found for the Plaintiff and Finch Recorder moved in arrest of Iudgement first for that they assigne the wast in a Park where the wast is in Land c. Secondly Because that that Action did not lye for them both alike for if the Grandfather and he in the remainder in tayle had joyned in a Lease yet they could not joyne in wast The Books are If Tenant for life and he in the remainder joyn in a Lease they may also joyn with wast 21 H. 8 14. Although 19 H. 7. be put otherwise And 2 H. 5. Sir William Langfords Case Two joynt Tenants to the Heirs of one of them and they make a Lease for life And it was adjudged that they might joyn in wast for the Tenant for life had a reversion for life and had not made any Forfeiture If the Grandfather and he in remainder had joyned in a Lease and afterwards in wast it had been naught for the lease came out of the first root And it was resolved Tr. 2 Jac. Kings Bench Poole and Browses Case That one in remainder cannot have wast where there is an intermediate Estate for life Yelverton and Hutton did not believe the Case of 2 Jac. Crook If there be Tenant for life with such a power c. of Lands held in capite he may make Leases for life without Licence of Alienation and well proves this cause Yelverton and Hutton For the wast being assigned in a Park it is good for a Park is Land Sed adjournatur Hodges against Franklin TRover and Conversion is brought by Hodges against Franklin The Defendant pleads sale of the Goods in Marlborough which is a Market overt and the Bar was well pleaded and an Exception was taken For that that it is not said that Toll was payed It was said by Hutton That there are divers places where no Toll is to be paid upon sale in Market And yet the property is changed and Iudgement accordingly Grimston against an Inn-keeper IN an Action upon the Case it was said at the Bar and not gain-sayed That they ought to say in the Declaration Trasiens hospitavit for if he board or sojourn for a certain space in an Inne and his Goods are stollen the Action upon that is not maintainable And for omission although the Verdict was given for the Plaintiff Iudgement was given Quod nihil capiat per billam upon fault of the Declaration and he paid no Costs Wilkins against Thomas IT was said by the whole Court That a consideration is not traversable upon an Assumpsit but they ought to plead the generall issue and the Consideration ought to be given in Evidence Ireland against Higgins IReland brought an Action upon the Case against Higgins for a Greyhound and counts that he was possessed ut de bonis suis propriis and by Trover came to the Defendant and in consideration thereof promised to re-deliver him It seemed to Yelverton that the Action would not lye and the force of his Argument was that a Grey-hound was de fera natura in which there is no property sed ratione fundi live Deer and Coneys and vouchd 3 H. 6. 56. 18 E. 4. 24. 10 H. 7. 19. for a Hawk for Hares are but for pleasure but Hawks are Merchandable This difference in 12 H. 8. is allowed so long as a Dogge is in the possession of a man an Action of Trespasse lyes detinue or replevin But no Action if he was out of his possession and so had not a property then there is no consideration which is the foundation of an Action Hutton to the contrary and said the whole argument consisted upon false grounds as that a Dogge is ferae naturae Which if it were so he agreed the difference in 12 H. 8. But he intended that a Dogge is not ferae naturae for at first all Beasts were ferae naturae but now by the industry of man they are corrected and their savagenesse abated and they are now domesticae and familiar with a man as Horses and a tame Deer if it be taken an Action lyes Rogers of Norwich recovered Damages pro molosso suo interfecto And 12 H. 8. So of a Hound called a Blood-hound And a Dogge is for profit as well as for pleasure For a Dogge preserves the substance of a man in killing the Vermine as Foxes And now is not an Horse for the pleasure of a man for a man may goe on foot if he will and an Horse is meat for a man no more than a Dogge Therefore an Action may lye for the one as for the other And for a Hawk he ought to shew that it was reclaimed for they are intended ferae naturae One justifies in 24 Eliz 30. for a Battery because he would have taken away his Dogge from him A Repleavin was brought for a Ferret and Nets and a Ferret is more ferae nat than a Dogge Seale brought 25 Eliz. Trespass for taking away his Blood-hound and there it was said to be well laid And then now if he has a property the consideration is good enough to ground an Assumpsit It is adjudged that a feme dowable The heir promises to endow her before such a day and the Action is maintainable upon that by the Court Intraturudic pro quer if no other matter were shewed by such a day Jenkins Case HE brought an Action upon a promise to the Plaintiff That if he marryed her with the assent of her Father she would give him 20. l. Adjudged a good consideration by the Court. 3 Car. rot 414 Sir Edward Peito against Pemberton SIr Edward Peito is Plaintiff against Pemberton in a Replevin and the Defendant was known as Bayliff to H. Peito and said that H. Peito the Grandfather had granted a Rent for life to H. Peito the Son to commence after his death The Plaintiff confesses the grant but sayes that after the death of Peito the Grandfather these Lands out of which the Rent issued descended to Peito the father who made a Lease for a thousand years to the Grantee and dyes The Avowant confesses the Lease but sayes that before the last day of payment he surrendred to the Plaintiff Vpon which there was a Demurer and the question was whether the surrender of the Lease would revive the rent Harvey If he had assigned the Lease to a stranger the rent had been suspended 5 H. 5. One grants a rent charge who had a reversion upon a Lease for life to commence immediately there the question was when the Lease was surrendred whether the rent now became in esse because that the Lease which privileged the Land from distresse is now determined in the hands of the Grantor himself Crook If the Grantor had granted reversion to a stranger and the surrender had been to him It was clear that the suspension had been for the term Hutton If a man seised of a rent in Fee takes a Lease of Lands out of which c. for years and dyes the
