that the Estate-tail was not barred Dyer The Estate tail is barred and made a difference where the Fine is defeated by entry by reason of the Estate-tail and where it is defeated by entry by reason of another estate-tail as in 40 Eliz. Tenant in tail discontinues and disseiseth the Discontinuee and levies a Fine to a stranger and retakes an Estate in Fee before the Proclamations passe the Discontinuee enters and then the Tenant in tail dies seised and adjudged that the Issue is not remitted for the Statute 32 H. 8. saies That a Fine levied of lands any way intailed by the party that levies the Fine shall bind him and so it is not materiall whether he were seised by force of the Estate-tail or by reason of another Estate or whether he have no Estate And all the Iustices were of opinion that the Estate was barred for although the discontinue had avoided the Fine by the possession yet the Estate-tail remains concluded and the same shall not enter by force of the Estate-tail but by force of the Fee which he had by discontinuance Popham Avoidance of a Fine at this day differs much from avoidance of a Fine at the Common Law for it appears by the 16 Ed 3. that if a Fine at the Common Law be defeated by one who hath right it is defeated against all but at this day the Law is contrary for if a man be disseised and the Disseisor die seised his Heir within age and he is disseised by a stranger who levies a Fine and then five years passe the Heire shall avoid this by his nonage yet the first Disseisee is bound for ever for the Infant shall not avoid the Fine against all but only to restore the possession And therefore it was adjudged in the Lord Sturtons Case 24 Eliz. where Lands were given to him and his Wife and the Heires of him and he died and his Issue entred and levied a Fine to a stranger and before the Proclamations passed the Mother enters it was adjudged that the Issue was barred for the Wife shall not avoid this but for her own Estate And so if a stranger enters to the use of him who hath right this shall not avoid the Fine Fenner did agree to this and said that it had been so adjudged but all the Iustices agreed that the Estate-taile being barred the entry shall go to the benefit of him who hath most right to the possession and that is the discontinue and therefore the Plaintiff in the Formedon hath good Title to the Land but onely to the Fee and not to the Intaile for that is barred by the Fine 28 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2130. Gibson against Mutess IN a Replevin the Case was John Winchfeild was seised of Lands in Fee and by his Will did devise all his Lands and Tenements to Anthony Winchfeild and his Heires and before his death made a Deed of Feoffment of the same Lands and when he sealed the Feoffment he asked If this Feoffment will not hurt this last Will if it will not I will seal it And then he sealed it and made a Letter of Attorney to make Livery in any of the said Lands the Attorney made Livery but not of the Lands which were in question and then the Testator died And the question was if the Devisee or Heire of the Devisor should have the Land And it was said in behalf of the Heire that if the Testator had said It shall not be my Will then it is a Revocation Quod curia concessit But it was the opoinion of the Court that it appears that it was the intent of the Testator that his Will should stand and if it be not a Feoffment it is not a Revocation in Law although that the Attorney made a Livery in part so that the Feoffment was perfect in part yet as concerning the Land in question whereof no Livery was made the Will is good and the Iury found accordingly that the Land does not descend to the Heire Fenner cited a Case of Serjeant Jeffereys where it was adjudged that where one had made his Will and being demanded if he will make his Will doth say he will not that this is no Revocation Sir Wolston Dixy against Alderman Spencer 20 Eliz. in C. B. IN a Writ of Errour brought upon a Iudgement given in an Assize of Fresh-force in London The case was Sir Wolston Dixy brought an Action of Debt for rent arrear against Spencer upon a Lease for years made to him by one Bacchus who afterwards granted the reversion to Dixy and the Tenant attorned and for rent arrear Dixy brought an action c. The Defendant pleaded in Bar that before the Grant made to Dixy the said Bacchus granted it to him by parole according to the custome of London whereupon he demanded Iudgement if c. and the Plea was entred on Record and hanging the suit Dâ—xy brought an assize of fresh force in London and all this matter was here pleaded and it was adjudged a forfeiture of the Land and hereupon Spencer brought a Writ of Errour and assigned this for errour that it was no forfeiture Shuttleworth It is no forfeiture untill a Trial be had whether the reversion be granted or not as in wast the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff had granted over his estate this is no forfeiture and in the 26 Eliz. in a Quid Juris clamat the Defendant pleaded that he had an estate Tail and when he came to have it tryed he acknowledged he had an estate but for life and that was no forfeiture But the Court said they could remember no such Case Walmesley It was so adjudged and I can shew you the names of the parties Periam Justice If there be such a Case we would doubt of it for there are Authorities to the contrary as the 8 Eliz. and 6 Rich. 2. Anderson If the Defendant in a Trespass prayes in aid of an estranger this is a forfeiture and if it be counter-pleaded it is a forfeiture and the denial alters not the Case Walmesley The Books in 15 Ed. 2. Judgement 237. and 15 Ed. 1. that Iudgement in a Quid Juris clamat shall be given before the forfeiture Andâ—rson In my opinion he may take advantage before Iudgement as well as after if the Plea be upon Record And so was the opinion of the Court. The Dutchess of Suffolks Case Pasch 4 5 Ph. Mary in C. B. IN a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Exeter the Writ was ad respondendum Andrew Stoke Dennisae Franciscae de Suffolk Uxori eâ—uâ— Benlowes demanded Iudgement of the Writ c. because she lost her name of dignity by marriage with a base man as it was adjudged 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. where Madam Powes and her husband brought a Writ of Dower and the Writ abated because she called her self Dame Powes whereas she had lost her dignity by marrying with her husband Stanford agreed for Mulier nobilis si
opinion he relied upon the intention of the Donors which ought to be observed For if the Habendum does crosse the Premisses it shall be void but a Remainder is good for the benefit of a stranger but a Rent cannot be reserved upon such a Gift during the foure degrees but after the Reversion is good if he do attorne to the Gâ—…ntee of the Reveâ—sion Windham Frank-marriage is not an Estate in taile for there wants the word Heires Coke lib. 1.103 So a Gift to a man semini suo 10 Ass 26. and after Meade â—greeâ— with Windham although the grounds of Frank-marriage were not observed yet that it was good for although there be no Tenure between the Donor and Donee yet is it a good Frank-marriage Dyer It is no good Frank-marriage because the usuall words are not observed and if the word Liberum be omitted it is not Frank-marriage neither is it good given to a man but it must be to a woman for a man cannot give land to a woman Causa matrimonii praelocuti And in this case the party ought to be of the blood of the Donor who by possibility may be inheritable to him and there ought to be a Tenure between them and an acquittall and if any faile it is no Frank-marriage and he said further that if it once takes effect as Frank-marriage and then the Donor grants the Reversion or the Reversion discends to the Donees yet it shall not be destroyed but shall remaine as an Estate in taile and not for life because it once took effect in the Donees and their issues and if land be given to a man in Frank-marriage the remainder in taile yet this shall not destroy the Frank-marriage and the Donee shall hold of the Donor and not of him in the remainder And if one give land in Frank-marriage the remainders to the Donees in taile yet is this a good Frank-marriage and if the Donor grants over his Services yet doth the Frank-marriage continue although the Donees attorn for they are incident to the Reversion and therefore the Grant is void but if the Reversion be granted the Services will passe and he concluded that the Husband had all and the Wife nothing because no Estate to her is mentioned in the Premisses and he could not construe the words to be the intent of the Donor for here is an expresse limitation of the fee to the Husband and his Heirs which cannot be controlled by intendment And after 25 Eliz. It was adjudged to be no Frank-marriage nor gift in taile but a Fee-simple And the Iustices said that the ancient Books were that where it took not effect as a Frank-marriage it should be in especiall taile yet those at this time are not Law But they agreed that this at one time took effect as Frank-marriage and by matter ex post facto may be made an Estate in taile Mich. 30 Eliz. Gibbs Case GIbbs brought an Action of Trover against Basil for a Gelding the Case was One Porter stole this Gelding from the Plaintiff and sold him to the Defendant in open Market by the name of Lister and it was entred so in the Toll Book that Lister sold him The question was if this alteration of his name shall make any alteration of the property although the sale was in open Market Windham and Rhodes Iustices held this no good sale to bar the Plaintiff and grounded their opinion on the Statute of the 2 and 3 Phil. and Mar. cap. 7. which provides that no property of stollen Goods shall be altered that are sold unlesse the name and surname of the parties to the sale be written in the Toll-book And Shuttleworth moved that it should be in the Market and walked there for an houre together which is not set forth by the Defendant in his Bar but the Iustices said that such speciall plea need not to be but shall be intended Rouses Case IT was moved in this Case that if Tenant for terme Dauter vie does continue and hold in his Estate after the death of Cestuy que vie If he be a Disseisor and whether in pleading the plea ought to be seised and not possest Shuttleworth He was legally in at first and therefore cannot be a Disseisor 15 Ed. 4.41 A Freehold could not be gained where he came in by the agreement of the party and 12 Ass 22. Where the Husband and Wife were seised of a Freehold and after were divorced by Suit on the womans part whereby the woman is to have all the land yet if the Husband continue possession and dies seised this discent shall not take away entry because he was no Disseisor Gawdy He is Tenant at sufferance and no Disseisor and there it was moved that if Tenant at sufferance or a Disseisor makes Copies of Copyhold Lands if they be good or voidable And note that Wilde took here a diversity between a Termor that holds over and a Tenant at sufferance for in case of a Tenant at sufferance there is no Freehold taken from the Lessor which the continuance of possession doth not take from him but where the Tenant holds over his terme there the Freehold is disturbed and therefore there is a disseisin But at that present it seemed to the Iudges that there was no diversity But the next terme Godfrey moved that if Tenant for anothers life held over his Estate he had Feesimple and he granted that it was otherwise in some cases for if he claim to be Tenant at the Will of the Lessor he shall not gaine a Fee-simple For Littleton in his Chapter of Releases 108. saith that Tenant at sufferance is where a man in his own wrong doth convey Lands and Tenements at the will of him that hath the Freehold and such Occupyer claimeth nothing but at Will But in this case the Tenant claimes otherwise then at Will of the Lessor he does not claim any thing but at the Will of the Lessor as in the case of Littleton but claimes to hold over against the Will of the Lessor which is no Tenant at sufferance and 10 Ed. 4. If a man makes a Lease at Will and the Lessor dies and he continues possession and claims fee the Heire shall have a Mortdancester and 18 Ed. 4.25 If Cestuy que use dies and the Tenant continues in and the Tenant is impleaded the Lessor shall not be received and the reason is because there is no reversion in him but the Tenant hath it and 22 Ed. 4.38 by Hussey Iustice If a Termor holds over his Terme there an Estate in fee is confest to be in him by matter of Law but it is a deubt whether he be a Disseisor or not but it seemeth not for a Trespasse doth not lye against him before Regresse and in the 7 H. 4.43 If a Guardian holds the possession at the full age of the Heir or Tenant for years after his terme expired the Estate shall be judged in Fee And in our case he hath
expounded as they are commonly taken and not to go to any strict construction of the words as Heirs in the Latine is used also for goods by the Civill Law but we use it only for lands and so Libra in Latine signifies a Weight and yet if I am bound in Vigint Libris if I forfeit my Bond I must pay money and not Lead or the like And so the word Puer is somtimes taken for a servant Claudite jam rivos pueri c. and the same reason that it may be intended for a Daughter may be for a Servant also Gawdy I suppose the Son shall have it and not the Daughter for although Pueri was taken for Male and Female yet now it is taken for Male in any Modern Author but to omit curiosity of words we ought to consider rather the intent of the parties and there are many circumstances to prove that he intended this to his Son and not to his Daughter for he made it for setling his Inheritance and it shall not be supposed that he intended his Daughter should have it Also where the case may be taken two waies the most usuall shall be intended as in case of a reservation of a Rent at Michaelmas that shall be intended at the chiefest Feast also in this case it shall be intended that he would advance the most worthy of his blood and therefore to that purpose the conveyance shall be expounded for if there be two I. S. and I give land to I.S. it shall be intended to my next Neighbour but if one be my Cosin although he dwells forty miles from me yet he shal have the land And to this Southcote accorded 31 Eliz. in B. R. Hone against Clerk A Woman Lessee for life takes Husband who by Indenture makes a Feoffment of the land to I.S. for these words Sciant per Servantes Richardum How Katherin uxor ejus dedisse I.S. unum messuagium habendum praedict I.S. heredibus suis ad solum opus usum of the said I.S. and his Heirs during the life of Katherine The question was if this was a forfeiture because the wife was Tenant for life and the Attorney argued that it was for the words Pro termino vitae Katherin are referred to the use only and not to the estate for by these words habendum to him and his Heirs the estate is limited and therefore it is a forfeiture but after comes the limitation of the use ad usum I.S. and his Heirs during the life of the woman and after the death of the woman the use remaines in the Feoffor and he cited the Lord Sturtons case in the beginning of the Queens Raign The Lord Sturton gave land to Clerk and his Heirs to the use of Clerk and the Heirs of his body and adjudged that it was not an estate in taile for the limitation of the estate was before in the Premises Coke on the contrary and said that those words For life of the wife are to be referred to the limitation of the Estate for if a double sense be in words such sense shall be taken as shall avoid all wrong and therefore it shall not be so expounded as that the Grant shall not take effect and that a forfeiture shall ensue 4 Ed. 2. and see a notable case for exposition of words and for relation of words and sentences 34 Ed. 3. Avowry 58.28 H. 8. Dyer Gawdy It is a forfeiture Clench said he would advise but afterwards it was adjudged a forfeiture for as Wray said the estate given was forfeit Mich. 36 37 Eliz. Bagnall against Porter in B. R. Rot. 353. A Man by Indenture bargains and sells his land and if the Bargainor pay 100 l. at such a day that then he shall be seised to the use of the Bargainor and his heirs and did assume to make such assurance for the security of the land as should be advised by the Councell of the Bargainor and the Bargainee bound himself in a Recognizance to performe the said Covenants And in debt upon the Recognizance it was shewn that the Bargainor paid the money at the day and had tendred to the Bargainee a Deed in which was comprised an acquittance of payment of the money and also a release of all his right and the Bargainee refused to seale it Coke was of clear opinion that he ought to have sealed it for it is necessary to have the Deed to mention payment of the money for otherwise the Bargainee and his heirs may claim the land for default of payment Gawdy of the same opinion and cited 19 Ed. 4. Popham The case is not so clear for if he had tendered an acquittance only there is no doubt but the Bargainee might refuse to seale it and by the same reason he may refuse when it is joyned to a thing that he is bound not to do viz. to seal the release but at last the matter was referred to Arbitration Hillar 37 Eliz. COke demanded this question A man having two Daughters his Heires does demise his Land to them in Fee What estate had they by this Demise For if a man deviseth Land to his eldest Son it is voyd and he is in by descent That it was holden by the Court that they shall hold by the Devise because that he gives another estate to them then descended for by the descent each of them had a distinct moyety but by the Devise they are Joyn-renants and the survivor shall have all And Fenner sayd If a man had Land in Burrow-English and Guildable Lands and devised all his Land to his two Sons and dyes both of them shall take joyntly and the younger shall not have a distinct moiety in the Burrow-English nor the elder in the Guildable Land but they are both Joyn-tenants Pasch 37 Eliz. Carrell against Read in B. R. Rot. 270. A Lease for years was made of divers Fenny grounds in Cambridge ss and the Lessee covenanted to defend the ground for being surrounded with water and to drain the water out of other lands that were demised to him in the said County And upon an Action of Covenant for not performing the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had entred in the land demised And adjudged no plea by the Court because the Covenant was not in respect that the Lessee should enjoy the land nor was it a Covenant abhering to the land but to a collaterall thing but if it had been in respect of enjoying the land there it is a good plea to say that the Plaintiff had entred but where the thing to be done is collaterall it is otherwise and also if he did plead such plea yet it is not a bar unlesse he holds him out of possession Coke lib. 3.221 4 Ed. 3.29 the Lord shall not have a Cessavit after entry in parcel 10 Ed. 4.11.35 H. 6. Bar 162.19 Ed. 4.2 Trin. 37 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 1076. Dogrell against Perks IN an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded
