaration was general upon a Lease made by William Pain and it was found by special verdict That William Leversedge was seised of the Lands c. and leased the same to Stephen Cavel John Cavel and William Pain habend to them for their lives and for the life of the survivor of them Provided always and it was covenanted granted and agreed betwixt the parties that the said John Cavel and William Pain should not take any benefit profit or commodity of the Land during the life of Stephen Cavel and further that the said William Pain should not take any benefit c. during the life of John Cavel c. Stephen Cavel died John Cavel entred and afterwards William Pain entred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant entred and if the Entry of William Pain were lawful was the Question Gawdy Serjant his Entry is not lawful It will be agreed That if a man lease to three for their lives they are Ioynt-tenants but if by the habendum the estate be limited to them by way of Remainder the joynt estate in the Premises is gone and the Land demised shall go in Remainder and I agree that in deeds Poll the words shall be taken strong against the grantor contrary in the Case of Indentures the words there shall be taken according to the intent of the parties for there the words are the words of both See Browning and Beestons Case 2. and 3. Ma. Plowd 132. where by Indenture the Lessee covenanted to render and pay for the Land Leased such a Rent the same is a good reservation although it be not by apt words and here in our Case this Proviso and Covenant Grant and Agreement doth amount to such a limitation by way of Remainder especially when such a clause followeth immediately after the Habendum Coke contrary The Office of the Habendum is to limit and explain the estate contained in the premises and here the Habendum hath done its Office and made it a joynt estate and therefore the Clause afterward comes too late and in truth is repugnant and utterly void as to such purpose but perhaps an action of Covenant lies upon it Wray It hath been by me adjudged if a Lease be made to three Habendum successive the same is a void word and the Lessees are joynt-tenants contrary of Copyhold by reason of Custom and here the proviso and the clause following is contrary to the Habendum and repugnant and so void as to the dividing of the estate by way of Remainder which Gawdy Iustice granted Heale
293 306 362 383 387 409 436 Construction of them 16 42 To Executors to sell 38 42 78 254 To an use 342 Diminution 28 Distress 16 64 78 315 338 Discontinuance of suit 142 Discontinuance of Lands and Estate 150 157 172 Distent 154 163 Where it takes away Entry 293 Disseisin 163 Dower 48 71 118 119 187 233 383 Of Gavelkind 83 182 431 Dutchy Lands 307 The Kings prerogative in them 15 E. EJectione firmae 331 Not of a Tenement 265 Ejectione Custodiae lieth not of a Copihold estate 463 Elegit 65 247 Election 36 52 67 92 289 342 360 Enrolment 10 Endowment 13 Enfant 156 297 Entry 46 66 79 163 165 427 446 For forfeiture 345 Enquiry of damages 197 278 Escape 165 145 203 321 274 Estates 150 219 221 297 288 311 Vested shall not be divested 345 Essoin 184 Estoppell 122 220 224 286 437 Error 12 28 52 71 137 207 228 238 245 246 260 452 By Executors to reverse an Attainder of their Testator 452 278 317 327 328 343 346 363 397 402 412 415 445 365 By Journeys accounts 28 Upon Outlawry 37 Upon Recovery in Assize 69 In assessing damages 71 For want of Averment 121 Upon a common Recovery 181 To reverse a Fine by an Enfant 445 Evidence 70 192 215 414 Exchange 386 Executors 78 311 459 Where they shall have Error or other Actions 459 Where charged of their own goods 87 121 153 Renunciation of them 185 Have action de bonis testatoris 278 Execution 65 202 247 460 200 313 378 Where joynt where several 392 Against a person attainted where not 466 Exception 158 160 79 Extortion 114 327 Extent 366 Extinguishment 15 135 250 56 Exposition of words and sentences 240 326 439 468 Of the word De and vocat 22â— Of the word Term 306 Of the word Uterque 326 Of the Statute of 32 and 33 H. 8. 358 Of the Statute of 21 H. cap. 19. 