not but a liberty given by the Conisee to the Conisor to be at large That does not release the Execution Dolbins Case IN a Replevin the parties were at Issue and the Plaintiff sued a Venire f. c. returnable such a day at which day the Sheriff does not return the Writ Wherefore the Avowant by Ward prayed a Venire fac with a proviso for him And it was granted by the whole Court Fossams Case A Man after the Statute of 27 H. 8. makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for term of his life and after his decease to the use of I. S. and his Heirs The Feoffor does waste And I. S. brought his Action of Waste And now if his Writ shall be general or special was the Demur in Iudgement And Hutton and the other Iustices were clearly of opinion That the Plaintiff ought to have a special Writ And so it was adjudged afterwards Doswell against Iames. IN Debt brought upon an Obligation Iames shews that the Obligation was endorsed with a Condition to perform all the Covenants comprised in an Indenture and he pleads that all the Covenants were fulfilled And does not shew in certainty the Covenants nor how they were performed And Hitcham said that the Plea was not good For there is a Diversity when one pleads in the Affirmative and when in the Negative For if in the Affirmative he shews in the certainty how the Condition or Covenants were performed And there is no diversity in my opinion between the Conditions which were upon the dorsed Obligation and the Covenants in the Indenture And it is to be thought that he who knows more of the Truth should shew it in his Plea And therefore he who pleads the Affirmative shews how the Conditions are performed Because it lyes much in his knowledge Whether he hath performed them or not But where he pleads in the Negative otherwise it is For there he is not to shew the certainty And yet I will agree that if one brings an Action of Debt upon an Obligation indorsed with a Condition The Defendant may plead the Conditions performed generally But otherwise it is of Covenants in an Indenture And in an Obligation with a Condition endorsed if he pleads the Conditions performed and he shews what thing he hath done If it be in the Affirmative he ought to shew the certainty of it also So that for that cause the Plea will not avayl Also it is incertain and doubtfull to the Iury. For if in that Case we are at Issue upon such a general Plea Although it shall be tryed by the Iury Yet it would be strange to enquire of such general things Wherefore c. Gerrard against Boden AN Annuity was brought by Gerrard against the Parson of B. And the Plaintiff counts That the said Parson granted an Annuity of 40 l. pro bono consilio suo imposter impenso for term of life of the said Parson And for 30 l. of arrerages this Action was brought Finch thought the Count not to be good And first it is to be considered If that Annuity might be assigned and granted over or not And as I think it cannot For an Annuity is not but as a sum of mony to be paid to the Grantee by the Grantor And not at all to the realty if the Land be not charged by express words in the same Deed. And to prove it If a man grant an Annuity to me and my Heirs without naming of my Heirs If the Annuity be denied it is gone Because my Person is only charged with the Annuity and not the Land So if a man grants to you the Stewardship of his Mannor of D. and to your Heirs you cannot grant that over And so of a Bayliwick But peradventure it may be said That an Annuity may be granted over in this Case Because in the Habendum It is said to the Assignees of the Grantee But that is nothing to the purpose as I think For I take a difference when a thing comes in the Habendum of a Deed which declares the Premises of the Deed For there it shall be taken effectuall but otherwise not As if Lands be given to a man and his Heirs habendum sibi haered de corpore suo procreat That is a good tayl But if a thing comes in the Habend which is repugnant to the Premises of the Deed and to the matter of the thing which is given by the Deed Then the Habend is void for that parcel As in the Case at Bar it is meerly contrary to the nature of the Annuity to be assigned over to another And there is no remedy given for it but an Action and it is Common learning that a thing in Action cannot be assigned over unless it be by the grant of the King Also by their Declaration they have acknowledged it to be no more than a chose in action Then a Rent seck for which he had not any other remedy but an Action after Seisin For he said that he was seised in his Demesn as of Franktenement of the Rent aforesaid Then it ought to be a Rent-seck For of no other Rent can a man be seised in his Demesn because they lye in prend As of Advowsons common for years and of Estovers And I will not agree that difference put by Littleton in his Book to this purpose For of such things which lye in manual occupation or receipt A man shall not say that he was seised in his Demesn as of a Rent Because it lyes in the prend Pasc 4 Car. Com. Hanc And in the 21 E. 4. The Case is doubtfull And Crawley of the same opinion Hitcham of the contrary And at another day Hutton said that the parties were agreed Hitcham We desire to have your opinion notwithstanding for our learning Hutton said We are agreed that the Annuity may be granted over and it is not so much in the personalty as hath been argued by Finch And in some Books it is said that a Release of personal Actions is not a Plea in a Writ of Annuity Groves against Osborn THe Case was thus A man makes a Lease for life the Remainder for life upon Condition that if the second Lessee for life dye in the life of the first Lessee That the Remainder in fee shall be to another And it was said That that Remainder might commence upon that Condition well enough It was said by Atthowe That where a Remainder depends upon a determination of another Estate So that none shall take any Estate by the Remainder upon Condition then the Remainder is good As if a man give Lands to A. for life upon Condition that if I. S. pay me 40 s. before such a day That the Remainder shall be to him That is a good Remainder But when an Estate is to be defeated by a Remainder depending upon that Then the Remainder is not good As if I lease Lands for life upon Condition That if the Rent be in