propertie To which it was answered that if the ancient stock of Sheepe were still it had been godd but it was not and therefore the grant is voyd Walmesley Although the first stock was changed yet the new stock does supply it and is in place thereof and shall be in the same condition as the other stock is and therefore the Lessor shall have propertie in it But the whole Court was against him for they said that the increase of the stock of Sheepe should be to the Lessee and the Lessor shall never have them at the end of the terme but they agreed that if the lease were of the stock with Lambs Calves and Piggs there the increase belongs to the Lessor And all the Court took this difference sc when a lease is made of dead goods and when of living for when the lease is of dead goods and any thing is added to them for reparations or otherwise the Lessor shall have this addition at the end of the terme because it belongs to the principle but in case of a stock of Cattle which hath an increase as Calves and Lambs there these things are severed from the principle and Lessor shall never have them for then the Lessor shall have the Rent and the Lessee shall have no profit Trinit 29 VViseman against Rolfe in in C. B. Rot. 1454. IN a Writ of right the Case was thus A man selfed of Land in Fee makes his will and gives to D. his wife such Land for life the remainder to T. his son and heires of his body and also gives to T. his son his Land in B. and also his Land in C. and also he gives his Land called Odyum to the seed of his son habendum all the demised premisses to his T. son and the heires males of his body The Question was it T. should have an estate in Taile in B. and C. or if the last words shall relate only to that which was last named Fenner for the Plaintiff For the last Clause is a new Clause and shall not be preferred to the first for it begins with a verbe viz. I give my Land called Odyum and therefore the limitation afterward shall be referred only to this And 10 H. 7.8 There was a grant by Dedi custodiam Parci Arbores vento prostrat The Grantee shall have the trees by this Clause and 14 Eliz. A man deviseth thus I give my Mannour of C. to my second son Item I give my Mannor of S. to my second son to have and to hold to him and to his heirs And by Dyer Welsh and Weston he had an estate but for life but Brown cont for if a Lease be made to A. B. and C. successively it is adjudged that they are Ioyntenants but if it be to them as they are named they shall have it one after the other and if a devise be to one and his heirs and after to another for life the Law will conster that the estate for life is to procede for that words of Relation in Wills shall be taken stricttly as if a devise be to A. and his heirs of his body and he does devise other land in Forma praedicta this shall be but for life Walmesley cont and said that this limitation did go to all whereof no limitation was made before for the rules of reason are uncertain and therefore such matters shall be expounded according to the best sense that may be and here the sense is most naturall to refer it to all and the word all imports this and the Case of the fourth of Elizabeth under favour accords with this viz. that the Devisee shall have Fee in both But if the Devise had been I devise D. to my son Thomas and also to him and his heirs the Mannor of S. there he shall have D. but for life And if a man devise to his 4. sons A. B. C. and D. to have to the persons last named to them and their heirs there all shall have Fee 19 Ed. 4. In a precipe of a house and an acre of land in three severall Towns and that the Defendant Ibidem ingressus est and did not say into the house and land and yet it was held good Periam and Rhodes He shall have an estate Taile in all and the relation shall be to all Anderson doubted at first but agreed afterwards and Iudgement was given accordingly 32 33 Eliz. Mathewson against Trott in C. B. Rot. 1904. UPon a speciall verduit the Case was this A man seised of land in soccage devised it to his yonger son and died seised the elder son enters and dies seised and his heir enters and the yonger son enters upon him the Question was if his entry be taken away by this descent VValmesley It is not and he compar'd this case to a title of entry for a condition broken or a Conusee of a Fine upon grant and render c. in which Cases no descent shall take away entry Anderson The Devisee hath interest presently and the land does not descend for the devise prevents the descent and the Freehold is presently in the Devisee and the Statute 32 H. 8. which gives power to Devise lands does make a Title in the Devisee as a Title of entry for condition of Mortmaine and the Devisee shall not have an ex gravi querela upon this Statute but he must enter Walmesley The Devisee hath not a Freehold presently for if it were so the Devisee at the Common Law ought not to sue an Ex gravi Querela but certainly if the freehold be in the Devisee his entry is taken away And afterwards Iudgment was given by Anderson that descent does not take away the entry of the Devisee but delivered no reason for it Hillar 33 Eliz. Mosgrave against Agden Rot. 2529. IN an action of the Case on a Trover and conversion of six barrells of Butter The count was that they came to the hands of the Defendant and after the trover they were impared and decayed ratione negligentis custodiae And the Court held cleerly that the action would not lie for he who finds goods is not bound to preserve them from putrefaction but it was agreed that if the goods were used and by usage made worse the action would lie 44 Eliz. Ayer against Joyner in C. B. Rot. 2529. IN a second Deliverance it was said by the Court that if Lessee for years does assign over his terme and yet continues possession that he hath but a naked possession and no interest nor estate but the estate and interest does remain in the grantee so that he may grant it over And Walmesley said that if the Lessee makes waste the Lessor may have an action of waste against him and there is a casâ— that if a man makes a Lease and the Lessee waves the possession and a stranger commits waste the Lessor shall have an action of waste against the Lessee but the principall question
Estoppell otherwise if it were by Deed. Vid. 1 H. 7.12 Mich. 32 33 Eliz. Marshes Case in B. R. Rot. 1011. MArsh and his wife brought a Writ of Errour as Executors to Nicholson to reverse an Outlawry upon an Indictment of Felony pronounc'd against the Testator Altham of Grayes-Inne The sole point was whether the Executors may have a Writ of Errour and I hold that they may for if there be no heir it is great reason that the Executors should have it for otherwise the erroneous judgement cannot be at all reverst and every one shall have a Writ of Errour that is damaged by the erroneous judgement and Executors have right to the personal estate to have Errour For if a man recovers damages in a Writ of Cosenage and the land also and dyes his heir shall have Execution for the land and the Executors Execution for the damages by the 19 Ed. 4.5 43 Eâ— 3. 13 Ed. 4.2 If a man does recover my villain by a false Verdict the heir shall have an attaint for the villany and the Executors for the damages and a Writ of Errour shall be given to him to whom the right of the thing lost doth descend as it was adjudged in the Case of Sir Arthur Henningham and he cited two presidents in the point 1 Tâ—…ity 11 H. 8. Rot. 3. where an Administrator brought a Writ of Errour to reverse a Iudgement given in an exigent Vid. 2 Rep. 41. a. Cook contr In Natura Brevium 21 M. he sayes an Executor shall have a Writ of Errour upon a Iudgement given in Debt against the Testator and the heir shall have Error to reverse Outlawry in Felony and to restore him in his blood and he said that it was part of the punishment in Felony to have the blood corrupted sic filius portat iniquitatem patris and by reason of the attainder he cannot inherit any Ancestor wherefore he having the damage it is reason that he should reverse it And although Executors shall have a Writ of Errour for Chattels personal yet they shall not have one when they are mixt with things real 5 H. 7.15.18 Ed. 4. If Writings be in a Box the heir shall have the Box because real things are more regarded than personal Nevertheless in this Case the Writ of Errour is in a real Action for the Law sayes that it is in the same nature as in original action whereupon it is brought as if Errour be brought to reverse a Iudgement given in a personal action the Writ of Errour is personal and so in like manner is it real if the first action be real 47 Ed. 3.35 35 H. 6.19 23. and although the first action be mixt yet the Law does rather respect the reality 30 H. 6. Barr. 59. where two brought an assize and one did release and there it was said that although this were a mixt action yet it shall be according to the most worthy and that is the reality and 16 Assi 14. divers Disseisors being barr'd in an assize did bring a Writ of attaint for the damages and summons and severance was suffered for damages were joyned with the reality and Stanford 184. If a man be indicted before a Coroner quod fugam fecit if he after reverse the Indictment yet he shall have his goods for de minimis non curat Lex But note that the Iustices said that the fugam fecit was the cause of forfeiture of the goods and not the Felony And as to the presidents he agreed to the Case of the 18 H. 7. for an Executor shall have a Writ of Errour to reverse Iudgement given in an exigent for there nothing but the goods are forfeit 30 H. 6. Forfeiture 31. and for the president in 11 H. 8. it cannot be proved that the Outlawry was for Felony Vid. Rep. fol. 3. 33 Eliz. Lilly against Taylor in B. R. Rot. 467. MArsh seized of the land in question did devise this to Rose Lilly for life and if she fortun'd to marry and after her decease should have any heirs of her body lawfully begotten then that heir should have the land and the heirs of the body of such heir and for default of such issue the land shall revert to Philip Marsh his son and his heirs and the question was if the husband of Rose shall be Tenant by the curtesy or not and so if Rose had estate Tail or for life onely Godfrey She hath estate but for life and he cited a Case adjudged in Benlowes Reports 40 Eliz. where lands are devised to A for life and after his decease to the male children of his body and it was adjudged that the male children have an estate Tail by purchase and nothing by descent and so A had nothing but for life Gawdy agreed for she hath but for life and when she dyes her issue shall have it Popham agreed if the words were that if she had issue that he should have it But Clench held that she had an estate in Tail executed and that her husband shall be Tenant by the curtesy Fenner The issue is as a Purchaser for the Devisor intended that Rose should not have a greater estate than for life And also it was agreed by all the Iustices that a Devise to a man and his heir shall be accounted a Foe-simple for that the word heir is collective and so is the 29 Assi where land was given to a man and to the heir of his body uno haeredi ejusdem haeredis this is an estate Tail Popham He shall be Tenant by the curtesy and he agreed that heir of the body was a good name of purchase but if a Frank-tenement be limited to his Ancestor and by the same Deed it is also limited to his heir the heir shall be in by descent But Fenner on the contrary Pasch 38 Eliz. Bolton against Bolton Rot. 882. 582. TEnant for life being impleaded doth pray in aid of him in the Reversion who joyn and lose c. and the Tenant for life brings a Writ of Errour and the Record is removed and he in the remainder brings a Writ of Errour also De Recordo quod coram vobis residet and the question was upon which Writ of Errour the Iudgement should be reverst and it was objected that if it should be reverst by the Tenant for life that he in the remainder should be restored But Gawdy Fenner and Clench contr Who held that it should be reverst at his suit who first brings the Writ as in case of Interpleader it shall be alwayes upon the first Writ And notwithstanding the removing of the Record by the Tenant for life at the next term the Court said it was at their discretion to reverse this at suit of anâ— of the parties as they pleased and because they observed some indirect practices by him in the remainder it was reverst at suit of Tenant for life Pasch 5 Jacob. Sir Henry Dimmocks Case in the