413 Examination who is to be examined upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. of Huy and Cry 456 F. FAlse imprisonment 462 Feoffments and faits 31 171 172 204 256 288 Per nomen 343 Upon condition 361 Feme covert 166 Fine upon Jurors 181 For Alienation without License 11 50 113 Not paid by Non compos mentis 11 Not payable upon settlement by Parliament 113 Post Fines 338 Fines levied 51 66 81 85 102 187 188 297 330 Where shall not bind a Feme covert 386 Reversed 157 445 Where shall be a breach of Condition 409 Levied by Prescription 265 By Tenant in tail in Remainder 361 Formedon 105 154 Forgery of false Deeds 192 Forfeiture 51 66 84 139 171 297 254 400 Founder and Foundation 49 Fresh Suits 72 Fugitives 12 G. GUardian in socage 454 Gavelkind 154 450 Grants 205 433 380 Of Executors of omnia bona sua 351 Grants of the King 12 33 36 49 162 179 237 280 334 338 451 467 Grants insufficient in point of Limitation shall not be supplied with subsequent words 14 H. HAbendum 13 73 446 Habeas Corpus 93 94 460 I. INtrusion 12 46 49 223 Indictments 9 146 337 363 404 Upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. 461 Upon the Statute of 23. of Recusancy 321 326 322 Upon the Statute of News 390 Informations 162 Upon Statute 1 Eliz. 405 Upon Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 6. 60 Upon the Statute of Usury 125 161 Upon the Statute of Maintenance 231 291 Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for Tillage 319 Joynture 44 205 Joynder in Action 402 439 445 Issue 89 169 192 241 Judgment 89 428 In the Kings Court not defeated by particular customs 35 Where satisfied before a Statute 464 Jurors receiving mony doth not make the Verdict void 21 Fined for eating 181 Justification 462 K. KIng not bound to demand Rent 16 L. LEases 44 46 165 198 205 239 274 286 308 316 320 332 391 425 446 454 By Bishops 77 By Guardian of a Colledge 183 Within the Statute of 13 Eliz. 427 Leet 33 Letter of Attorney 427 Livery of Seisin 10 48 276 287 349 427 Doth prevent Enrolment 10 Libel in spiritual Court 13 127 151 174 175 M. MArriage 67 235 In right and possession 67 Mannor 33 289 Misnosmer 25 49 183 204 298 In Indictments 337 Where material where not 228 Mittimus 200 Monstrans de droit 279 Monstrans de faits 427 N. NOn-residency 129 Non-suit 142 Notice 39 139 141 Nusance 234 318 O. OBligation 129 132 164 192 214 281 Office of Marshal of the King 451 Of Herald 337 Of Marshal of the Kings Bench 451 Office Trove 27 50 85 223 Outlawry 84 280 108 148 190 Lies not upon a Judgment upon a Bill of Priviledge 465 P. PArtition 33 68 136 283 Payment where not good to the Wife 450 Post Fines 338 Plaint 415 Plenarty no Plea against the King 307 Pleadings 21 84 102 167 169 176 186 211 274 339 407 430 449 Non cepit where good 47 Nul tiel Record 85 114 Where Recovery is no Bar 90 Wherein Pleading must make a Title 58 Non damnificatus 95 General and particular ib. Good to common intent 102 Of a Fine ib. Amounts to the general Issue 251 Of Nonest factum 257 453 Out of his Fee 294 Fully administred 434 In disability where not allowed 466 Property 54 Primer seisin 85 341 Protection 93 258 Priviledge 365 Of Exceptions from Juries 287 Of London 384 Plurality 442 Prerogative 11 15 Prescription 14 100 102 143 147 199 249 299 315 336 Words of it 318 In a Stranger not Tenant 14 To erect Herdels 14 147 Where it shall not bind the King 438 For Common 100 To be a Justice of Peace 143 To levy a Fine not good 265 To distrain for Amerciaments 327 To Repair 438 by taking Wood in the Lands of another Man ib. Presentation 50 58 84 207 Repealed by the King 218 Passeth not by a Grant of Bona Catalla 28 By the Bishop who Collates shall not put the King out of possession 307 Praemunire 399 Proof 349 Process 65 Prohibition 123 127 174 175 176 177 208 255 325 336 376 367 318 325 388 411 442 467 Q. QUare Impedit 39 50 58 84 85 190 277 213 232 278 280 284 307 312 284 289 455 Causes of Refusal when good c. contr 39 312 R. RAzure of Deeds 381 Ravishment of Ward 152 Refusal of the Bishop 312 Remitter 40 48 85 118 172 Remainder 134 256 266 336 Upon a Contingent 330 Remitter 48 Redisseisin 90 Receipt 105 Retainer 153 320 Return of the Sheriff 65 200 201 202 312 459 Relation 11 355 Of matter of Record 257 Of a Judgment 264 Of an Execution 423 Rents 187 198 209 280 362 441 Reserved upon a Lease of Dutchy Lands 15 To be paid without demand ib. Charge parcel of a Manor 18 Cannot issue out of a Right 205 Charge out of Copyholds 8 Suspended by Entry 110 240 How to be demanded and when severally 271 425 In esse to some purposes and suspended to others 467 Reputation 18 33 49 Replication 56 102 194 Reversion 362 Cannot pass without Deed 429 Reservation 25 446 Restitution 461 Request 167 303 389 Repleader 102 114 Replevin 33 54 56 64 294 Revocation 113 Recovery 30 In Assise where a Bar 30 Vouchee must appear in person 101 Common Recovery by an Infant 296 S. SAles 225 Seals 12 310 Seisin 271 356 In Fact and in Law 318 Seisure 12 84 119 Scire facias 58 84 187 402 Where for the King è contr 84 Against