up a Chamber but that was the knavery of the Inne-keeper he being then in contention with an Inn-keeper in the Parish and that in divine service he thrust open the door of Wrights seat and said that he and his wife would sit there in disturbance of divine service And for that a prohibition was prayed and granted for the high Commission cannot punish non-residency nor breaking the seat in divine service And the other were things for which he shall be bound to his good behaviour and the complaint ought to be to the Ordinary c. Hall and Blundells Case before DAvenport said This Parson being presented by Simony is disabled to this Church for ever and cannot he presented to this Church again although another avoidance As it was adjudged in the Lord Windsors case But it was said by Richardson if he had said absque hoc that he was in ex praesentatione of Sir George it had béen good Which was granted Henden Two exceptions had béen taken First that the Incumbent does not shew what estate or interest the King had to present him which does not need if the King brought a Quare impedit then it is a good answer to say That he is in of his presenting But if it be brought by a Stranger then he ought to shew the title in his presentment And he alleged the Statute of 25 E. 3. Which inables the Incumbent to plead by writ of the Law 41 Eliz. There was a Quare Impedit brought for the Church of Danel A presentation was pleaded by the King without making a title and it was admitted good And in many cases it is more safe not to make a title Secondly Because that he pleaded a presentation by the King he is disabled As to that he said that before he be convicted of Symony he may be presented But by Crook in Sathers Case That if he be presented before conviction yet it is a void presentment And it was so agréed by the Court and they resolved the plea was naught because he enswers nothing to the Symony for the protestation is not any Answer Wherefore judgement was given for the Plaintiff Denne against Burrough DEnne against Burrough alias Spark in a prohibition it was agréed by Yelverton and Crook the other Iustices being absent If a man makes his will and makes his wife Executrix and devises the residue of his goods after debts and legacies payed to his Executrix His wife dies before probate that now because that the Executor had election to have them and dies before he did so All the Goods belong to the Administrator of the first Testator But otherwise by Henden If there was a Legacy of a particular thing Quaere what difference Newton against Sutton RIchard Newton and Iames Elliot against Sutton in debt upon an Obligation to perform Covenants in an Indenture There was a Covenant that the Defendant ought to do such an act thing or things as the Plaintiff or his Council learned should devise for the better assurance of certain Lands by himself to the Plaintiff and said that a Counsellor advised him to have a Fine And upon the Declaration there was a Demurrer And upon the opening the Case Crook and Yelverton being only present agreed That it ought to have been pleaded that a writ of Covenant was shewn and the tender of the note of the Fine is not sufficient But the breaking of the Covenant ought to be laid after the Dedimus potestatem sued by the Plaintiff And upon their advise the action discontinued without costs Sacheverills Case before ATthowe said that the action lies For a Lease made by Tenant for life is a Lease derived out of all the Estates and not as a Lease made in Remainder But he who made the Lease had a Reversion in possibility of a Reversion and for that he might joyn with him who had the Inheritance in that Action 27 H. 8. Tenant for life and he in Reversion joyn in a Lease for life And Tenant for life the place wasted and he that had the inheritance the treble dammages And in this Case had but a possibility of the Reversion and yet for that possibility they joyn in waste And it is all one whether there is but a possibility of reversion or a reversion If Tenant for life and he in remainder in fee make a Lease for years they joyn in waste and the reversion does not hinder Because that the Lease is derived out of both And the Lessee shall make attendance first to one and then to the other 13 H. 7. 17. And if it be upon such a Lease or Covenant which is not collateral but goes with the Land the Tenant for life shall have the benefit of them during his life and the other after But if one makes a Lease for life rendring a Rent and grants the Reversion to one for life the Remainder to another in fee Where the lease issues out of the whole reversion Yet the division by reversion being by the party himself they shall joyn in an action 22 H. 6. 24 b. Tenant in fee makes a Lease for life and their grants the reversion to A. and B. and the Heirs of B Waste is committed and they joyn in waste And yet this Statute which comes to our Case is made after the Lease And in this case if he who had the Inheritance his Son and the Survivor should joyn in waste For the Law makes the division of the reversion If Baron seised in right of his wife and they joyn in a Lease for years or for life rendring a Rent the wife dies the Husband being intitled to be Tenant by the courtesie it is now his Lease and he shall have the Rent And the Book séems that he and the Heir shall have an Action of Waste For the Law makes that division If Tenant in fée makes a Lease for years and takes a wife and dies and the Feme recovers Dower That Lease is not dispunishable with the devision by the Act of Law and that Lease is derived out of all the Estates and it is all one as if they had all joyned Admitting that the words were that the said Henry had Authority to make Leases for lives And that that makes it as effectual and as good as if all had joyned Then it will be agreed that it is the Lease of all As if I give Authority to make a Lease of my Land It is my Lease and ought to be made in my name and so the Authority is good against all those And if the Covenants had not béen collateral Iacinth shall have benefit of them For although they are not parties to the Lease yet the Law makes them so And as they shall have those benefits which grow by the Reversion so they shall have the waste also It will be objected this Lease by Henry is derived out of the first Fine and the Conusees shall stand seised to that use I agree if it be meerly without