in purchasing the Inheritance by which the Terme is extinct shall bar the possibility which Reynald the Son hath to come upon the womans marriage 3. That a Lessee for years being in possession may take a Feoffment although it be by Deed and may take Livery after the delivery of the Deed and shall be deemed to be in by force of the Feoffment as in this case is pleaded although that the Lessee may take the Deed by way of confirmation and then the Livery is but Surplusage and void 4. It was resolved that this possibility which was in Reynald the Son to have the residue of the terme upon the inter-marriage which at the time of the Feoffment and of the Fine was but Dormant shall be accounted a former charge and before the Covenant because of the will which was before the Covenant and shall awake and have relation before the marriage As if Tenant in tail of a Rent purchaseth the Land out of which the Rent issueth and makes a Feoffment and covenants that the Land at that time is discharged of all former charges although this charge is not in esse but is in suspence as it is said 3 H. 7.12 yet if the Tenant in tail dye his Issue may distrain for this Rent and then is the Covenant broke for now it shall be accounted a former charge before the Feoffment Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Bretts Case Debt on â— Bond. BRett brought an action of Debt on a Bond against Averden and the Condition of the Bond was to stand to the Arbitrement of J.S. who did award that the Defendant should pay ten pounds to Brett and no time was limited to pay it The Defendant confest the Arbitrement but pleaded in Bar that the Plaintiff hath not required him to pay the money And the Plaintiff hereupon demurred Adjudged by the Court that it is no good plea for the Defendant at his perill ought to pay the money and the Plaintiff need not make any request wherfore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 29 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Bucknells Case Action for Robbery on the Statute of Winchestster BUcknell was robbed in a Hundred within the County of Bucks and thereupon brought his Action upon the Statute of Winchester because the Theeves were not taken And Not guilty being pleaded by the Inhabitants the Iury gave this speciall Verdict viz. That he was robbed the same day alleadged in the Declaration but in another place and within another Parish then that he hath alledged in the Declaration but that both the Parishes were within the said Hundred Vpon which they prayed the Iudgment of the Court whether the Inhabitants were guilty Adjudged by the Court for the Plaintiff for it is not materiall in what Parish he was robbed so it were within the same Hundred Hil. 30 Eliz. in Com. Banc. Rot. 904. Spittles Case Replevin SPittle brought a Replevin against Davis the Case was this Turk being seised of Land in Fee did devise parcell thereof to his youngest Son Proviso and it is his intent that if any of his Sons or any of their Issues shall alien or demise any of the said Lands devised before they shall attain the age of thirty years that then the other shall have the Estate and does not limit any Estate And then the eldest Son made a Lease before his age of thirty years and the youngest Son enters and afterwards and before the age of thirty years he aliens the Land he entred into by reason of the limitation the elder Brother re-enters and demised to Spittle the Plaintiff for three years who put a Horse into the ground and Davis by the commandment of the younger brother entred and took the Horse Damage-feasant and Spittle brought a Replevin And upon the whose matter there was a Remainder It was resolved 1. That this is a limitation and that the Estate shall be to such use as by the Will is directed untill there be an Alienation and upon Alienation the Land shall go to the other Brother 2. When the youngest Brother hath once entred for the Alienation then is the Land discharged of all Limitations for otherwise the Land shall go and come to one and the other upon every Alienation ad infinitum wherefore all the Iudges agreed that after the one Brother hath entred by reason of the limitation the Land is then for ever discharged of the Limitation made by the Will And Iudgment was given accordingly Michaells Case Debt on a Bond THomas Michaell brought an Action of Debt on a Bond against Stockworth and Andrews the Iury gave this speciall Verdict That the said Stockworth and Andrews did seale a Bond and delivered it to the Plaintiff as their Deed and after Issue joyned and before the Nisi prius the Seale of Andrews was taken from the Bond. Shuttleworth The Plaintiff shall be barred for it is one entire Deed and the Seale of one is wanting And admit in case it goes against us the Iudgment be reversed by Writ of Error the Plaintiff can have no Action on such Bond But it was adjudged to be a good Bond and Iudgment for the Plaintiff See the like case in Dyer Trin. 36 H. 8.59 A. Hillari 33 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Rot. 1315. Richmonds Case Debt for rent RIchmond brought an Action of Debt against Butcher the case was A man makes a Lease for years reserving Rent to him and his Executors and Assignes and during the terme the Lessor dies and his Heire who hath the Reversion brings an Action of Debt And it was urged that the Rent was incident to the Reversion and the Heire having the Reversion shall have the Rent also as incident to it as the case is in the 27 H. 8.16 If H. makes a Lease for years rendring Rent without saying any more words the Heire shall have this part because it shall go along with the Reversion So in the fifth of Edw. 4.4 If two Ioynt-tenants make a Lease for years rendring Rent to one of them yet the other shall have the Rent also although no mention were made of him so in the 7 H. 4.223 By the Court If I make a Feoffment in Fee rendring a Rent to me my Heires may distraine And if I grant over this Rent my Assignees in this case may distraine and avow so in this case an Action will lye for the Heire although he be not mentioned But adjudged to the contrary by the Court for when H. passeth Lands from himself the Law gives him liverty to passe them in such way and manner as he himself will and this liberty ought to take effect according to the expresse words for the Law will not extend the words further for the intent shall appeare by the words and then it cannot be here intended that his will was that his Heire shall have the Rent because the words are not sufficient to give it to his Heirs And therefore note a diversity when
the Law makes a Tenure and when the party for if the Law makes a Tenure the Heirs shall have the Rent but otherwise where the party makes it unlesse there be expresse words for the Heire as in 10 Edw. 4.19 by Moile If H. makes a Gift in T. and reserves no Rent yet shall the Donee hold of the Donor and his Heires as the Denor holds over but if he make a Lease for yeares rendring Rent to the Lessor the Heire shall not have this Rent for it is a Tenure made by the act of the party So in the Book of Assises 86. If a man le ts two acres of Land rendring Rent ten shillings for one of them to himself by name without naming his Heires it is adjudged that the Heire shall not have the Rent of this acre And this is resembled to the case of 12 Edw. 2. Where a man made a Lease for yeares rendring Rent to the Lessor and his Assignes here none shal have the Rent but the Lessor and it is void by his death for his Assignee cannot be privy to the Reservation and the words of the party shall not in any case be enlarged unlesse there be great inconvenience to be avoided and his intent and will is performed if he himself have the Rent And if a man reserve such Rent to him and his Executors this word Executors is to no purpose for that the Rent cannot be reserved to them but the Rent shall be extinct by his death And if he reserve the Rent to his Heire and not to himself he shall not have it but his Heire for he shall be estopped to claime it against his own words and reservation And if I make a Lease for years rendring Rent to me during the terme if I dye without Heire during the terme the Lord by Escheat shall not have the Rent which case may be compared to the case of Warranty 6 H. 7.2 That without mention of the Heires the Warranty shall not bind them But if a Rent be reserved to his Assignes and he grants over the Reversion here because the Assignes were mentioned in the Reservation and for that now there is a privity the Assignees shall have the Rent for it shall be intended that when he speaks of Assignes in the Reservation he prefixeth thereby to whom he will Assigne the Reservation wherefore it was adjudged for the Defendant vide Dyer 2 Eliz. 180 181. H. bargaines and sells Land Proviso that if the Vendor shall pay a hundred pounds to the Vendes his Heires or Assignes that then the Bargaine and Sale shall be void by two Iustices The Tendor shall not be made to the Executors because the Law will determine to whom the Tendor shall be made when the parties themselves are expresly agreed Mich. 33 and 34 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Goddards Case Confirmation by the Lessor to the Assignee of Tenant for years H. makes a Lease for years of twenty acres rendring Rent the Lessee grants all his Estate in one of the acres to I.S. the Lessor confirmes the Estate of I. S. Resolved by the Court 1. That by this confirmation the entire Rent is gone in all the other acres for being an entire contract and by his own act there cannot be an occupation for part and an extinguishment for the other part and in this case there is no difference between a suspension in part and an extinguishment If A. makes a Lease for yeares of twenty acres rendring Rent upon condition that if he does not do such a thing that then the Lease shall be void for ten acres if he performes not the condition and the Lessor enters the entire rent is gone And it was resolved that a Lease for years was not within the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum for that Statute extends to an Estate in Land of Fee-simple See the Report of Serjeant Benlowes in 14 H. 7. A Warren did extend into three Parishes And a Lease was made for years rendring rent and after the Reversion was granted to another of all the Warren in one of the Parishes and the Lessee did attorne The question was if the Lessor should have any part of this rent during the terme so that the rent may be apportioned or not And the Iustices said in this Case that neither the Grantor nor the Grantee shall have any rent for the Law is that no Contract shall be apportioned 2. It was resolved that no Lessor shall avow for the arrearages of rent before the time of Confirmation and extinguishment for H. shall not avow for the rent determined but he may defend himselfe by way of Iustification See where a man may justifie the taking by speciall evidence 19 H. 6.41 by all the Court except Askew Mich 33 and 34 Eliz. in Ban. Reg. Rot. 471. Wardfords Case Error HAddock brought a Writ of Error against Wardford upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas the case was thus Two Coparceners of a house one of them lets her part to a stranger and the other lets her part to a stranger also and then both Leases come to the hands of one H. and then one of the Coparceners bargaines and sells her reversion to the other Coparcener The Lessee commits Wast Permittendo dictum Messuagium cadere and the grantee of the Reversion brought an action of Wast The Errors assigned were 1. That he brought but one action of Wast although of severall Demises by severall Lessors wheras he ought to have two actions of Wast Godfrey He cannot have an Action in other manner then his Grantor might have before the Grant and when the reversion came to him it can be in other plight then it was before Gawdy There is a diversity when the right is severall and when the possession is severall for although the possession be severall yet if the right be intire but one action will lys as appeares F.N.B. fol. 2. Godfrey There is difference between the Writ of Right in F.N.B. and this action for there he was never intituled but onely to the action but in our case the action was once severall and is like the case in F.N.B. 60. where it is said that a man may have one action of Wast and declare upon divers Leases but that is intended where the Leases are made by one person and he cited the case in 21 H. 7.39 where it is agreed by all the Iustices that if a man hold two acres of one H. by severall Services and dies without Heire the Lord shall not have one Writ of Escheat but ought to have two Writs Popham chief Iustice did agree with Gawdy for although that at first the Lessors were intituled to severall Actions yet by matter ex post facto the Actions may be united and said that H. might have an action of Waste and declare ex assignatione and also ex dimissione 2. Error was assigned that he had assigned the Waste to be committed in the whole house whereas he had
therefore the Action shall continue And if a man be outlawed he may bring an Action as Executor and the Writ shall not abate Browne If I make I.S. my Attorney and he the Warrant of Attorney still continuing is made a Knight yet is not the Warrant of Attorney determined although the word Knight which is now part of his name be not in the Warrant therefore in this case the Writ is good Mich. 7 Eliz. NOte it was said by Browne that if H. does let the Cite of his Mannor with all his Lands to the said Mannor appurtenant hereby all the Demesne lands do passe but if it were with all the Lands appertaining to the said Cite nothing passeth but the Mannor-place Pasch 6 Eliz. A Man seised of the Mannor of Dale doth let the same with all the Members and Appurtenances to the same to have and to hold all the members of the said Mannor to the Lessee for terme of years Walsh and Weston were of opinion that this was a Lease for years of the Mannor onely and that the limitation of the word Members being after the Habendum was void But Dyer and Browne were of the contrary opinion And Browne said that when the Habendum is used by way of limitation it shall not be void As if he let his Mannor of Dale to have and to hold one acre parcell thereof for a terme of years the Lease is void for all but if there had been no Habendum but the Lease for years had been limited in the Premisses of the Lease that is good enough And if the Lease had been Habendum every part thereof that had been a good Lease of the Mannor for all the parts comprehend all the Mannor And Dyer said that the word Members shall be taken for the Townes and Hamblets wherein the Mannor hath Iurisdiction Note it was said by Dyer that if partition be made by the Sheriff although the Writ be not returned yet it is good enough and none of the parties shall except against it and so was the better opinion concerning the Estate of Culpeper and Navall in the County of Kent Sutton brought a Writ of Ravishment of a Ward against Robinson wherein it was resolved by Dyer Carus Weston and Benlowes That if the Tenant enfeoff his Lord and others all the Seigniory is extinct also if the Tenant does infeoff the Lord but of a Moyety yet is all the Seigniory extinct And Dyer said that if the Tenant does infeoff the Lord and a stranger to the use of another and his Heires and makes Livery to the stranger this is no extinguishment of the Seigniory but if the Livery were made to the Lord it is otherwise and yet is the possession instantly carried away to the stranger by the Statute of 2 H. 7.13 A man seised of lands devises the same to his Wife to dispose and imploy them for her self and her Son according to her will and pleasure Dyer Weston and Walson held that the Wife had a Fee-simple by the Intendment of the Will and the Estate is conditionall for ea intentione will make a Condition in a Devise but not in Grant vide Dyer 2â— 6 A woman Tenant in taile makes a Lease for one and thirty years and after takes a Husband who have issue the Husband being Tenant by the Curtesie surrenders the Heirs doth oust the Lessee and the Lessee brings an Ejectment And it was held that the Surrender was good and that the Privity was sufficient Mich. 40 Eliz. IN an Action of the Case for calling one Bastard Dyer and Walsh said an Action would lye but Browne on the contrary because it shall be tried in the Spirituall Court And Dyer said That at Barwick Assises a Formedon in the Discender was brought and one said that his Father by whom he claimed was a Bastard and thereupon he brought an Action against him for those words and recovered Catlin said That if Lands be given to a man and to the Heires he shall engender on the body of an English woman and he marries a French woman and she dies and then he marries an English woman that now this is a good Estate in special taile Pasch 7 Eliz. THe Prior and Monks of the Charter-house before the dissolution made a Lease for foure years reserving the ancient rent of twenty five Quarters of Wheat per annum and then the house was surrendered into the hands of King Henry the eighth and then the Lord Chancellor did let the said rent of twenty five Quarters of Wheat to I.S. for foure and twenty years And it came into question between I.S. and the Termor if this was warranted by the 27 H 8.28 Harper and Portrell it is not for the Statute is that they may make Leases of any Mannors Lands Tenements and Hereditaments for one and twenty years c. and this Wheat is neither Land Tenement nor Hereditament but a Chattell and shall be demanded in an Action of debt But the opinion of all the Court was that the Lease was good and they did agree that it was directly within the word Hereditaments for it may discend or escheat and the wife shall be endowed thereof Also upon a Lease of Corne a Rent may be referved for a man may reserve a Rent upon a Lease of a Rent and the Rent is not parcell of the Reversion but onely incident thereunto and the Lessor hath the same inheritance therein as he hath in the Reversion Trin. 7 Eliz. AN assurance was made to a woman to the intent it should be for her Ioynture but it was not so expressed in the Deed. And the opinion of the Court was that it might be averred that it was for a Ioynture and that such averment was not traversable and so was it in the case between the Queen and Dame Beaumont Winter brought an Action of the Case against Barnam for these words viz. Thou Murtherer Dyer and Walsh said that the Action would lye for there are some words that cannot be qualified as Murtherer Theef Extortioner false Knave and in such Case an Action will lye but contrary where such words are spoken in a jesting way Note by Dyer that the Lord Fitz-James late Lord chief Iustice of England did devise his land to Nicholas Fitz-James in taile with divers remainders over and in the same devise he devised divers Iewels and peeces of Plate viz. the use of them to the said Nicholas Fitz-James and the Heires Males of his body In this case it was the opinion of the Court that the said Nicholas had no property in the said plate but onely the use and occupation And the same Law where the Devise was that his Wife should inhabit in one of his houses which he had for terme of years during her life because the Wife takes no interest in the terme but onely an occupation and usage out of which the Executors cannot eject her during her life but Walsh held the contrary Hil. 8 Eliz. IF a Bishop