Executors 84 Upon Audita Querela 195 Summons and Severance 445 Stewards of Manors and Courts 309 294 444 Statutes Construction of them 44 Where they ought to be pleaded where not 427 Supersedeas 189 Sur cui in vita 210 Surrenders 378 385 420 226 454 By the Steward out of Court 309 Vide Copyholds Amounts to an Attornment 408 Of one Termor to another not good 420 By Attorney not good 45 T. TAil 297 Tenant by the Curtesie 233 Tender 88 95 Upon a Mortgage 43 Upon an Award 55 Where it is no Revocation of uses 113 Toll 315 Traverse 12 49 53 56 58 64 68 102 207 213 277 304 331 340 429 467 Where the descent where the dying seised 429 Trespass Vi armis 110 Trover and Conversion 304 305 335 Not against a Feme Covert 433 Tithes 13 25 122 174 175 177 208 325 336 367 380 411 467 In London 25 Become Lay Chattels 29 Jurisdiction of them 76 Claimed by Prescription ib. Discharged by Unity 467 Trial 67 116 148 203 206 255 285 310 413 V. VAriance 175 228 33â—â— Verdict 86 118 181 426 View 30 106 59 Usurpation 58 84 307 Uses 188 288 330 What it is 279 And Declaration of them ib. Not rise out of an Use 10 Not out of a Possibility 279 Contingent raised 31 Void for want of Consideration 279 Limitation of them ib. Raised by Covenant and by Feoffment do differ ib. Suspended yet the Land devised 345 Contingent shall bind the Execution of an Estate in possession 345 Executed to the Possession 409 W. WAger of Law 119 229 282 VVardship 347 VVarning 82 VVills 155 311 VVitherâ—â—m 302 VVarrant of Attorney 246 VVarranty 252 VVast 62 79 86 220 282 359 By Cestuy que use 409 VVrit To the Bishop 84 85 278 289 Of right 212 236 the manner of proceeding in it 419 Of Enquiry of damages 278 FINIS
as other Writs and Praecipes are returnable in any Court but the Queen her self from whom originally it came shall receive it and also the Message upon it and she her self in such case is Iudge of the contempt and no Record of that Privy Seal doth remain in any Court but the Queen her self shall keep it and then when the Queen is informed of the contempt she makes a Warrant somtimes to the Chancellor to award a Commission somtimes to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer to the same purpose to seize the Lands and that Warrant is signed with the Seal manual of the Queen and the Queen may certifie and set down the cause of such seizure in such Warrant and no other Certificate is made by the Queen and the Queen may certify the same Commission by word of mouth and if the other party will say that the Queen hath not certified it he shall be concluded by the commission which is under the great Seal and diverse Prsidents were shewed openly in Court to that effect And all the matter aforesaid was agreed by the Chancellor Treasurer and the said Iustices and no certificate at all needs to be in the Case and then a superfluous Certificate being nought shall not hurt for Nugation is surplusage Another matter was to consider what interest the Queen hath in the Lands of Fugitives by the common Law And as to that they were all clear of opinion Fugitives that the Queen in such case as aforesaid may seize and assign her interest over And that such Assignees may grant Copy-holds parcel of the Manor assigned which grants shall bind him who cometh in after cum manus Domini regis amoventur and also when the Statutes of 13 and 14 Eliz. come Dy. 375 b. the Statutes do not amend the estate of the Queen but the estate of the Queen doth continue as before and all the Estates under it And there was shewed unto the Court divers Presidents of seizures in such Cases 18 E 2. Edmond de Woodstock Earl of Kent went beyond Sea without Licence of the King and he went with Robert de Mortimer and the King did certifie the same into the Chancery reciting that he had sent his Privy Seal c. but that the said Edmond spretis mandatis nostris redire recusavit upon which issued a commission to seize c. And it was holden that the Queen having seised hy force of the common Law and making a grant of a Copy-hold out of it now when the Statutes of 13 14 Eliz. are made she hath not any estate thereby for she had such interest before and this new seisure after the Statutes works nothing and nothing accrues to her thereby whereof she can make a seisure For she hath departed with the whole before See 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. And note that the grant of the Queen in the case at Bar was quamdiu in manibus nostris fore contigerit And afterwards Iudgment was given that judicium praedictum in omnibus affirmetur XIII Sutton and Dowses Case Ter. Mich. 25 26 