one of them dyed before partition yet their heirs should hold severally according to the intent of the Will for otherwise the Surviver should hold place which against the will of the Devisor Northens Case A Man seised of a Mannor having all the Goods of Felons de se within the same Mannor and makes a Lease for years of parcell of the same Mannor to a man and afterwards makes another Lease of the same Lands to commence after the determination surrender or forfeiture of the first Lease The first Lessée was a Felo de se the Lord Lessor of the Mannor enters into the lands Leased as forfeit and the second Lessée ousts him and it séemed to Crook that the Entry was lawfull enough Harvey said That the Lessor to whom the Frank-Tenement belonged entring into the land the Frank-Tenement drowned the lesser Estate and the Lease for years is extinct in the Frank-Tenement And it was said That therefore the first Lease extinguisht But if before that the Lord had aliened the Mannor saving to him the liberty and after had entred for the Forfeiture the second Lessée could not enter for it is not any determination of the first Lease Crook said That if the Lessor infeoffed the first Lessée of the Mannor that is a determination of the first Lease and the second Lessée may enter The Bishop of Winchester against Markham THomas Bishop of Winchester brought an Action upon the Statute of West 1 cap. 4. de scandalis magnatum against Markham for that he preferred a slanderous Bill against him before the President of the Councel surmising that he was a covetous and malicious Bishop And the Opinion of the Court was That the words were sufficient to maintain the Action A man seised of a Mannor held in Chivalry devises two parts of it to two men in severalty and all the Remnant he devises to his heirs in Tayle the remainder over in Fée Hutton said It seems to me that the devise is voyd for the third part to the heir for he might devise the two parts by his Testament and he had done all that he could doe by the Statute and then the devise of the third part is out of the warranty of the Statute for it is not reason that by the limitation of the third part the which he could not doe that the devise of the residue which was one time good shall be defeated which Harvey granted but Crook to the contrary for although the two parts were devised by the premisses of the Testament and the third part in the end of it yet in operation of Law the one part is not before the other but the will is intire and took effect in all its parts at one and the same time by the death of the Devisor By which it seemed for the benefit of him in the remainder that he shall take the third part devised to him for if a man seised of three Acres of land held in Chivalry and devises them severally to three severall persons in Fee the heir shall have the third part of every of the three Acres and not the Acre last devised which Hutton granted So also for the benefit of a third person he ought to be judged in the third part as a Purchaser and not of an Estate by descent and so is the better Opinion in 3 H. 6. But if he had devised the Tenements to his Son in Taile without limitation over of the remainder there he might choose to be in of the Estate limited by the Devise or as heir Hutton I doubt of that for the Book is not agreed 3 H. 6. Wilkinsons Case THe Baron seised of lands makes a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff him and his wife for life the remainder over to a stranger in Fee Atthow demanded if the Feoffee shall be bound to make the Feoffment before request made by the Baron Hutton and Crook thought that a request ought to be made by the husband And because the particular Estate which is the foundation of the remainder limited to the stranger ought to be made to the husband who is party to the condition and it is his will to take the Estate for life or refuse it and the Feme is at his will But if the Baron dyes then it behooves him to make the Feoffment to the wife without request because she is a stranger to the condition by Act in Law And so where she dyes also before the Feoffment the Estate ought to be made to him to whom the remainder is limited without any request Yelverton But if the condition was to re-enfeoffe the Feoffor and a stranger there it behoves the Feoffee to tender the Feoffment to the stranger for he had not notice of the condition and he ought to be party to all the Estate And by the Livery made to him the Feoffor shall take well enough Waterton against Loadman VVaterton makes a Feoffee to the use of Loadman in Fee to the use of another in Tayle the remainder to his right heirs in Fee Cestui que use in Tayle dyes the first Feoffees enter for to recontinue the use Crook said That when Tenant in Tayle in use makes a Feoffment nothing passes but for his own life For it had been agreed where cestui que use pur vie makes a Feoffment in Fee for it was not a Forfeiture of his Estate because nothing passed but for his life then when the Feoffee dyes during the life of cestui que use in Tayle that cannot be any descent of the Fee but as an Estate for life the which determines by the death of cestui que use in Tayle And all the Iustices were of the same Opinion for the descent was when he had not any Title of entry for by the Feoffment he had a Title during the life of cestui que use in Tayle Wherefore during his life they could not enter nor make continuall claim But if the descent had been after the death of cestui que use in Tayl then otherwise it shall be for they had a Title to enter before the descent and by their laches they are told of that Hutton seemed That the Feoffees cannot enter in that case for they cannot have the same Estate that they had before the alienation of cestui que use in Tayl for by the Feoffment the Estate of the Fee simple which was to their right heirs passes clearly and it is lawfully in the Feoffee Wherefore if they enter to re-continue the use in Tayl where they shall he seised of another Estate where they shall be seised of a Fee simple also and so there shall be two Estate of Fee simple of the same land which is inconvenient But the Iustices said That cestui que use in Tayl had no other remedy unless by the Entry of the Feoffees Harris against Marre A Man seised of certain lands in Fee makes a Feoffment in Fee to his use and afterwards makes his will by which he devises That