to pay the Rent to me because the receit is no wrong But it is otherwise in the first case for when the Tithes are set forth they are presently in the possession of the Parson so that when the Defendant takes them he is a wrong Seisor of them and therefore no account will lye against him And so was it adjudged in a case of a Mannor in London where one under colour of a Devise did occupy the Land for twenty years which Will afterwards was made void and thereupon he to whom the right of the land belonged brought an account and it was adjudged that it would not lye Harper An Account will lye against a Procter so that the Plaintiff may charge him as Procter and it is no plea for him to say he is no Procter no more then it is for a Guardian in Socage to say he is not Prochein amy Dyer there are three Actions of Account One against a Baily another against a Receiver the third against a Guardian in Socage And if an Account be brought against a man as Receiver he must be charged with the receipt of the money but if the Defendant pretends he is Owner of it it is contrary to the nature of an account and therefore he is not chargable in such Action but he may plead Ne unque son Baily pur account render for in an Account as my Brother Manhood said there must be privity But an Abator or an Intruder shall not be charged in an Account because they pretend to be Owners But in this case the Lessee may have an Action of Trespasse against him for the Tythes were immediatly upon the setting forth in the possession of the Lessee and by the Statute of the 31 H. 8.7 he may have an Ejectione firmae but an account will not lye in this case Mich. 14 Eliz. TEnant in Dower commits Waste and the Waste was assigned in this Case that the Lessee had destroyed a hundred Does of the Plaintiffs whether this was Waste or no was the question Dyer I think it no Waste unlesse she had destroyed all the Deer Manwood If a Lessee of a Pigeon house destroy all the old Pigeons except one or two yet it is a Waste and so is this although all be not destroyed Mich. 15 Eliz. A Man is indebted by Obligation in a hundred pounds to a Testator this Obligation is not Assets in the hands of the Executors untill it be recovered by them because it is but a Chose in Action but if in such case the Executor release the Debt now he hath determined the Action and hath made it Assets in his hands to the whole value of the Bond. Bliss against Stafford MArgaret Bliss who was in Remainder after an Estate in taile did bring an Action on the case against Edward Strafford for standring her Title in affirming that A. had issue one B. who is alive and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Action adjudged good by all But did abate for an exception to the Count. Pasch 13 Eliz. UPon the Statute of Recusancy made the 29. of Elizabeth Thomas Salherd and Henry Evered being committed of Recusancy for not paying twenty pounds for every month a Commission was awarded to enquire of their Goods and Lands in Suffolk to levy the said Debt and amongst other Lands certain Copyhold Lands were seised and being returned the parties came in and by way of plea did set forth that some of their Lands seised were Copyhold and did pray Quod manus Dominae Reginae amoveantur and hereupon the Queens Attorney demurred upon which the question was if Copyhold Lands were within the said Statute of the 29 Eliz. Snagge The Lands and Hereditaments which the Statute speaks of are such as are known by the Common Law and not by Custome for it I grant all my Lands Hereditaments in D. my Copyhold lands will not passe so that it seems to me Copyholds are not within the Statute Popham contra If Copyhold Lands are not within the Statute some persons shall be free and he held that Lands in ancient Demesne were within the meaning of the Statute although not within the words and he agreed that where a Grant is made of all my Lands and Tenements in D. that Copyhold Lands passe not because they cannot passe by such assurance and that Copyhold Lands were not within the Statute of Bankrupts if they be not particularly expressed and a Copyhold cannot passe by grant but by surrender But after great debate it was adjudged that Copyhold Lands are not within the Statuto by reason of the prejudice that may come thereby to the Lord who hath not committed any Offence and therefore shall not loose his Customes and Services Trin. 30 Eliz. IN the Case of Viscount Bindon it was holden that if a man hath Iudgment in Debt upon an Obligation and no execution yet he may commence another Action upon the same Obligation but otherwise of Contract 9 Ed. 4.51 A question was moved that if a man grants Vesturam terrae what doth passe and it was said by Clerk that one man may have the Vesture another the Soil Lord chief Baron he who hath Vesturā terrae cannot dig the Land And if many have a Meadow together viz. to be divided amongst them every year by lots how much every one shall have of grasse in such a place and how many in such a place and so to change every year according to the lots they have not a Freehold but onely vesturam terrae Dyer 285.6.14 H. 7.4 6. 21 H. 7.37 Dyer 375.6 13 H. 6.13 14 H. 8.6 In the Case of a Dean and Chapter the question was that if Lessee for years be rendring Rent with clause of re-entry for non-payment and then the Reversion or Rent be extended by a Statute or seised into the hands of the King for debt if the Lessee shall pay the Rent according to the extent and no breach of the Condition although he pay not the Lessor And the chief Baron held it was no breach of the Condition because he is now compellable to pay it according to the extent Caltons Case IT was moved by Serjeant Fenner and agreed by all the Barons that if the King make a Lease to A. rendring Rent and there the Lessee lets parcell hereof rendring Rent in this case the second Lessee shall not have the priviledge of the Exchequer to fly thither to be sued concerning this Land because that by such means all the causes in England may be brought into the Exchequer and hereupon Fenner said that he had demurred upon a Bill exhibited into the Exchequer Chamber by such a Lessee and prayed the Court that he might not answer and he was thereupon dismist Vpon not guilty pleaded the parties joyned issue and after evidence given and the Iury dismist from the Bar some of them had Apples and Figgs whereof the Court taking notice when they came to give their Verdict did examine them upon their
Oathes and they who had eaten were fined five pounds and committed to the Fleet. And some of the Iustices did doubt if the Verdict were good and upon many Presidents had it was adjudged good and they relyed much on the President of the 12 H. 8. Rot. 102. where one of the Iury did eat before they were agreed and yet the Verdict was good And after a Writ of Error was brought and the Iudgment affirmed 20 H. 7.3 13 H 4.13 Pasch 27 Eliz. A Man gives land to I.S. in the Premisses Habendum to him and three others for their lives Et eorum diutius viventium successive The question was what Estate I.S. had and whether there be any occupancy in the case Coke hâ—ld that I.S. had but an Estate for his own life because he cannot have an Estate for his own and anothers life where the interest of both begin at one instant and the Habendum by no means can make a Remainder as if a Lease be made to one for life habendum to him and his first begotten Son this makes no remainder to the Son although some have held to the contrary so of a Lease to one for years habendum to him and another does not make any remainder to the other also the word Successive will not make a remainder as in the 30 H 8. Br. Joynt-tenant 53. Also one cannot have an Estate for life and for anothers life also in present interest for the greater doth drowne the lesse but if the greater be present and the other future as a Lease to him for life the remainder to him for anothers life or a Lease for life and three years over this is good but if a Lease be made for life and for years the Lease for years is drowned 19 Ed. 3. Surrender 8. where Tenant for life of a Mannor did surrender to him in the Reversion c. Gawdy If a Lease be made to one for life and so long as another shall live quaere what Estate he hath And as to the second point certainly there cannot be an Occupancy for if the Estate be void the Limitation is void also the Occupancy is pleaded Que un tiel and does not say Claymant comme occupant c. for if a man comes a hawking on Land he is not an Occupant and the Book of Entries is that he ought to plead it Clinch Iustice every Occupant ought to be in possession at the time of the death of the Tenant for otherwise the Law casts the Interest upon him in the Reversion But Gawdy and Chute denied this and after viz. 29 Eliz. the Case was moved again by Popham and he made three points 1. If the other three had a joynt Estate 2. If they had a Remainder 3. If there be an Occupancy And he was of opinion that they had nothing by the habendum for they were not named in the Premisses they cannot have a Remainder for the incertainty but if those three had been named in the Premisses habendum to them Successive as they had been named there they had a Remainder for there the certainty appeared 30 H. 8.8 Dyer 361. Also there can be no Occupancy during the lives of the other three but he agreed to the Book of the 18 Ed. 3.34 that a Lease for life the Remainder to him for anothers life was good And that if a Lease be made to I.S. and a Monk it is void to the Monk and the other hath all and that during the life of the Monk there can be no Occupancy And if I make a Lease to I. S. for the life of a Monk it is a good Lease And till the same terme Iudgment was given that they could take nothing in possession joyntly nor by way of Remainder and that no Occupancy could be in the Case and that I.S. had Estate for terme of his owne life onely Stile against Miles STile Parson did suggest that the Land was parcell of the Glebe of the Parsonage and that the said Stile did let the said Glebe being foure and twenty acres to Miles for years rendring thirteen shillings foure pence Rent and in a Prohibition the case was if Tythes were to be paid And Wray said that although it was parcell of the Glebe yet when it was leased out Tythes ought to be paid and if no Rent be reserved Tythes ought to be paid without question but there may be a doubt where the Rent is reserved to the true value of the Land but here the Rent is of small value wherefore Tythes shall be paid also And the Reservation of the Rent was Pro omnibus exactionibus demandis yet the Iustices took no regard of those words But Godfrey said that those words would discharge him but Wray on the contrary for that this Tythe is not issuing out of the Land but is a thing collaterall and if a Parson do release to his Parishioners all demands in the Land yet Tythes are not thereby released for such generall words will not extend to such a speciall matter And in the 15 of R. 2. Avowry 99. one held of another by ten shillings for all Services Suits and Demands yet the Tenant shall pay Relief because it is incident to the Rent and 8 Ed. 3.26 Mich. 29 Eliz. Rot. 2574. or 2375. Stephens against Layton IN an Ejectione firmae upon issue joyned the case in a speciall Verdict was that a Lease by Indenture was made by William Beale to one William Pyle and Philip his Wife primogenito habend to them diutius eorum viventi successive for terme of their lives and then the Husband and Wife had issue a Daughter The question was if the Daughter had any Estate And three Iustices held that she had no Estate because she was not in being at the time of the Lease made and a person that is not in esse cannot take any thing by Livery for Livery ought to carry a present Estate where the Estate is not limited by way of Remainder 18 Ed. 3.3 17 Ed. 3.29 30. adjudged but it was said at the Bar that if the Estate had been conveyed by way of use it is otherwise And the said Iustices held clearly that the word Successive would not alter the case And the case was further found that William Beale and Sampson Beale did covenant with one Lendall that if Tho. Beale Son of Sampson Beale should marry Margaret the Daughter of the said Lendall if she would assent and also that the said Lendall did covenant that the said Margaret should marry the said Thomas if he would assent Pro quo quidem Maritagio sic tum postea habendo the said William Beale covenanted that he would make or cause to be made an Estate to the said Thomas and Margaret and to the Heirs of their bodies for the Ioynture of the said Margaret and it was further found that afterward a Fine was levied between the said Thomas and Margaret Plaintiffs and Sampson Beale and William Beale
that the Action might be against the Husband onely because that the woman could not convert them to his own use during the Coverture but onely to the Husbands use And the opinion of the Court was that the Writ was good against them both and that the conversion was in nature of a Trespasse and so the Action would well lye Mich. 32. and 33 Eliz. Kent against Wichall IN a Trespasse Quare clausum fregit herbam conculcavit the Defendant pleaded that he tendied sufficient amends to the Plaintiff and he refused the same and demanded Iudgment c. And upon a Demurrer the opinion of the Court was that this is no plea in Trespasse but in a Replevin it is a good plea Sed non dierunt causam diversitatis 21 H. 7.30.9 H. 7.22 F.N.B. 69. G. 31 H. 4.17 Drew demanded of the Court that whereas Edmund Leusage had bound himself in an Obligation by the name of Edward Leusage if this was good or not and it seemed to the Court Quod non est factum and Anderson and Walmesley said expresly that it was void 34 H. 6.19 6. Dyer 279 21 H. 7.8 Sir John Arrundell and his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Glocester and others who pleaded in Bar that William Sturton was seised of a Mannor to which the Advowson was appendant and bound himself in a Statute-merchant of two hundred pounds to one Long and the Statute was extended and conveyed the interest of the Statute to one of the Defendants and then the Church became void And by the Court the Advowson may be extended and if it become void during the Conusees Estate the Conusee may present Note it was said by the Iustices of the Common Pleas that if a man promise another that he shall have a Lease in his land for eight years or it is agreed amongst themselves that one shall have a Lease of the others land for eight yeares that is no lease of the land but onely a Contract and Agreement but if one promise another that he shall have his land for eight years or openly agree that one shall have the others land for eight years this is a good lease for eight years by force of the agreement A. came before the Major of Lincolne and acknowledged a Statute-merchant and the Seal of the Major was not put to it and it was adjudged that the Statute was not good but a man may sue upon it as an Obligation because the Seal of the party is to it Pasch 36 Eliz. IN a Waste the Case was that a Lessee for yeares purchased Trees growing upon the land and had liberty to cut them within eighty yeares and after the said Lessee purchased the inheritance of the land and devised it to his Wife for life the Remainder to the Plaintiff in see and made his Wife Executrix and died who after married with the Defendant who cuts the Trees whereupon the Action is brought And by opinion of all the Court the Action was maintainable for although the Trees were once Chattels yet by the purchase of the Inheritance they were united to the land and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly Pasch 36 Eliz. UPon an Exigent the Sheriff returned that after Divine Service he made proclamation and did not say that there was no Sermon and therefore the Iudges held that the return was not good for by the Statute if there be a Sermon in the Church the Sheriff shall make his proclamations after the Sermon and if there be no Sermon then after Divine Service and because it did not appeare whether there were any Sermon or not the opinion of the Court was ut supra It