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. SUtton Vicar of Longstoke Libelled against Dowse in the spiritual Court Tithes and shewed in his Libel that upon the Erection and Endowment of his Vicaridge four quarters of Corn were assigned to the Vicar out of the Granary of the Prior of B. of the Tithes of the Parson of Longstoke and that the Parson or Fermor of the said Rectory of Longstoke had always paid the said four Quarters of Corn to the said Vicar and all his Predecessors and alledged further that the Lord Sands was seised of the said Rectory and leased the Barn and Tithe-Corn parcel of the said Rectory to the said Dowse his Wife and Son Habendum to Dowse for Term of his life the Remainder to the Wife for Term of her life the Remainder to the Son for life And shewed further that the said Dowse had covenanted with the said Lord Sands to render the said four Quarters of Wheat to the Vicar and his Successors upon which Dowse procured a Prohibition and Sutton prayed a Consultation and it was moved in stay of the Consultation that the Vicar had Libelled upon a Covenant wherein Dowse is taxed to pay the said Corn and that is a lay Title and determinable by the Law of the Land and not in the Ecclesiastical Court But as to that the opinion of the Court was that the Libel is not grounded upon the covenant as the sole Title to the said Corn against Dowse but upon the Endowment of the Vicaridge and the Lease by which Dowse is become Fermor of the Rectory Another matter was moved because that upon the Libel it appeareth that the Lease aforesaid made by the Lord Sands was made to Dowse his Wife and his Son joyntly in the Premisses Habendum ut supra in which case it was objected that Dowse his Wife and his Son are all three Fermors of the said Barn and Tithes joyntly in possession against all whom Sutton ought to have Libelled c. and not against Dowse only for the Habendum hath not severed their estates which were joynt before Co. 1 Iust 783 l. qund tota curia negavit for the Habendum hath severed the joynt estates limited by the Premisses and hath distinguished it into Remainders but if the Habendum had been Habendum successive the estate had remained joynt Another matter was moved because it appeareth upon the Libel that the Parson or Fermor of the said Rectory ought to pay to the Vicar the said Corn and also it appeareth upon the matter that Dowse is not Parson nor Fermor of the said Rectory for the Lord Sands had leased to Dowse and his Son only the Barn and the Tith-Corn parcel of the said Rectory so as Dowse is Fermor but of parcel of the Rectory and the residue of the Rectory doth remain in the Lord Sands in which the said Sut. ought to have Libelled against the Lord Sands and Dowse and not against Dowse only And for that cause the Consultation was denyed And in this case it was further agreed by the Court that if upon a Libel in the spiritual Court the Defendant makes a surmise in Banco to have a Prohibition if such surmise be insufficient the other party needeth not to demur upon it and to have it entred upon Record but as amicus Curiae he shall shew the same to the Court and the Court shall discharge him XIV Punsany and Leaders Case Mich. 25 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. OSmond Punsany brought an Action upon the case against Leader and declared Prescription of Foldage that one Bedingfield was seised of the Manor of D. and that he and all those whose estate he hath in the said Manor time out of mind have had Libertatem Faldagij cursum Ovium in the Town of D. pro meliori pasturatione omnium Ovium suorum the Inhabitants of the said Town having any
Lands within the said Town every second year left their Lands to lye fresh and untilled and prescribed further that the Tenants of the Lands within the said Town might erect Herdals in in their Lands with the Licence of the Lord of the said Manor and not otherwise and further declared that the said Bedingfield had let to him the said Manor and that the Defendant had erected Herdals upon his Lands without Licence so as the profit of his Foldage is impaired by it And all this matter was found by Verdict And it was objected in stay of Iudgment that the prescription is not good for it is against Law and common right to abridge the Subject of the profits of his Lands But the whole Court was clear of opinion that the prescription is good enough as 15 E 2. Prescription 51. Prescription to have common appendant in other Land afte that the Hay is cut and v E. 1. Prescription 55. A. seised of Lands may Plow it and Sow it and cut