the Feoffees shall make an Estate of the same lands to all his Sons except H. And if all his Sons dye without issue that then the remainder shall be to an Estranger Hutton said That because H. was not excepted in the last clause that he had an Estate Tayl. The Maior and Commonalty of Winchesters Case THe Bishop of Winchester grants to the Maior and Commonalty of the same City That they might Edifie in the vacant places of the same City and inhabit there And that Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter and the Opinion of Hutton was That notwithstanding that Grant the soil is to the Bishop and by consequence the Houses Quia quioquid plantatur solo cedit solo And that grant does not enure but as a Covenant or Licence and not otherwise One Tomkins Case IT was said by the way That if a man be in Execution for the Debt of another man in the Fleet the King cannot take him into his Protection into his Wars out of Prison untill the Debt be paid because that he is in Execution for the said Debt and the letting him out of Prison is to let him out of the Execution which the Law will not suffer But if he was in Execution in the Fleet or other Prison for the Debt of the King there he may discharge him and take him into his Protection or into his wars for he may well discharge his own Debt Skore and Randalls Case THe Case was thus A Lease was made to Robert Chichester for 99 years to him his Executors Assigns or Administrators if Robert Chichester or John Bellew or James Bellew or any of them shall so long live yielding and paying therefore yearly and every year unto the said Randall his Heirs and Assigns the sum of 40. s. at the four most usuall Feasts and also yielding at or upon the death of Chichester Bellew or Bellew his or their best Beast in the name of an Herriot or 40. s. c. Provided that if Bellew or Bellew dye in the life of Chichester no Herriot to be paid after their deaths A Distress is taken upon Skore the Assign of Chichester for his own Beast Ashly The Question is whether his or their refer to Chichester Bellew or Bellew only or may refer to Executors and Assigns of Chichester the Lessée And so whether the Beasts of the Assignée may be taken for an Herriot And it séemed to him not for that that a Reservation ought to be taken strictly 27 H. 8. Comment 171. 21 H. 8. Dyer 45. So that if the words are words of Reservation or of Declaration which he will favour they shall not be extended further than the words c. Bing contrary And he conceived that the Lessee or his Executors before Assignment ought to pay the Herriot and afterwards the Assignee for he who took the benefit ought to sustein the burthen Sic transit res cum onere and none took the benefit but the Assignee or his Executors And that is so strange an intendment that in the Habend it is not named who shall yield or pay but it is intended he who had the land and that Herriot comes in in the render of the Rent and render does suppose a Prender And it is coupled with the reservation of Rent and it may be granted that the Tenant shall pay the Rent And then it immediately followes And also his or their best c. which then ought to be the Beast of him in possession Secondly The other Exposition should be impossible to be performed for none shall be charged but those that are either privy in contract or Estate and the Executors of Chichester are not privy to any and Bellewes are the persons only named by the limitation of the Estate and not any wayes privy It may be said that the Tenant shall pay the Beast of Chichester and so his Beast But no man may give the Beast of another And if it be said That he may buy him then the Property should be altered and it would be his own Beast Yielding his or their Beast It cannot be intended that Bellew or Bellew might yield but the Lease is granted to him his Executors or Assigns then his or their Lessee or their Executors or Assigns And you cannot have a forraign intendment of Bellew or Bellew Then the Exposition is good that the Herriot ought to goe with the Estate Hutton That Reservation is not of a thing that agrees with the Rent but it is of a collaterall matter and it is of a thing against common right and for that it ought to be taken strictly and to be the Beast of him that dyed for if it had been Yielding the best Beast of a stranger it had been good but thâ—…e is Election of the Herriot or of 40. s. Then by Assignment one part is become impossible for the Assignee cannot pay the Beast of Chichester but the Fourty shillings he may pay And because the Distress may be taken for the 40. s. therefore the Avowry is naught Richardson If Chichester dye Tenant then his Beast shall be paid And his Executors if the interest come to them shall cause that it be paid for Chichester made the Contract and that goes to his Executors but not to the Assigns And for the 40. s. that is demandable against the Executors of Chichester Yelverton The case is doubtfull but I incline that the Avowry is not good for the words in the Reservation of the Heriot are speciall If it had been said And also yielding after his and their death his or their best Beast There it would be the Beast of the Lessee his Executors or Assigns But also he had sever'd it from the Rent and had taken out of the course of the Estate for otherwise it concurred and went with the Rent But also he had made it collaterall for it is to be paid after the death of the stranger For his or their cannot be carried but to the persons named by the limitation And the Proviso explains that that it should not be payed after the death of the Assignee But if it had been rendring the best Beast after the death of the stranger It should be payed by him that had the Inheritance But he held for the 40. s. that the Executors shall not pay it Perryman against Bowden PErryman brought a Replevin against Bowden and Brown who made a Recognisance in the name of Bedle. And the Case was thus A rent is granted payable at Michaelmas and the Annunciation And if it be in arrear by 40 daies after any day of payment upon the demand at such a place he might distrain And it is not shewed that he demanded it And for that a demurrer Atthowe it is not requisite to shew a demand for the distress it self is a demand And it was adjudged in this Court If a Rent be granted and that he may without demand distreyn and good without demand And the words if it be