was said that a man shall not aver against a Postea in the Kings Bench or the Common Pleas to say that it was contrary to the Verdict nor shall he be received to say that the Iudges gave a Iudgment and the Clarks have entred it contrary to their Iudgment but otherwise is it in Court Barons or other base Courts not Courts of Record 10 Ed. 3.40 35 and 36 Eliz. Newman against Beaumond IF the Ordinary grants the Administration of the Goods of B. to A. and after grants the Administration to R. this second Grant is an appeale of the first without any further sentence of repeale for the Administrator is but a servant to the Ordinary whom he may charge at any time In an Action of Debt on a Bond bearing date the nineth of July the Defendant pleaed a Release of all Actions the same day usque diem dati ejusdem scripti and it was adjudged that the Obligation was not discharged because the Release does exclude the nineth day on which it was made Mich. 37 and 38 Eliz. Rot. 211. Holman against Collins HOlman brought a Writ of Error against Collins upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Plymmouth in the County of Devon the case was Collins was possessed of a peece of Ordnance and in Consideration that he would tender this to Holman for to put into his Ship which was then going to Sea and that Collins would stand to the hazard of losing it The said Holman did assume upon himself and did promise to give Collins certain Goods which he should gain by the Voyage and after the said Ship did return laden with certain Goods and for non-satisfaction the said Collins brought his Action on the Assumpsit and had Judgment to recover And Crook assigned these Errors 1. That the Stile of the Court was not good for it was Curia Dominae Reginae Burgi praedict tent coram Majori de Plymmouth without saying secundum consuetudinem villae praedict and he who is Iudge of the Court ought to be either by Patent or Prescription and then for not expressing the stile of the Court nor by what authority they held their Court it is error and he cited the case in the Lord Dyer 262. and a Iudgment 30 Eliz. Rot. 32. given in the very point Another Error was that no day was prefixed for the Defendant to appear but generally ad proximam curiam which is Error although it be held every munday And for these Errors Iudgment was reversed Trin. 28 Eliz. Rot. 948. Mercer against Sparks MErcer had Iudgment to recover against Sparks in the Common Pleas upon an Action of the Case for words and Sparks brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and assigned for Error that the Plaintiff did not expresse in the Declaration that the Defendant spake the words malitiose but it was adjudged that it was no Error because the words themselves were malicious and slanderous wherefore Iudgment was affirmed Savacres Case IT was adjudged in the Common Pleas that if a Baron or others mentioned in the Statute of 21 H 8. take divers Chaplaines which have many benefices and after they discharge their Chaplaines from their Service they shall retain their Benefices during their lives and if the Baron takes others to be his
was no apparance unlesse there were a Record But the Case in Court was ut supra Hil. 30. Eliz. IN an Ejectment by Dorothy Michell against Edmund Dunton the Case was A woman makes a Lease for years rendring Rent with a Covenant that the Lessee should repaire the house with other Covenants and then devised the same lands to the same Lessee for divers years more yeilding the like rent and under such Covenants as were in the first Lease the Remainder over in fee and dies and then the first Lease for years does expire and the Lessee continues in by force of the second Lease by vesture of the devise and repaires not the houses so that if the first Lease had been in being he had broke the Covenant If this shall be such condition as he in the remainder may enter was the question Shuttleworth It is a Condition for he cannot have a Covenant and then it shall be intended that iâ— is conditionall But by all the Court There appears no such intent for it appears that he holds under like Covenants Anderson The nature of a Covenant is to have an Action but not an entry and therefore there shall be no entry Shuttleworth To what end then serves these words under like Covenants Periam They are void And at last it was resolved by all the Iustices that the Will expressing that the first Lessee should have the Land observing the first Covenants it shall not be now taken to be a Condition by any intent that may be collected out of the Will for a Covenant and Condition are of severall natures the one giving Action the other entry and here the intent of the Will was that although the Covenants were not performed yet the Lessee should not forfeit his terme but is onely bound to such paine as he was at the beginning and that was to render damages in an Action of Covenant And Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should be barred Mich 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 2449. THe Earle of Kent brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against William Bryan which was indorsed with a Condition That if the Defendant did permit the Plaintiff his Executors or Assignes not onely to thresh Corn in the Defendants Barn but also to carry it away from time to time and at all times hereafter convenient with free egresse and regresse or else to pay eight pounds upon request c. that then c. And in truth the Defendant permitted the Corn to lye there two years in which time the Mise and Rats had devoured a great part of it and then the Defendant thresht it and the Earle therefore brought this Action And upon Demur it seemed to Walmsley that there was no forfeiture of the Bond because the Earl took not the Corn away in convenient time for convenient time is such as shall prejudice no person Quod fuit negatum per Justitiar and here is great prejudice to the Detendant because the Plaintiff did not carry away the Corn And he put many cases where things ought to be done in convenient time as in the 21 Ed. 4. where an Arbitrement ought to be performed in convenient time But the opinion of the Court was that he might come in covenient time although he comes long after and the words are not within convenient time Windham said That if the words had been within convenient time it would have made a difference Anderson If the words of the Condition had been that he should suffer the Plaintiff in time convenient to come and thresh and take away his Corn then perhaps he ought to send within a year according to Walmsleys saying but the words here are at all convenient times and that day that the Servant came was a convenient day to thresh and carry away and the words At all convenient times shall be construed that at any time when it pleaseth the Earl he may come unlesse it be night or Sabboth day and if the word convenient had not been mentioned then by the words from time to time and at all times after then the Earl may come at any time either in the day or night and that a hundred years after as he pleaseth and then the word convenient does restrain him that he cannot come but in the working daies but does not restrain any time in which he shall come but onely in conveniency of time which is at times of labouring and watching And so was the opinion of the Court ut supra An Action of Debt was brought upon a Lease for years the Defendant pleaded Nihil debet per patriam and did intend to give in evidence an entry of the Plaintiff before any Rent behind And by the Court he could not do it for it is contrary to the issue Hil. 30 Eliz. Rot. 904. Between Spittle and Davis IN a Replevin the case was One Turk seised of lands in fee devised parcell thereof to his eldest Son in taile and the other parcell to his youngest Son in fee. Provided and his intent was that if any of his Sons or any of their Issues do alien or demise any of the said lands before any of them comes to the age of thirty years that then the other shall have the Estate and does not limit what Estate and then one of the Sons makes a Lease for years before such age whereupon the other enters and before he comes to the age of thirty years he aliens that part into which he made entry and the other brother being the eldest enters and makes a Lease to Spittle the Plaintiff for three years and Davies by commandment of the younger brother enters and takes the house Damage-feasant and Spittle brought a Replevin And upon Demur it seemed to the Court that this was a limitation and by vertue of the Will the Estate devised to them untill they aliened and upon the alienation to go to the other upon such alienation the land is discharged of all limitations for otherwise the land upon one alienation shall go to one and upon another alienation shall go back again and so to and fro ad infinitum vide Dyer 14. 29. And afterwards all the Iudges agreed that after one brother had entred into the land by reason of the alienation that land was discharged forever of the limitation by the Will And Iudgment was given accordingly Trin. 27 Eliz. Rot. 190. Carter against Lowe IN an Ejectment the Case was A Termor devised his terme to I.S. and made his Wife Executrix and died the Woman enters and proves the Will and takes Husband who takes a Lease of the Lessor and after the Devisee enters and grants all his Estate to the Husband and wife and herein two questions were moved 1. If by this acceptance of the new Lease by the Husband the term which the woman had to another use viz. to the use of the Testator shall be deemed a surrender And the opinion of the Court was clearly without argument that it
dissolved Williams But that is saved by the 3â— H. 8 for Annuities are exprest in the saving Anderson But this is an Annuity or Rent with which the land is charged Beaumond If it be any thing wherewith the land is charged it is saved but the person is only charged with this Annuity Walmsley But the 21 H. 7. is that an Annuity out of a Parsonage is not a meer personall charge but chargeth the Parson only in respect of the land And the Court would consider on the case Pasch 38 Eliz. in B. R. The Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich THe Case was A Church in which there had been a Parson and a Vicar time out of mind and the Parson used to have the great Tythes and the Vicar the small and for the space of forty years last past it was proved that the Parson had Tythes paid him out of a feild of twenty acres of Corne and now the feild is sowed with Saffron and the Vicar sued for the Tythes of Saffron in the Court Christian and the Parson had a Prohibition Coke I conceive the Parson shall have the Tythes for by the Statute of 2 H. 6. it is enacted that Tythes shall be paid as hath been used the last forty years and this hath been alwaies tythable to the Parson and although the ground be otherwise imployed yet the Parson shall have the Tythes and so was it in Norfolk in the Case of a Park where the Parson proscribed Pro modo decimandi to be paid three shillings fours pence for all Tythes rising out of the said Park and although the Park was after converted to arable yet no other Tythes shall be paid Popham It hath been adjudged otherwise in Wroths Case of the Inner Temple in the Exchequer But the Law is clearly as hath been said and the difference is when the Prescription is to pay so much money for all Tythes or when the Prescription is to pay a shoulder of every Buck or a Doe at Christmas for there if the Park be disparkt Tythes shall be paid for Tythes are not due for Venison and therefore they are not Tythes in Specie And I conceive that Tythes of Saffron-heads shall be comprehended under small Tythes and although the Tythes of this Feild have been paid to the Parson yet it being converted to another use whereof no grosse Tythes do come the Vicar shall have the tythes and so if arable land be converted into an Orchard the Wicar shall have tythe of the Apples and so if the Orchard be changed to arable the Parson shall have tythes Quod Fenner concessit 36 Eliz. Higham against Deff IN a Trespasse the Case was That a Vicaridge by composition was indowed of the third part Omnium Bladorum decimarum of the Mannor of D. If he shall have tythes of the Freeholders of the Mannor was the question Johnson He shall not have them for a Mannor consisteth of two things viz. of Demesns and Services the Freeholders are neither parcel of the Demesnes nor the Services and therefore no parcell of the Mannor and this is proved in 12 Ass 40. a Rent-charge was granted out of a Mannor the Tenancy escheats it shall not be charged with the Rent Tanfeild contra For this word Mannor does extend to the Precincts of the Mannor and not to the Demesnes and Services onely and therefore if a Venire facias be awarded De viceneto Manerii de D. the Freeholders shall be returned also a survey of a Mannor shall be as well of the Freehold lands as of the Demesnes and if the King grants a Leet within the Mannor of D. all the Freeholders are bound to appear Fenner Grants ought not to be restrained to their strict words but are to be construed according to the intent of the parties Trin. 38 Eliz. in B. R. Ewer against Henden Rot. 339. IN an Ejectment the Iury found that I.S. being seised of a Capitall Messuage in the County of Oxford and also of a house and land in Walter in the County of Hartford makes a Lease for years of his house and land in the County of Hartford and then by Will does demise his house in the County of Oxon Together with all other his Lands Meadowes Pastures with all and singular their Appurtenances in Walter in the County of Hartford to John Ewer and whether the house in Walter in the County of Hartford does passe or not was the question Tanfeild The houses shall passe for if a man builds a house upon Black acre and makes a Feoffment of the acre the house shall passe and so if a man does devise una jugata terrae of Copyhold Land the house of the Copyhold does passe also for so is the common phrase in the Country and so if a man be rated in a 100 l. subsidy that does include houses and by the grant of a Tenement the house passeth but if a man demand a house in a Precipe there the house ought to be named Whistler contra It is true that if a man generally does devise his Land the houses passe but in this case the Devisee hath particularized his Land his Meadow and his Pasture and if he intended to have passed his houses he would have mentioned them as well as his Lande Fenner I am of the same opinion for this speciall numbring of particulars does exclude the generall intendment and if the Devisor had a Wood there that would dot passe by these words Popham contra For if a man sells all his Lands in D. his houses and woods passe by this word Lands and so was it agreed in a case which was referred to Dyer and Wray chief Justice and there reason was because that a Warrant of Attorney in a Precipe of a House Woods and Land is onely of Land which proves that land does comprehend all of them and therefore I conceive if a man does devise or bargain and sell all his lands in D. the Rents there shall passe for they were issuing out of the land But if a man be seised of three houses and three acres and he deviseth all his land in D. and one of his houses the other houses will not passe for his expresse meaning is apparant but here the words are in generall as to the lands in Walter and therefore the houses do passe But afterwards it was adjudged that the house did not passe for by the particular mentioning of all his Lands Meadowes and Pastures the house is excluded Pasch 4 Eliz. Hunt against King IN a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas in a Formedon brought there the Case was Tenant in tail enfeoffs his Son and then disseiseth his Son and levies a Fine to a stranger and before the Proclamations passe the Son enters and makes a Feoffment to a stranger the Father dies and the Son dies and the Issue brings a Formedon The question was Whether by the entry of the Son the Fine was so defeated