and carry away the Corn and afterwards when the Corn is carried B. by prescription may have the said Land as his several and the other who sowed it cannot meddle with that land but to plow and sow it in season c. And the Cattel cannot eat and pasture in the Land when they come to plow or sow it or to carry it away nor have any profit but the Corn and yet the Free-hold of the Land is in such person c. and that was holden a good Prescription and a difference was taken by the Court where one doth prescribe to take away the whole interest of the Owner of the Land and where a particular profit is restrained And here this prescription doth not extend but to restrain the Ter-tenant to erect Herdals which is a reasonable prescription See 1 H 7 24. The Lord of the Town doth prescribe to have free Foldage of the Beasts of his Tenants in D. and see there that libera Falda is not any other but to hav the Beasts of the Tenants to manure the lands of the Lord c. And afterwards Punsany the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover XVI Mich. 25 26 Eliz. at Serjeants Inn. IN the Dutchy Chamber the case was that King E 6. leased for years certain lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster rendring rent with clause of re-entry and that a lease was made to one Bunny It was found by Office that the Rent was arrear and by another Office that the Servant of the said Lessee had tendred the rent in his absence and by the commandment of his Master and that afterwards one I. S. Receiver General of the Dutchy received the said Rent and had accounted for it and upon his account it was allowed And this matter was opened at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street before Wray Anderson Manwood Clench Rhodes Plowden and Stanhop and it was argued by Shuttleworth that in this case of rent reserved upon a Lease for years made by the King of Dutchy-Land The King not bound to demand Rent the King is not bound to demand it but he may for default of payment of it re-enter without demand and that the Lessee is tied to tender it at his peril as well as if the Queen had been seised of the said land in the right of her Crown and as to that payment the Statute of 1 H 4. is to be considered by which it is enacted that the possessions of the said Dutchy Taliter tali modo per tales officiarios ministros in omnibus remaneant deducantur gubernentur sicut remanere deduci gubernari debuissent si ad culmen Regis Dignitatis assumpti non fuissemus and these words ought to be intended of things which concern the Lands themselves but this Act of demand is a personal thing and concerns the person of the King and toucheth the Majesty and dignity of the King and in all cases of the Dutchy the person of the King shall hold his priviledge notwithstanding that the possession of the Land be carried in the course of a private person And therefore if the Queen will alien Lands parcel of her Dutchy she ought to make Livery for now she meddles with the possession it self but if the Queen will sue for parcel of her Dutchy non omittas shall be in the Writ for she cannot sue but as Queen and the Queen hath such Prerogative that none shall execute her Writs at her own sute but the Officer of the Crown 21 E 4. 60. for Livery if it be not Land within the County Palatine and for the residue See 10 H. 4. 7. 3. Eliz. 216 217. Plowden Lessee for years of Lands of the Dutchy shall have aid of the King before Issue joyned c. And if the King make a Feoffment of Lands of his Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of him in Capite the Feoffee shall hold it so and a Feoffment of such Lands upon condition that the Feoffee shall not alien is a good condition and Lapses shall not bind the Queen in case of an Advowson which the Queen hath in the right of the Dutchy and if the Villain of the Queen in the right of the Dutchy purchaseth Lands in Fee and aliens yet the Queen shall seise and that hath been adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber and if the Queen make a Lease of such Land and afterwards makes another Lease of the same Land without recital of the first Lease it hath been adjudged that the second Lease is void It was argued contrary by Beamount the younger that this condition which goeth to the realty to reduce the Land again ought to be ordered and governed by the Queen as it ought to be by a Subject and therefore if the Queen will take advantage of this condition she ought to make a Letter of Attorney under the Dutchy Seal to her own Officer authorizing him thereby to make demand of the said Rent c. And by Shuttleworth here be two Offices the one contrary to the other the best shall be taken for the Queen 14 E 4. 