years or but for 7 years And it seemed to Hutton that the Lease was confirmed but for 7 years But Richardson was of the contrary opinion and took a difference where they confirm the Estate and where they confirm the Land for 7 years That Confirmation confirms all his Estate But where they confirm the Land for 7 years That Confirmation shall not enure but according to the Confirmation And that difference was agreed by Crook and all the Sergeants at the Bar. And afterwards Hutton said That that was a good Case to be considered and to be moved again Jacobs's Case A Man was indicted at Newgate For that he feloniously vi armis had robbed a man in a certain Kings foot-way leading to London from Highgate And upon that he was arraigned found guilty And having his judgment he prayed his Clergy for that he was a Clark And the Iustices of Gaol delivery doubted if he should have his Clergy or not Because the Statute if any man be taken upon Felony committed on the High way he shall not have his Clergy But the Indictment was in this case that the Felony was done in alta via reg pedestri So that the words are not alta via regia nec in magna via regia nec in via regia For if that word pedestri had been put out of the Indictment he should not have had his Clergy clearly Some of the Iustices were of opinion that that word added in the Indictment made that he should not have his Clergy The Lord chief Baron of the contrary opinion Perkins against Butterfield HItcham moved to the Iustices If one takes Beasts Dammage feasant and impounds them in an House and leaves the Door open So that the Owner may sée them and give them sustenance And afterwards for default of Sustenance they dye in the Pound Whether he who distreyned them shall be charged or not Hutton when one takes Beasts Dammage feasant in his Land It is at his Election if he will impound them in an open place where the Pound is or in some place in his own Land And if he impound them in the common Pound and the Beasts dye the Owner has no remedy But if they be impounded upon the Soyl where they did the Dammage or in the Houses of him who distreyned them and they dye for want of Food In this he who took them shall be charged For the Common Pound is common to all Persons so that they may come to give them food Otherwise in this case For there the Owner cannot have notice where he hath made his Pound Richardson of the same opinion And I believe that the Owner shall have an action upon his Case against the Owner for the recovery of the value of his Cattell For trespass does not lye For the taking of them and the impounding was lawfull And it is reason that he should recover the value of them by an Action For if the Owner had come to have given them food the Terre-tenant would have an action against him Hitcham The taking of them is made a Trespass ab initio when the Beasts dyed in Pound Wimberly against Taylor et alios VVImberly had entred a Plaint in a Court Baron against two jointly for taking of his Goods And the Plaintiff had removed the Plaint by a Recordare joyntly as the Plaint is And now at this time the Plaintiff counts of taking of Goods severally So that it varies from the Plaint and the Recordare also And Ward moved that the Writ might abate And so it was adjudged by Hutton and the Iustices Wilkinsons Case IT was moved at the Bar If a Man makes a Lease for years to I. S. I. N. and I. D. If the aforesaid I. S. c. should so long live And now one of the Lessées is dead If the whole Lease should be determined or not was the Question And Hutton and Harvey said That it was without doubt that the Lease was determined by the death of one of them But if the words had been generally If the Lessées should so long live and had not named them Then perchance it should have béen more doubtfull The Executors of Tomlins's Case ATthowe demanded this Question of the Iustices A Lease is made for years the Lessée grants over his Estate and reserves to him and his Heirs during the term a certain Rent If the Executors or the Heir of the heir shall have that Rent And it séems to me that it shall enure to the heir well enough As a Grant made by the Grantee of the estate of the same Rent So the Heir shall take by the Grant Harvy May the Heir take Chattel as Heir to his Father And this Rent is but a Chattel And in the Book of Assise there is a Case where Lands are given to I. S. et uni haeredi suo et uni haeredi ipsius haeredis tantum And that was taken to be no Fee-simple Nor no such Estate that the Heir might claim as Heir to his Father But I am in doubt of your Case truly For which I will advise Hitcham Vpon that I have seen a Diversity Where Lands are given to I. S. et haeredi suo et haeredi haeredis I. S. In that Case he shall have a Fée-simple Otherwise it is where Lands are given to I. S. et haeredi suo There no Fee-simple passes Richardson There no Fee-simple passes in any of the Cases And it was said in the Argument That Lessee shall not have Trespass vi et armis against his Lessor Whiddon's Case A Man devises by his Testament to his Daughrer Jane all his Land in D. habendum sibi et haered de corpore suo legitime proc And by the same Testament he devises to his Daughter Anne all his Land in the tenure of I. S. in the County of Hertford Whereas in truth D. was in the County of Hertford and parcel of the Lands were in the tenure of I. S. Whether Jane shall have the Lands in D. in the tenure of I. S. by the first words Or Anne shall have them by the last words Harvey The Testator had given them by his first words to Jane Wherefore he cannot revoke his Gift and give it afterwards to another Daughter But all the Iustices were of the contrary opinion A Case of Executors IF Executors come to the Ordinary for to prove the Will He ought to prove it ex communi jure And that he may do without great examination of the Witnesses But if other Executors come afterwards to prove a later Will Then the Ordinary ought to be circumspect in the probation of that Will and to do it by proofs For that is de mero Jure And it is the better and of more effect by Atthowe Challoner against Ware A Man makes a Lease for years reserving a certain rent payable at the Feast of St. Michael And for default of payment at the said day and by the space of 40 daies after That