Devise did occupy land for 20 years and after the Devise was adjudged voyd he that had right to the land brought an account against him and adjudged that it does not lye Harper contr For an account does lye against a Proctor and the Plaintiff may charge him as Proctor and it is no Plea for him to say that he did not occupy as Proctor no more than it is a Plea for him who occupies as Guardian to say he was not the prochein amy Dyer There are three Actions of Account 1. Against a Baily 2. Against a Receiver 3. Against a Guardian in socage and if an Account be brought against one as Receiver he ought to charge him with the receipt of money and I conceive that there ought to be a privity to charge one with the receipt of money but if one claim as Baily or as Guardian in socage he is chargeable in account but an Abator or a Disseisor is not because they pretend to be owners and in this case because by the setting forth the Tithes the property is in the Parson therefore he being Lessee for years he shall have an ejectione firma and not an Account Hillar 32 34 Eliz. Carter against Kungstead in C. B. Rotulo 120. IN a Trespass the Iury gave this special Verdict John Berry was seizin of the Mannour of Stapeley in Odiam and of other lands in Odiam and the 32 H. 8. suffered a common recovery of all his lands in Odiam Stapeley and Winkfield to the use of himself and his wife for life the remainder to the heirs males of his body quod â—lterius starent of the Mannour of Stapeley with the appurtenances to the use of himself for life the remainder to the heirs males of his body whereby they were seized prout Lex postulat The husband dyes the wife makes a Lease for 19 years and whether the Mannour of Stapeley were conveyed or not was the question Harris She shall have all for when the whole estate is limited at the beginning of a Deed it shall not be abridged afterwards Periam The estate is by way of use which shall be expounded according to the intent and will of the Limiter and if this had been done by will it is clear the woman should not have the Mannour of Stapeley Anderson If I devise my land to J.S. and afterwards by the same Will I devise it to J.D. now J.S. shall have nothing because it was my last Will that J.D. should have it But otherwise it is of a use for if I do limit an estate to the use of J.S. and in the last clause do limit the same estate to J.D. the limitation to J.D. is voyd for the repugnancy Periam As to the case of the Will I conceive it is voyd to both because it cannot be known who shall have it Anderson I am sure the Law hath been taken as I have said and there was a Case in the Vpper Bench where a man one day made part of his Will and another day made another part which was repugnant to the first part and adjudged that the last was good and the first voyd Periam I agree to this Case for here is a difference in time Anderson So is there in my Case for when I am writing my Will I am thinking how I shall dispose of my estate and it shall be intended that I have least advised concerning that which I have done last Walmesley A Vse is not to be compared to a Will for the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath made it an estate and then by the 19 of Edw. 3. If a man limits an estate at the beginning of a Deed he cannot after abridge it Periam I put this Case If a man covenants upon consideration to be seized to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his son but he further sayes that his meaning is his wife shall have it for her life this is not a voyd Clause but good to the wife and the Case was adjourned till next Term. And Harris argued again and said that a Vse was but matter of trust and for that it is apparent that the intention was that the wife should have nothing there is no reason that another construction should be made Walmesley The limitation of the Vse is but a declaration how the Vse shall be and does not give any thing and the opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff who was Lessee of the woman and that the last Clause does countermand the first as to the Mannour of Stapeley Michael 31 32 Eliz. Brokesbyes Case in C. B. Rot. 18.15 BArtholomew Brokesby brought a Quare impedit and it appeared by his Declaration that the next avoydance was granted to him and one Humphrey Brokesby and then the Church became voyd and Humphrey did release to Bartholomew totum statum titulum c. and then Bartholomew being disturbed brought a Quare impedit in his name alone Harris The Plaintiff shall be barred for the other shall be named with him for the Release is voyd for when the Church becomes voyd it is a thing in action and of privity and confidence and cannot be released nor transferred Dyer 283. a. 28 H. 8.26 a. Where it is said that it cannot be granted over no more than an Executor may release his Executorship to his companion Beaumont In my opinion it is not a Chose in action but an interest which the Executors have and by the 14 H. 4. and 14 H. 6. If a man be seized of an Advowson in the right of his wife and the Church is voyd and the wife dyes yet the husband shall present which proves it is not a Chose in action for in the 49 Edw. 3.23 the husband shall not have an obligation that was made to his wife and in our case by this avoydance the Church is become an interest and a Chattell and therefore one Ioyntenant may release to another by reason of their privity although they have no possession Fenner The release is Totum Statum jus titulum but here he hath no estate nor possession and therefore the release is void And to prove that there is no estate nor possession it is proved by the pleadings of the grant of the next avoydance for he shews that the Church became voyd and that ea ratione pertinet ad ipsum presentare and not by force whereof he was possest and if none hath the advowson which becomes voyd and the Lord claymes the advowson yet he shall not have the present avoydance and as to the case of the Ioyntenants one cannot release to the other for default of possession for the release inanes by reason of their joynt possession which is out of them but release of the Demandant to the Vouchee is good by reason of the privity of Law that is betwixt them and in 11 H. 4. He who hath right after the Incumbent is instituted and inducted may confirme his
Writ is grounded upon a recovery by default in a reall action but a waste is a meere personall action And therefore in the 2 H. 4. in a waste against the husband and wife the wife shall not be received also it will not lie in this case because here is no default within the intent of the Statute for the Statute intends to relieve defaults after appearance and therefore all the Iudgment in this Writ is that the recovery was by default and if there was a default in pleading it is a default but not within the Statute Glanvill cont No waste is committed and so the recovery shall not bind for it appears in the 8 Ed. 4. by West That this action was provided instead of a Writ of right and there is no question but a Writ of right will lie here and this Writ is of the same nature And Mr Plowden in his Reading said that this action will lie upon a recovery upon a Writ of waste aswell as in other actions for the recovery is not upon the Inquiry of the Iury but upon default And it is also a reall action 7 Ed. 3. 28 Ed. 3.30 If the husband make default herein the wife shall be received Anderson There is no question but this action lies upon a recovery in waste but if this be a default within the Statute is a doubt for if this should be suffer d it were very mischievous for then contempts shall be favoured which was never the intention of the Statute and therefore it will not lie where there is a default after appearance Walmesley of the same opinion for this case differs much from the Statute of Glocester for this Statute gives remedy to a third person upon default of the particular Tenant and therefore upon this Statute the intent of the partie who makes default is more regarded than the manner of the default and therefore it shall be taken largely But here is default in the party himself and he shall have no favour against his willfull default for every nihil dicit is a confession of it self for thereupon it is supposed that nothing can be said Windham I hold that a Quod ei deforceat will not lie in a Writ of waste for the inquiry of the Iury is the cause of the Iudgment But he agreed that default within the Statute is intended such default that in it self is the cause of the Iudgment but here the Iudgment is given upon contempt and refusall of the party and therefore no favour Perryam This action cannot be compar'd to a writ of right which is grounded upon the right and not on the Iudgment but the form in the Quod ei deforceat is set down in the Statute which ought to be observed and the Statute gives this action upon a default and here is no default for it cannot be a default where the partie appears and hath no day in Court but he doubted much if it lay in awrit of waste because the damages are the principall but as the case is here it will not lie And to prove that a nihil dicit is a confession he cited Pepyss Ease in the Comentaries 438. And at last Iudgment was given that the Writ would not lye Pasch 35 Elizab. James against Portman WIlliam James and Thomas James Ioyntenants for life of a lease made by Portman William James doth assent covenant and agree that Thomas James occupy all the land alone and sow it with his own Corn After the land is sowed Thomas James dyes William James the survivor grants the Corne to Portman who takes it and the Plaintiff as executor to Thomas brought an action of trespass Ewens for the Defendant one Ioyntenant cannot make a Lease to his companion no more than one may infeof the other by reason they have joynt possession 10 Ed. 4.3 2 R. 2. Extinguishment 3. Also the words here are not sufficient to make a Lease but admitting this yet the survivor shall have the corn of that part which belongs to him for by this Lease the Ioynture is severed and then the Survivor shall have that which grows on his part For it two Ioyntenants sowe their land and one of them letts his moytie for years and he who did not let dyes the other shall have the corn as Survivor Pyne cont Although one Ioyntenant cannot inteof another because he cannot make livery because he hath possession before yet may he Release to his companion and so may he make a Lease for years for there is no need of any livery and by the 22 H. 6.43 If one Ioyntenant infeofs another this shall enure by way of confirmation And 14 H. 6.10 One Ioyntenant may put out his companion by this means for he may clayme a Lease from him and then a Release and if it be a good Lease then the Executors shall have it Popham The action is good for one Ioyntenant may make a Lease to the other although he cannot infeof for a Lease is but a contract And 11 H. 6.33 one Ioyntenant commanded the other to occapy all and in a trespass he was compelled to plead this as a Lease and then if one Ioyntenant does sow all and dyes the other shall have the Corne by Survivor and it is not as in case where a man hath an estate determinable upon uncertainty for there his Executors shall have the Corn but in our case the Survivor had contracted with his companion and thereby had bound himself not to meddle with the land and the other bestowed great costs in manuring and sowing the Land and therefore the Executors shall have the Corn. Fenner agreed but doubted whether one Ioyntenant could make a Lease to the other but said that by the contract he had excluded himself from the proffits and by the 39 Ed. 3.27 one Ioyntenant may have an account against the other And he said that if I agree that you shall sow my Land with me you shall gain no interest in the land and yet you shall have the corne And one Ioyntenant may distreyn for himself and as Bayly for the other And the Cause was adjourned and afterwards viz. Hillary 36 Eliz. the case was repeated And Gawdy said That if there be two Ioyntenants and one grants to the other that he may sow the Land yet may the other occupie with him for these words do not transfer any sole interest but if he sayes that he shall occupy all the Land and shall sow it solely this does exclude him from having any interest with him Popham Agreed because this is but a contract and so of a Lease for years Gawdy If one Ioyntenant sayes to the other that he will not occupie the Land with him or that he will not put in his Cattle this does not transfer any interest but that he may occupie with him and so in this case if it had not been said that he should occupy solely Popham of the same opinion for where he sayes he will not occupy
the words are in the negative which will not exclude him of his interest but in the Case at Bar they will because they are in the affirmative so That he shall occupy the Land solely And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 3. Eliz. Woodward against Nelson in B. R. WOodward Parson of Wotton in consideration of 120 l. payd by Bretman one of his Parishioners did accord and agree with him that he and his assignes should be discharged of Tythes during the time that he should be Parson Bretman made a Lease to Nelson Woodward did libell against him for Tythes and Nelson prayed a prohibition upon the said contract And it this was sufficient matter for a prohibition was the Question because it was by word only and without writing which amounts only to a cause of action upon a promise for Bretman but no action for his lessees neither can this amount to a Release of Tythes for as Tythes cannot be leased without Deed so they cannot be released or discharged without Deed. Gawdy Justice Tythes cannot be discharg'd without Deed unless by way of contract for a sum of money and he cited the 21 H. 6.43 Fenner for that year in which the discharge was made it was good by way of discharge without Deed because the Parson for that year had as it were an Interest but such discharge can have no continuance for another year for default of a Deed and so a promise being no discharge it is no cause of a prohibition But Gawdy held as afore And about this time Wray Chief Iustice dyed and Popham succeeded and the same day he was sworn Cook moved this Case again And the Court held that the agreement being by parol was not good And Fenner then said that without writing the agreement could not be good between the parties but for one year And the Court awarded a consultation But upon search made no Iudgment was entred in the Roll. Trinit 35 Eliz. Dr. Foord against Holborrow in B. R. Rot. 367. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the case was Dr. Drury to whom the Plaintiff was Executor made a Lease to Holborrow of the Mannour of Golding for years and Holborrow the Lessee entred into a Bond that if he his Executors or Assigns did pay to Anne Goldingham widow the sum of 20 l. for 17 years if the said Goldingham should so long live and so long as Holborrow the Lessee or any claiming by or under the said Holborrow shall or may occupy or enjoy the said Mannour of Goldingham and then Holborrow surreudred his Lease to the Obliges praecextu cujus the Defendant pleaded quod non occupavit nec potuit occupare c. wherefore he did not pay the said sum to Anne Goldingham and the Executor of the Obligee brought an Action of Debt upon this Obligation Johnson for the Defendant The term is gone for he cannot occupy after the surrender and also the Obligee is a party to the cause why it is not performed and therefore he shall take no advantage 4 â— 7.2 But the whole Court was against him for he to whom the surrender is made cometh in quodammodo by him and is his Assignee for he shall be subject to the charge that was before the surrender and also the Defendant shall be bound by these words in the Obligation viz. so long as he shall or may and although these words were not inserted yet he shall pay the annuity for where the first Cause does commence in himself he shall not have advantage thereby but otherwise where he is not party to the first Cause As if two Ioynt-tenants with Warranty make a partition the Warranty is gone because they are parties to the act which made the extinguishment but if one makes a Feoffment of his part the Warranty as to the other remains 11 Ed. 4.8 and in the Case at Bar the Obligor made the surrender and therefore he is party and the first cause and there is a diversity when the thing to be done is collateral and when not for if a Lessee does oblige himself to do a collateral thing as payment of money there he ought to do it although that he surrender for although the Obligee do accept of the surrender yet no act is done by him to hinder the performance of the condition but where the Obligee does any act to hinder the performance of the Condition the Condition is saved as if the Lessee be bound to the Lessor to suffer J.S. to enter into a Chamber during the Lease and he surrenders to the Obligee who will not suffer J.S. to enter the Obligation is saved and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff 36 Eliz. Bedford against Hall in B. R. IN an Action of Covenant wherein the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant did devise and grant to him certain land with all his goods contained in a certain Inventory for 20 years and said that in the Inventory amongst other things were five Cows which the Defendant seized and that one J.S. took them away as his proper goods as indeed they were and hereupon he brought this Action Fenner The Action will not lye for no interest in the Cows doth pass to the Lessee by this Lease neither was there any right to them in the Lessor As if I demise to you the land of J. S. by these words Dem si concessi and you enter and J S. re-enters no Covenant lyes against me And so in the 11 H. 4. a Prebend made a Lease for years and resigned now is the term of the Lessee quite destroyed and if after he be outed by a new Prebend yet he shall have no Action of Covenant And so is it 9 Eliz. Dyer â—57 Lessee for life makes a Lease for years and dyes the Lessee shall not have a Covenant if he be outed by him in the reversion because he is not in as a Termor at the time of the disturbance But if in the principal Case the Lessor had been possest of the goods although by a wrong title and the Owner had seized them then a Covenant would lye And so if a Disseisor makes a Lease and the Disseisee re-enters the Lessee shall have a Covenant Gawdy If a man lets lands wherein he hath no estate together with his goods although the land will not pass yet the goods do and if a man lets goods for a year and re takes them within the year no Covenant will lye for the property was never in the Lessee Câ—…câ— If a man lets anothers goods to me by Deed if I seize them and the Owner re-takes them a Covenant will lye and so will an Action on the Case if it be without Deed 42 Assi 8. If I be in possession of anothers goods and sell them a deceit lyes against me by the Vendee and so is the Book of Ass 42.8 conâ—ra where the Vendor hath not possession at the time of the sale And if I sell goods by Deed which