5. in Skreens Case in the end of it And if the Rent of the Kings Farmor be behind now although that after the Receivor of the Dutchy doth receive it yet the same doth not purge the forfeiture as if the Bayliffs of a Manor receive rent of a new Feoffee the same will not change the Avowry of the Lord without notice given to him 41 E 3. 26. And if a Copy-hold escheat the Steward without a special Warrant cannot grant it over de novo XVI Rearsbie and Rearsbies Case Intrat Trinit 25 Eliz. rot 746. Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. REplevin by W. Rearsbie against A. Rearsbie and L. Rearsbie who avow the distress because that one W. Vavasour was seised of the Manor of Deniby whereof the place where c. is parcel in his Demesne as of Fee and so seised gave the said Manor to
and it shall be intended the Rent mentioned before See 21 H. 7. 30. b. Where Villa West shall be intended Villa praedict 19 E. 4. 1. In a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff doth entitle himself by grant of the next Avoydance cum acciderit and doth not shew in his Count that the same was the next Avoydance and yet the Count was holden to be good for so it shall be intended so here And he said It is not necessary that a Declaration be exactly certain in every point but if one part of it expound the other it is well enough And although the Identity of the Rent doth not appear by the word praedict yet it appeareth by other circumstances as by the days of payment c. and no other Rent can be intended And now this Exception is after Verdict and therefore favourably to be taken And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXLI. Musted and Hoppers Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Assumsit p 1 Cro. 149. That where he and one Atkinsal were joyntly and severally bounden by Obligation in fifty pounds to a stranger for the only Debt of the said Atkinsal which Atkinsal died and the Defendant married afterwards his Wife and so the Goods of Atkinsal came to his hands yet the Plaintiff the first day of May after which was the day of payment of the money paid five and twenty pounds for avoiding the Forfeiture of the penalty The Defendant as well in consideration of the Premisses as in consideration that he might peaceably enjoy the Goods of the Testator promised to pay the said sum cum inde requisitus fuer And upon Non Assumpsit the Iury found the payment of the said sum and all the precedent matter And that the Defendant in consideration praemissiorum promised to pay the said sum if he might peaceably enjoy the Goods of the said Testator It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that although here the Iury have found sufficient cause of Action yet if the Declaration be not accordingly the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment Verdict And here the Plaintiff hath declared upon two Considerations and the Iury hath found but one scil if he peaceably enjoy the Goods of the Testator Also the Plaintiff declared of a simple promise and the Iury have found a Conditional Si gaudere potest c. And so the promise set forth in the Declaration is not found in the Verdict Gawdy was of opinion That the first consideration is good Consideration for the Plaintiff entred into Bond at the request of the Defendant and then the promise following is good But the second consideration is void scil That the Defendant shall enjoy the goods of the Testator c. as if it had been that he should enjoy his own goods And all the Iustices were clear of opinion That the Promise found by the Iury is not the promise alledged in the Declaration and so the issue is not found for the Plaintiff and so the judgment was stayed CCXLII. Creckmere and Pattersons Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 568. Devise conditional 1 Cro. 146. 1 Roll. 410. 1 Inst 236. b. UPon a special Verdict the Case was this Robert Dookin was seised of certain Lands in Fee and having issue two Daughters devised the same to Alice his Eldest Daughter that she should pay forty pound to Ann her Sister at such a Day the money is not paid whereupon Ann entreth into the moiety of the Land And it was holden by the whole Court that the same is a good Condition and that the Entry of Ann was lawful It hath been adjudged That where a man devised his Land to his wife Proviso My will is That she shall keep my house in good Reparations that the same is a good Condition Wray A man deviseth his Lands to B. paying 40 l. to C. it is a good condition for C. hath no other remedy and a Will ought to be expounded according to the intent of the Devisor CCXLIII Dove and Williots and others Case .. Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 160. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a special Verdict the case was That W. was seised of the Land where c. and held the same by Copy c. and surrendred the same unto the use of E. for life the Remainder to Robert and A. in Fee Robert made a Lease to the Defendant E. Robert A. surrendred the said Land scil a third part to the use of Robert for the life of E. the Remainder to the Right heirs of Robert and of another third part to the use of Robert for life the Remainder to E. the Remainder to Richard c. and of another third part to the use of A. and his Heirs After which Partition was made betwixt them and the Land where c. was allotted to Richard who afterwards surrendred to the use of the Plaintiff It was holden That Iudgment upon this verdict ought not to be given for the Plaintiff For the Lessee of Robert had the first possession and that Lease is to begin after the death of E. who was Tenant for life and when E. and he in the Reversion joyn in a surrender thereby the estate for life in that third part is extinct in Robert who hath the Inheritance and then his Lease took effect for a third Part. So that the Parties here are Tenants in Common 1 Inst 200. betwixt whom Trespass doth not lye CCXLIV Bulleyn and Graunts Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Copyhold UPon Evidence to a Iury the Case was That Henry Bulleyn the Father was seised of the Land being Copyhold and had Issue three Sons Gregory Henry andy Thomas and afterwards surrendred to the use of the last Will Devise 1 Cro. 148. and thereby devised the said Land to Joan his Wife for life the remainder to the said Henry and the Heirs of his body begotten Joan died after admittance Henry died without Issue and afterwards the Lord granted it to Thomas and his Heirs who surrendred to the use of the Defendant then his Wife for life and afterwards died without Issue Gregory eldest Son of Henry Bulleyn entred c. Coke When the Father surrendreth to the use of his last Will thereby all passeth out of him so as nothing accrueth to the Heir nor can he have and demand any thing before admittance Wray The entry of Gregory is lawful and admittance for him is not necessary for if a Copyholder surrendereth to the use of one for life who is admitted and dieth he in the Reversion may enter without a new Admittance It was moved by Coke if this Estate limited to Henry be an Estate tail or a Fee conditional For if it be a Fee-simple conditional then there cannot be another Estate over but yet in case of a Devise an Estate may depend upon a Fee-simple precedent but not
should beget on the said woman should come unto the age of 21. years and then to the use of the woman during her widow-hood They are married the Husband dieth without issue the Wife shall hold the land But by him if this use had bin raised by way of Covenant it should be otherwise Coke Admit that all the uses be good yet his meaning was That the debts and legacies being paid W. Paget should have his land for it is provided by the Indenture That when the debts legacies are paid the estate for 24. years shall cease Manwood The payment of the debts cannot end that which never was and as to the two first estates they were never out of him therefore they came unto the Q. by his attainder Coke After debts and legacies paid all other estates but the estate of W. Paget cease therefore William Paget shall have the Land. And the rule of Shelly 35 H. 8. 56 is worthy to be received scil That learning is honest wished to be used that every man learned in the Law do construe Deeds according to the meanings of the makers Manwood A Feoffment to the use of Salisbury Plain for the life of I. S. the Remainder over the same use shall come into possession presently for there is not any person capable of the particular estate but where the first use is limited to a Bastard the remainder over there the Remainder shall not come into possession presently for the Bastard is a person capable but not by such form of conveyance in consideration of natural affection Popham In the case of Bastard there was an estate for life executed to the Father in possession then a Remainder to a Bastard the Remainder to the Sons lawfully begotten but here in our Case no estate is created to precede the estate of William Paget upon which the Remainder can depend At another