it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to reenter without any demand of the Rent The Rent is in arrear by 40 daies after the Feast of Saint Michael and no demand of the Rent made by the Lessor Whereupon the Lessor entred If that Entry were lawfull was the Question And by Hutton it is not For a demand of the Rent is given by the Common law between Lessor and Lessée And notwithstanding the words without any demand it remains as it was before And is not altered by them But if the Rent had béen reserved payable at another place than upon the Land There the Lessor may enter without any demand But where no place is limitted but upon the Land otherwise it is Richardson to the contrary For when he had covenanted that he might enter without any demand The Lessée had dispensed with the Common law by his own Covenant As the Lessor might by his Covenant when he makes a Lease Sans impeachment dl waste He had dispenced with the Common law which gives the Action of Waste Harvey of the same opinion If a Man leases Lands for years with a Clause That if the Rent be in Arrear by forty daies after the day of payment That the term shall cease If the Rent be in arrear by the said forty daies after the day of payment The Lessor may enter without request Conyers's Case ONe Thompson makes a Lease for forty years to Conyers by Indenture and in the same Indenture covenants and grants to the Lessee That he shall take convenient House-boot Fire-boot and Cart-boot in toto bosco suo vocato S. wood within the Parish of S. And those Woods are not parcel of the Land leased but other Lands Atthow I would fain know your opinion if that Grant of Estovers out of an other place than was the Lease be good Also what Estate the Grantée of House-boot and Fire-boot shall have by that For the words are from time to time and hath limited no time in certain And lastly If the Lessée be excluded to have House-boot and Fire-boot in the Land leased or if he shall have in both places Also if the Executors by that Grant to the Lessee shall have House-boot and Fire boot And it was agreed by Hutton and Harvey That that Grant was good and that the Grantee shall have it during the Term. And that that grant does not restrain him But that he shall have house-boot and fire-boot in the land leased also Atthowe If there be no great Timber upon the land leased and the houses are in decay if the Lessor ought to find and allow to the Lessée sufficient Timber for the making the reparations or if the Lessée at his own costs ought to find the Timber for the reparations of the house Hutton said That the great Timber shall be at the costs of the Lessor if no Timber be upon the land leased nor no default be in the Lessee in suffering the great timber to go to decay or to putrifie And it was agréed if the Lessor cut a tree and carry it out of the Land That the Lessee may have an Action of Trespass And if Stranger cut a tree the lessee shall have an action of Trespass and recover treble dammages As the lessor should recover against him in an action of waste Wakemans Case A Man seised of a Mannor parcell demesn and parcell in service devises by his Testament to his wife during her life all the demesn lands also by the same Testament he devises to her all the services of chief Rents for 15 years And moreover by the same Testament he devises the same Mannor to another after the death of his wife And it was agreed by all the Iustices That the devise shall not take effect for no part of the Mannor as to the stranger untill after the death of the wife And that the heir after the 15 years passed during the life of the wife shall have the services and chief Rents Jenkins against Dawson IN a Formedon the Demandant makes his Conveyance in the Writ by the gift of I. S. who gave it to ◠D. er haeredibus de corp suo legitime procreat And shewes in the Writ that he was heir to the Son and heir of I. D. Son and heir of W. D. the Donee And Hitcham demanded Iudgement of the Writ for this Cause And the Court said that the Writ was not good for he ought not to make mention in the Writ of every heir as he does here But he ought to make himself heir to him who dyed last seised of the Estate Tayl as his Father or other Ancestor Also that word procreat ought not to be in the Writ but Exeuntibus But the Court thought that it might be amended And Harvey said If false Latin be in the Writ it shall be amended as if in a Formedon the Writ be Consanguineus where it should have béen Consanguineo Hutton and all the other Iustices said that that might be amended by the Statute Saulkells Case IN an Attaint the grand Iury appeared and the petit Iury and the parties also and one Rudstone Master of the Servant in the Attaint came to the Bar and there spoke in the matter as if he had been of counsell with his Servant Crawley said to him Are you a party to this Suteor for what cause do you speak at the Bar And he answered that he had done this for his Servant And if he had done any thing against the Law he knew not so much before Hutton You may if you did owe any mony to your Servant for his wages give to his Counsel so much as is behind of it and that is not maintenance Or you may go with your Servant to retein Counsel for him So that your Servant pay for his Counsel But that that you have done is apparent maintenance And the Kings Sergeant prayed That he may be awarded to the