Declaration that the Defendant did promise to pay the 10 l. before Michaelmass in consideration the Plaintiff would forbeare to sue A. and that he hath forborn adhuc abstiâ—et and does not say that he made request as he ought to have done But the Court held it was well enough and there is a difference when the Defendant does promise to pay generally and at a certain day named there the Plaintiff ought precisely to alledge a request made in certain but when the Defendant promiseth to pay at a day certain he is bound to pay it at his perill without request and therefore to alledge quod saepius requisitus is sufficient without alledging a speciall request otherwise it is if the Defendant assume to pay it upon request for there it ought to be specially pleaded Another errour was because the consideration was that the Plaintiff should forbeare to sue A. and does not set forth for how long time for perhaps the forbearance was but for a quarter of an houre Peryam The consideration upon which an assumpsit is grounded ought to be of value but of what value is it where the forbearance is but for half an houre Fleming By his promising not to sue he is ingaged never to sue Peryam There is great difference between a promise not to sue and a promise to forbeare to sue for a promise not to sue excludes him from suing at all but a promise to forbeare to sue is only to forbeare for a time so that notwithstanding such promise he may sue after and it being not here exprest how long he will forbeare there is no consideration Walmesley There is a difference when the Defendant sâ—eaks the words and when the Plaintiff For if the Plaintiff sayes I will forbeare to sue you so you will promise to pay me and upon this the Defendant makes a promise accordingly the Plaintiff in this Case ought to forbear to sue him for ever But if the Defendant only speaks the words as here he does If you will forbeace to sue I will promise to pay you and the Plaintiff agrees and forbeares a certain time yet he may have his action afterward sed adjournatur Pasch 38. Eliz. Stroud against Willis in B. R. Rot. 66. IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was If the Obligor shall well and truly pay the Rent or sum of 37 l. yearly at two feasts according to the tenure and true intent of certain articles of agreement indented and made between the Obligor and Obligee during the terme therein mentioned that then c. The Defend intâ—…eâ—ded that these articles ut supra contain that the said Stroud the Obligee Dumisit ad firmam tradidit to the Defendant Omnia talia doâ—…s tenementa terras in Parochia de Petminster de in quibus the sayd Stroud hath an estate for life by Copy according to the Customs of the Mannor Habendum to the Defendant for 21 years if Stroud should so long live rendring to the said Stroud during the said terme 37 〈◊〉 to be paid at the Castle of Canton and pleaded further that at the time of the making the said Articles the said Stroud had not any estate in any Lands houses c. in Petminster aforesaid for the term of his life or by Copy And upon this plea the Plaintiff demurred and Iudgment was given for the Plaintif in the Common Pleas and now was removed by Vrit of Errour And in this Case were two questions First If nothing passe by these Articles and so the reservation of the Rent is also voyd Secondly If the Obligation for payment of the said sum be also voyd and it was said that this could not be payable as a Rent upon the 14 H. 4. 4. 20 Ed. 4. 20 H. 6.23 for no Rent is reserved because there is no land out of which it can come and then the obligation is also discharged 2. Admitting the Rent is not vayable as Rent then whether it be an â—stoppell to plead as here is done against the Articles and therefore they took a difference where the recitall is generall and where not as if A. be bound to infeof me of all his lands of the part of his Mother and he hath no lands of the part of his Mother but otherwise if it were to infeof me of Black acre for he shall be estopped to say that he had not Black acre and so here he shall be estopped to say that there are no Articles but he may plead that he hath no land by Copie Cook 2. Rep. 33.6 Fenner When a man makes a voyd Lease rendring Rent the Reservation is also voyd because the land is the consideration and recompence for the Rent but where a man reserves Rent upon a grant or Lease which grant and Lease are good but the thing out of which the Rent is issuing cannot be charged with the Rent there the reservation is good as where a Rent is reserved out of an advowson or menaltie but in the Case at Bar the Lease did never begin and therefore Rent shall not then is it to be considered whether the Rent is to be payd by reason of the bond as a sum in gross or not and as to that matter the condition of the bond is to pay the Rent according to the true meaning of the Articles which is that if the Lessee have not the Land the Lessor shall not have the Rent therefore it shall not be paid as a sum in gross Popham cont But he agreed that the reservation was voyd for if no Land do pass no Rent is reserved and the reservation only does not make any estoppell and he took a difference upon the 14 Ed. 4. A man makes a Lease generally and the Lessee is bound to pay the Rent in such manner as it was reserved there such Rent ought to be demanded otherwise the Obligation is not forfeit and the demand ought to be upon the Land but if such Lessee for years do oblige himself to pay the Rent at a Collaterall place out of the land there he ought to pay it at his perill without any demand for now he payes it in another nature than as Rent so here if the payment had been limited at a place out of the Land the Obligor is bound to pay it although nothing were demised to him for by the bond he hath made it a sum in gross And it is altered from the nature of Rent upon the first reservation and he is bound also to pay the Rent or sum and if this be any of them he must pay it As to the second point he made this difference A his bound to J.S. to Release to him all his right which he hath in the Land descended to him on the part of his Mother there in Debt upon this bond the Obligee cannot plead that he hath no right descended to him on the part of his mother but must Release at his perill But if he binds
the attainder and she granted it to Bones and all actions demands and a scire facias was issued out in the name of the Queen And the principall case was adjourned but the Patentee had express words to sue in the name of the Queen although it was not so pleaded 43 Eliz. Pelling against Langden in B. R. Rot. 438. IN a trespass for breaking his Close and killing 100 Conies The Defendant justified because he had common time out of mind and because the Conies were damage Feasant in the place where he killed them The Plaintiff demurr'd and judgment given for the Plaintiff for Conies are beasts of Warren and profitable as Deer and are not to be compar'd to Foxes and vermine which may be kill'd but the Owner of the soil may keep Conies where the Common is aswell as other cattle also he may make Fish-ponds in the Common and the Commoner cannot destroy them Cook 5. Rep. 104. 22 H. 6.59 so it was adjudgâ—d Trinit 43 Eliz. Gresham against Ragge in B. R. Rot. 1295. IN trepass for entring into a house The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff was indebted to the Defendant in 100 l. and that he by the permission of the Plaintiffs servant the doores being open did enter to demand his debt Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred And adjudged for the Plaintiff For the servant of the Plaintiff could not licence any to enter into the house of his Mr. also a man cannot enter into anothers house to demand money unless the debtor be within the house Gawdy If it had been averred that the Plaintiff had been then in the house the Plea had been good Hillar 44. Eliz. Streetman against Eversley in B. R. IN an ejectment the Case was a Lessee for 80. years upon condition that if the Lessee his Executors or Assignes did not repairo the house within six weeks after warning that the Lease should be void the Lessee made a Lease for ten years who suffered J.S. to occupie the house and then the Lessor came to the said occupation of the house and at the house gave notice and said that the house was defective in reparations and did shew in what and so gave warning to have it repaired and after for default of reparations he entred and the Defendant as servant to the Lessee re-entred And his entry adjudged lawfull for notice given to J.S. who was but an Occupier of the house and not Lessee or Assignee of any interest of the terme was not sufficient but it ought to be to the person interessed in the terme who is liable to reparations Vid. Cooks 6. Rep. Greens case Also the notice at the house is not sufficient but it ought to be to the person of the Lessee and Popham agreed to this Trinit 1 Jacobi Shopland against Radlen in C. B. Rot. 853. IN a Replevin the question was when a Guardian in socage holds a Court in his own name and does grant Copies in reversion if this be a good Grant or not and adjudged to be good against the Heir Walmesley Dominus pro tempore of a Mannour may hold a Court and make a Grant of Copyholds but this is to be understood of perfect Lords which a Guardian is not but onely ad commodum haereâ—is and is rather a servant to the Lord than Dominus pro tempore and he cannot be called Dominus because he can neither grant nor forfeit his estate and hath nothing to do to meddle in the Mannour but to account for the profits and a Writ of Ward does not lye for the land but onely for the body Gawdy chief Justice Warburton and Daniel Justices to the contrary Who held that a Guardian in socage is Dominus pro tempore and that he hath interest in the land and may make a Lease thereof for years Commentar 293. and may avow in his own name 29 Ed. 3. Avowry 298. But a Guardian in socage cannot present to an Advowson because he cannot be accountable But Daniel Iustice said that the Guardian may present where the heir is not of years of discretion and a Guardian in socage shall have a Trespass and a ravishment of Ward 24 Ed. 3.52 and he hath the Ward by reason of looking to him and therefore he hath interest sufficient to keep Court and admit Copyholders who are not in by him but by the custome But a Bailiff of a Mannour hath no interest and therefore cannot make Grants and Copies but a Guardian hath interest provisione legis although it be such interest as cannot be forfeit and the heir cannot be at any prejudice for he shall have an account made to him of such Fines for the heir himself cannot grant them and the Law cannot compell the Guardian to occupy them neither can the Court be held in the name of the heir but the Guardian and therefore he may grant Copies And if a Guardian in socage hath such interest that he can make a Lease for years and his Lessee shall maintain an Ejectment a fâ—r â—…oti he may grant Copies Neither is it any argument at all to say that a Guardian in socage hath no interest because he cannot grant or forfeit his estase for the reason is because these things are annexed to his person And after Mich. 3 Jacob. it was adjudged that the Grant was good and shall binde the heir Vid. Keloway 46.6 37 Eliz. Brown against Hercey in C. B. Rot. 620. IT was found by office that J.S. who held the Mannour of D. of the King did dye without heir whereupon W.S. as heir to him did traverse the said Office and hereupon was at issue with the Queen if he were heir or not and depending this suit he made a Feoffment in Fee with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery and after it was found for him against the Queen and Iudgement given against the Queen but before the Writ of Amoveas manum the Attorney made Livery and adjudged good for it cannot be said that the heir at the time of the Feoffment had nothing or that the Queen at the time of the Livery was in possession for by the Iudgement given the possession of the Queen was utterly defeated and possession in the party before any amoveas manum sued out for that serves but to compell the Eschaetor to avoyd the possession it he hold the land after Iudgement Vid. Stanford praerogat 78. 10 Ass 2. 10 Ed. 3. and the difference is where the King is seized by title and where without title for when the King is seized by title and his title is determined he ought to make Livery to him that hath right but when he is seized without title and he who hath right hath Iudgement against him he may enter without Livery 5 Ed. 5. Quare impedit 34. But it was here said by Owen Iustice that if a man makes a Feoffment of White-acre with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery and then he purchase White-acre this is
not a good Feoffment for White-acre Michaelm 29. 30. Eliz. Knowles against Powell in Scaccario THe Queen seized in Fee made a Lease for years to one who was out-lawed at the time of the Lease rendring rent and after he was out-lawed again and before seizure comes out the general pardon of all Goods and Chattels forfeited and in this Case it was agreed that a man out-lawed was capable of a Lease from the Queen as Farmer to the Queen And Manwood said that the pardon with restitution is sufficient to revive the term forfeited by the second out-lawry and it was also agreed that a man out-lawed and pardoned had property in his goods Egerton Sollicitor said that in the 4 Eliz. it was adjudged in the Common Pleas that if the Queen made a Lease under the Exchequer-seal to begin immediatly after forfeiture surrender or expiration of a former term and the Lessee is out-lawed shat the second Lease shall not commence for it is a Royal forfeiture Trinit 41 Elizab. Ferrers against Borough in B. R. Rot. 185. UPon a special Verdict the Case was thus A man makes a Lease for years upon condition that if he paid 10 l. before Michaelmas that it should be lawfull for him to re-enter and before Michaelmas he lets the land to another by Indenture for years and then performed the Condition and entred the first Lessee brought a Trespass and it was adjudged that it does not lye Trinit 35 Elizab. Lambert against Austen in B. R. Rot. 185. IN a Replevin the Case was thus A man seized of land in Fee grants a Rent-charge out of it to A. for life with a Clause of Distress and then makes a Lease to B. for years and grants the reversion for life to J.S. the Rent becomes behind the 15 of Eliz. untill the 18 of Eliz. and the Grantee makes the Defendant his Executor and dyes the term of B. ends in the 33 Eliz. and then J.S. enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff the Executor of A. distreyns for the arrearages and the Plaintiff brings a Replevin Gawdy and Fenner This Distress is well taken for the arrearages upon the Statute of the 32 H. 8. cap. 37. for the Rent doth not issue out of the term for years but out of the Free-hold and upon grant thereof as Littleton saith the Tenant of the Free-hold ought to attorn and not the Termor and so is it 9 H. 6. and if an Assize be brought for this Rent it ought to be brought against the Tenant of the Free-hold and all the Tenants of the Free-hold ought to be named in a Rent-charge by Cook 6 Rep. 58. but otherwise for a Rent-service for that is against the Termor onely and a Termor cannot give seizin of the Rent to