day It was argued by Coke It is to be agreed on both sides That the estate for four and twenty years is meerly void and also the first use limited to Trentham and others and it is not reason that the use limited to William Paget should expect until the four and twenty years be expired by effluxion of time and to that purpose he cited Cranmers Case where an estate in use was limited to Cranmer for life the Remainder to his Executors for one and twenty years the Remainder over in tail to his Son and Heir c. Cranmer is attainted of Treason and Heresy so as he could not make a Will or Executors there it is holden That the term is void because no Executors and that the Remainder in use should vest presently and should not expect until the said number of years expire by effluxion of time And difference hath been put betwixt the case of Cranmer and the Case at Bar because in Cranmers Case there was a possibility at the beginning that the Term for years might be good for the term became void by matter ex post facto sci By the attainder of him which disabled him to make Executors but in the Case at Bar the term for twenty four years was expresly void ab initio But that difference is without reason for what reason is there That the Remainder should be father off the possession when the estate for years is originally void than when it becomes void by matter ex post facto Suppose that the Lord Paget had by Indenture covenanted as above for the two first uses being in truth void in Law and afterwards by another Indenture reciting That whereas he had covenanted That in consideration That A. with the profits of his Lands should pay his debts c. to stand seised of the said Lands for his own life Now he covenants to stand seised to the use of William Paget and his Heirs should not he presently be seised to the use of William Paget and his Heirs although the words be That then and from thenceforth For I hold it a clear case that his estate begins presently being limited to begin upon a void estate althouh the limitation be by words de futuro And to this purpose he cited the case 3 E. 6. Br. Lease 62. A man leaseth for years Habendum post dimissionem inde fact to J.S. finitam where no such demise is made the same Lease shall begin presently If an Indenture be made to a Monk and another Habend to the Monk for one and twenty years and after the end of that to the other for one and twenty years the other shall have it presently And he put a Case 7 E. 3. in the new Impression 19. and in the old Impression 317. Where one Maud brought a Formedon in the Remainder and counted that one Hamond was seised and gave the said Tenements to one Robert c. in tail and that for want of such issue that the Tenements should return to the said Hamond for life the Remainder to the Demandant in Fee and counted further That Robert is dead without issue and that Hamond is also dead c. It was holden although that the Remainder reserved to the Donor be void yet the Remainder over in Fee is good c. And in that case although that the Remainder in Fee was future sci After the death of Hamond the estate reserved to Hamond meerly void that originally not by matter ex post facto yet the Remainder in Fee was good and should begin presently upon the death of Robert without issue and should not expect the death of Hamond Mr. Attorney hath given a Rule That the intent of the parties is the Direction of uses as also of Wills and therefore I will put one Case of Wills 37 H. 6. 17. If a man devise Lands to a Monk for four and twenty years and after the same ended to another in Fee here the Monk being a dead person cannot take the estate limited to him therefore it is void but the Fee limited to the other is good and shall take effect presently If it be so in a Will why not so also in uses For the intents of the parties do direct the constructions of both And our case here is a stronger case than the case cited 37 H. 6. 36. for there where Land is devised to a Monk for life there may be colour of an Occupant during the life of the Monk who might take it although the Monk himself cannot take it and so the Remainder doth not take effect presently as to the possession but shall stay till after the death of the Monk But here is not any colour of an Occupancy for the estate here is a Lease for years which cannot admit an Occupant And see also 37 H. 6. 36. If a man devise that his Feoffees shall make an estate to I. S. for life the Remainder over to C. in Fee and I. S. will not take his estate C. shall have a Sub-poena against the Feoffees to make an estate to him