maintain an Assize by Cook 6 Rep. 57. and for the same reason Executors shall have an Action of Debt at the Common Law for arrearages because the estate is determined Cook 4 Rep. 49. but an Avowry is given by this Statute Onely so long as the land shall continue in the seisin and possession of the said Tenant in demesn And they much relyed on this word demesn which ought to be intended of a Free-hold and of a Reversion upon a Lease for years it is pleaded quod seisitus in dominico suo c. and so cannot a Tenant for years say for which reasons it seemed to them that the Distress was well taken Clench contr For the Termor ought to pay it for he takes the profits of the land as if a Lease be made to a woman rendring Rent who takes husband and dyes the husband shall pay the Rent by the 10 H. 6. for he hath taken the profits and by the words of the Statute they are in the possession or seisin and seisin refers to the Tenant of the Free-hold and possession to the Tenant for years and the words are which ought immediatly to pay the Rent and so ought the Termor in our Case who is chargeable to the Distress of the Testator Popham chief Iustice of the same opinion The Distress is not well taken for he who hath the profits of the land ought to answer for the Rent Gawdy Although the Cattel of the Lessee be distreynable by the Testator that is onely because they are upon his land as a strangers Cattel may be so distreyned and therefore this proves not that the Lessee should pay the Rent And if a man grants a Rent-charge and lets the land at will afterwards the Rent is behind and the Grantee dyes and the Lease at will determines without question in that Case the Lessor is subject to the Distress of the Executor And in our Case if the Grantee had released to the Tenant for life this had extinguisht the Rent otherwise of a Release to Tenant for years Fenner If Tenant in Tail granta a Rent-charge and after makes a Lease for 21 years according to the Statute and dyes the Rent by the death of the Tenant in Tail is determined To which Gawdy agreed which proves that the Rent issues out of the Freehold Vid. Cook 5 Rep. 118. Hillar 37 Eliz. Butler against Ruddisley IN a Trespass the Defendant pleaded the Free-hold of Edward Devereux and so justified as his Bailiff without saying at his commandment the Plaintiff replyed that the said Edward was seized in Fee and made a Lease to him by vertue whereof he was possest absque hoc that the Lessor made the Defendant his Bailiff post dimissionem and hereupon the Defendant demurred Crook By this Lease a Free-hold passeth to the Plaintiff and then the Plaintiffs traverse is naught for he hath now traverst that the Defendant is Bailiff whereas he ought to traverse the Free-hold in the Lessor for that would have destroyed the justification of the Defendant And to prove that the Free-hold doth pass he cited the Case of Littleton where if a Lease be made to the husband and wife during Coverture they are Ioynt-tenants for life So in the 30 H. 6. a Lease to a woman dum sola vixerâ—t And 14 Ed. 2. a Grant to a man till he be promoted to such a Benefice or dummodo se bene gesserit all these are Free-holds And it is clear that a Tenant at will cannot assign over And also an estate at will is an estate at the will of both parties but here it is at the will of the Lessor onely when he will make a Bailiff Haughton contr An estate at will doth pass and not a Free-hold for here he hath not pleaded that Livery was made and Livery shall not be intended in this case unless it be specially alledged but if Livery had been made then he agreed that a Free-hold conditional had past and for the pleading of a Livery he took a difference that where an express estate either in fee or for life be pleaded there Livery shall be intended but where a Free-hold passeth by implication or operation of Law and not
that the wife is not in her former or antient estate but takes hereby a new estate for if Tenant for life grants his estate to J.S. and his heirs and J.S. grants a Rent and then re-grants an estate to the Tenant for life the Tenant for life shall be liable for the Rent Dyer 252. Harris contr For by the rendring of the estate by the Fine she shall be in her antient state and he cited the Case of Peter Cary here adjudged who being Tenant in T. the remainder to the Earl of Devonshire was attainted and then the King pardon'd him and gave him his land again and then he suffered a common recovery and thereby barred the remainder in the Earl of Devonshire But Anderson was against this Case and said that by the render the woman was in her antient estate and so the remainder discontinued and the entry of him in the remainder taken away Warburton The Fine does make no discontinuance for they give away but that which they may lawfully do and so is Bredons Case Cook 1 Rep. 67. and as to the common recovery it is out of the Statute of the 32 H. 8. because she remains party to the Fine and by the render upon the Fine they shall be as in by a new estate and then the recompence shall not be to the antient estate and therefore he in the remainder is not barred nor impeached by this Fine but he may enter within five years Kingsmill accorded for it is plain that by the render to the husband and wife they are in a new estate and the recompence shall go as to that and not to the antient estate but contr if it had been by way of voucher Walmesley accorded but notwithstanding the Fine and recovery the entry of him in the remainder is good and as to the woman it is clear that there is no discontinuance to him in the remainder in Fee for he in the remainder in Tail cannot discontinue because he is seized by force of the estate Tail as the 4 H. 7.17 Tenant in Dower and he in the reversion in Tail joyn in a Fine this is no discontinuance of the estate Tail because he was never seized and therefore it is a forfeiture in the Tenant for life although he in the remainder joyn'd with him by the 41 Ed. 3. but otherwise if Tenant for life and he in remainder in Fee joyn in a Fine Vid. Bredons Case 1 Rep. 76. Anderson I conceive he in the remainder may enter for all passeth from the Tenant for life and it is her Feoffment and the confirmation of the other and so the estate Tail being spent he in the remainder shall enter for forfeiture and the recovery shall be no bar because it was of another estate and also this title of entry for forfeiture shall not be barr'd by the common recovery no more than if a Feoffee upon condition does suffer a common recovery yet may the Feoffor enter for the condition broken and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff so that his remainder was neither discontinued by the Fine nor his entry taken away by the Recovery 43 Eliz. Hall against VVood in C. B. IN an Action on the Case for a Trover and conversion of 40 l. on not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff Walmesley How can an Action lye for a Trover of money if it be not within a bag for this Writ supposeth a loss and when the money was lost how doth it appear that the money found is the same money that was lost Davies There are many presidents in the Kings Bench to prove that this Action will well lye for corn and money and I have been of Counsel in many of those Cases Warburton If the money were lost in view of a third person upon such Trover the Action will lye for there it may be proved that it was the money of the Plaintiff And Walmesley agreed And note that a president was shewn tempore 40 41 Eliz. inter Holloway and Higgs which was thus a master delivered to his servant 30 quarters of corn to be sold and the servant sold them and converted the money and the master brought his Action on the Case for the Trover and conversion against the servant who pleaded not guilty and it was sound against him and two things were moved in arrest of Iudgement first that the master was never possessed of the money and therefore could not lose it secondly because the money cannot be known and so non constat whether it was the money of the masters or no. But notwithstanding this Case Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff because the possession of the servant was the possession of the master and when the servant converts this to his own use by this the master loseth the property and is also a conversion in the servant Mich. 42 43 Eliz. Leeke against the Bishop of Coventry in C. B. Rot. 3579. IN a Quare impedit the Case was thus Langford and Bussy were Patrons of an Advowson to which they and their Ministers use to present by turn Langford presented according to his turn and his Clerk dyed and then Bussy presented in his turn also and his Clerk was deprived after which Langford grants his Advowson in Fee to Leeke the Plaintiff and then the Bishop without any notice does collate Dr. Babington who dyes after whose death the question was if Leeke should present or Bussy and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff because that notwithstanding the Church was voyd by deprivation yet the Patron may transpose his Advowson over Bethell against Sir Edward Stanhop IN Debt against Sir Edward Stanhop as Executor to Francis Vaughan he pleaded that he is not Administrator and the said Vaughan gave 40 l. to his daughter within age with power of revocation upon the payment of 20 s. and it was found that this was done to defraud Creditors and then he dyed possest of the goods and the Defendant sold these goods which made him Executor in his own wrong and afterwards takes Letters of Administration Walburton I conceive the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgement for the Statute of 21 Eliz. of fraudulent conveyances annuls this gift of the Intestate because he did it to defraud his Creditors and then when he dyed it was assets in the hands of the Administrator And if a Testator have goods wrongfully taken from him out of his possession these are not Assets to the Executors or Administrators but if they be taken out of the possession of the Administrators or Executors they shall be Assets for they may take them again but for goods taken from the Testator they have but an Action But here the Administrator may take the goods which were given by the Intestate to defraud Creditors for the gift was voyd and therefore they shall be accounted Assets And as to the Action it is well brought for when a man does administer as Executor and then takes Letters of
the wife is at large to have the twelve pound and her Dower also But the Court held that she could not have her joynture for by the recovery of the Dower her joynture is barred for the Rent was given her in recompence of her Dower so that it cannot be intended that she shall have Rent Dower also wherefore it was adjudged that her entry on the Land was not good 30 31 Eliz. The King against the Bishop of Canterbury and Hudson Rot. 1832. IN a Quare impedit Hudson the Incumbent did plead that King Edw. the 4th did grant the Rape of Hastings Et bona catalla Fellonum Fugitivorum ategat of all Residents and non-residents within the said Rape to the Earl of Huntington And pleaded that John Ashborne was seized of the Mannor of Ashborne and of the advowson appending to it and held the same of the Earl of Huntington as of his Rape of Hastings and that the said John Ashborn was outlawed during which the Incumbent of the said Church dyed and the Earl presented the said Hudson Shut I conceive this avoydance does not belong to the Earl by reason of this grant for by the same Patent libertie is given to the said Earl his heirs to put himself into possession and of such things as he cannot put himself into possession they will not passe and here this is a thing in action which by these words will not passe 19 H. 6.42 by the grant de Catalla Fellonum obligations do not passe VValmesley Stanford in his prerogative saith that by the words Bona catalla the King shall have the presentation to the Church of him that is outlawed or Attaint and by the same reason he may grant it by such a name and although the party cannot seise such a thing yet it shall passe 39 H. 3.35 Rent for years shall passe by the grant of bona Catalla Periam It will passe by these words for it is an ancient grant for in that time the Patents of the King were not so specially penned as now they are Anderson I conceive the avoydance will not passe by thse words for within this word bona moveables are contained both dead and living and Avoydance is no Chattell nor right of Chattell Quod Peryam negavit c. Mich. 37 38 Eliz. Townsend against VVhales IN an Ejectment the Iury found that J.S. was seized of land in possession and also in reversion for terme of life and made a Devise by these words That his Executors take the profit of all his Lands and tenements Free and Copy for ten years for the payment of his debts and Legacies and after the end of the said ten years that all the aforesaid lands and tenements with their appurtenances should be sold by his Executors or one of them and the silver to be bestowed in the performance of his Will or by the Executors of his Executors or any of them and then one of the Executors dyed within the ten years and the two surviving Executors did grant all aswell in possession as in reversion to House who made a Lease to the Plaintiff And two points were resolved 1. That the Executors may grant the reversion 34 H. 6. for by these words Free and Copy his intent appears that all should be granted 2. That although one of the Executors died yet the other two Executors may sell Anderson If such bevise had been at the Common Law and one Executor had refused the two others could not sell but if one die the survidors may sell the land for there the authority doth survive Which difference the other Iustices agreed to And at another day Anderson said there was difference where the Devise is that Executors should sell his and the money divided between them there if one die the others shall not sell but otherwise here because the money is the performance of his will Walmesley The sale by the two Executors is good for it is said the Executors or any of them c. And Beaumond agreed Wherefore judgment was given for the Plaintiff Note that there were two verdicts in this case and the first only found that the Executors shoull sell after the ten years and that one dyed and the other two did sell within the ten years and the opinion of the Court was that the sale was voyd but in the 39 and 40 Eliz. all the whole will was found and Iudgment given ut supra The Earle of Rutlands Case Roger Earl of Rudand and John Maners and others Executors to John late Earl of Rudand Executor to Edward Earl of Rutland brought an action on the case against Isabell Countess of Rutland And Declared for divers Iewells and goods c. that came to the hands of John Earl of Rudand as Executor to the said Edward and the said John the 10th of July 29 Eliz. did casually loose them which after came to the hands of the Defendant licet saepius requisita she would not deliver them to the said John in his life time nor to the said Plaintiffs after his death but knowing the goods did belong to the Plaintiffs in D. in the County of Notingham converted them to her proper use And a verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved often in arrest of Iudgment but all the Iustices agreed that the action of Trover and converversion would lie by the Executors upon the Satute of the 4 Ed. 3. upon a conversion in vita Testatoris and so hath it been adjudged in the Kings Bench and although the Statute mentions onely a Writ of trespass that is only put for example Also they all agreed that the sole cause of action to the Conversion for it there were no conversion they shall be put to their Detinue therefore the great doubt did arise because the day and time of the conversion was not shewed for perhaps it was after the Writ and before the Declaration And also if it was in vita Testatoris they should have this action by the 4th of Ed. 3d. But at length Walmesley said That all Iustices of the Common Pleas and of Serjeants Inne in Fleet-street besides Peryam Chief Baron were of opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiffs for that some of them held that the day of the Conversion is not materiall to be shewn and others that of necessity as this case is it shall be intended that the conversion was in the Plaintiffs time wherefore Iudgment was entredfor the Plaintiffs but a Writ of Errour was brought and the Case much debated Michaelm 38 39 Eliz. Carew against Warren in C. B. Rot. 1945. GUnter Tenant in Tasle of Lands in antient Demesn made a Lease for 60. years to J.S. and for security thereof levied a Fine to Lee and Loveland who rendred to Gunter in Fee who devised the reversion to his wife for life the remainder in Fee and dyed And then the Lord of Andover which is an ancient Mannor by an