Fleet and pay a Fine And Hutton upon advise sent him to the Fleet. Wiggons against Darcy DArcy was in Execution upon a Statute Merchant and his Body and Goods were taken And the Conisee agreed that the Conisor should go at large and he went at large Atthowe moved If that were a discharge of the Execution or not And Richardson said it was For his imprisonment is for his Execution And if he release his imprisonment he releases his Execution And so if two men be in Execution for one Debt and the Plaintiff releases to one of them That is a release to both And so if one had two acres in Execution and the Plaintiff release the Execution of one of them It enures to both Harvey on the contrary opinion Yet I will agree That if a man be one time in Execution The Plaintiff shall not another time have an Execution For after a cap. ad satisfac an Elegit does not lye But in the Case where the Conisee does release the imprisonment only and not the Execution for it is
arrear that the Remainder shall be to a Stranger that Remainder is not good Hutton said that in my opinion my Brother Atthow spoke well and so it was affirmed Bateman against Ford. AN action of the Case was brought against Ford who had called the Plaintiff Thief and that he had stollen from him a yard of Velvet and a yard of Damask The Defendant said that he said that the Plaintiff had taken and bribed from him as much mony as he had for a yard of Velvet and Damask and justifies Hitcham said that the Iustification is not good For the words that he justifies do not amount to so much as to affirm a Felony in the Plaintiff where the Plaintiff counts that the Defendant slandered him of a Felony Hutton said What difference is there when you say that I have bribed your Horse and when you say that I have robbed you of your Horse Henden one may take Goods and yet it is not felony Termino Pasc Anno 4. Car. Regis Com. Banc. Norris against Isham IN an Eject firm by Norris against Isham These things happened in Evidence to the Iury. First it was cited by Richardson and Hutton to be Hurtltons Case That an Eject firm cannot be of a Mannor Because that there cannot be an Ejectment of the Services But if they do express further a quantity of acres it is sufficient It was said by Crook Iustice and not denyed That if a Lease is made of 5 acres to try a Title in an â—…eject firm And of the 3 acres he will make a lease But in the other a he will not If the livery be in the 3 acres the other 2 does not pass Part of the Evidence was That the Countess of Salisbury being seised of the Lands in Question makes a Lease of them by words of Demise Bargain and Sale to Iudge Crook for a Month to begin the 29 September habendum a datu and it was deliveted the 3 of September And the same day he bargains and sells the Reversion Davenport Because that no Entry appears by the Lessees by vertue of the Demise he submitted to the Court If there was any such Reversion in the Grantor he bring in possession And this difference was a greed That if one demises Lands for years and Grants the Reversion before Entry of the Lessée The Grant is void As it is in Saffins Case Cook 5. 12. 46. But if a man bargain and sell for years and grants the Reversion before Entry of the Lessee it is good For the Statute transfers the Possession to the use As if a man bargain and sells in fee or for life and the Deed is inrolled The Bargainee is in possession of the Frank-tenement And so it is of a Lease for years which is a Chattell And by Crook In the Court of Wards that very point was resolved Davenport Also there are words of Demise and Bargain and Sale before which the Lessee had his Election to take by which he would As Sir Rowland Heyards Case is But by Hutton and it was not denyed He should be in by the Bargain and Sale before Election For that is more for his advantage Further the Evidence was That George Earl of Salisbury made a Lease of those Lands which were a Mannor And makes a Conveyance from himself for life with divers Remainders and then to the use of the Daughter or Daughters of the said George And the heirs males of thrir bodies the remainder to the heirs of the body of the said George c. and had 3 Daughters to whom the Remainder The first dyed without Issue the 2 d. dyed having Issue male the 3 d. bargains sells all her half part and pur part to Edw. Earl of Salisbury Who now being seised of a third part of the Estate of Inheritance and of the other two parts for his life and the lives of the 3 Daughters suffers a common recovery by the name of the moyety of the Mannor And the doubt was what passed Richardson By that there is not passed but the moyety of the third part Hutton Crook and Yeiverton were on the contrary opinion and said that by that All the third part passed also Yelverton If a man be seised of the mannor of Dale and buys half for life of another in fee and makes a Feoffment of the half of the Mannor The moyety which he had in Fee shall pass And there shall be a forfeiture for no part Which was agreed by the Court. If a man be seised of the third part and grants the moyety perhaps the moyety of the third part only passes But he is seised of all Richardson There are several Estates and moyety goes to that Estate which he had in the Mannor For when I grant more than I can grant that which passes passes Crook I had the third part of a Mannor and grant the moyety of the Mannor all my third part passes But in the Bargain and Sale the words were part et pur part Which as it was passed all And also the Covenant to the Lessor The Recovery was of the half part pur part And by Hutton Crook Yelverton All was intended to be recovered And then the word Moyety carries that tresbien Richardson That Indentures of Covenant much mends the Case Another Question upon the Evidence was Whether when a Bargain and sale is made of Lands And the Bargainee before inrollment makes a Lease for years and afterwards it is enrolled If the Lease now be good Richardson and Yelverton It shall be that although it be after acknowledgement and before inrollment yet it is naught And by Yelverton and Crook it was so adjudged in Bellingham and Hortons Case That if one sells in fee and before inrollment the Bargainee bargains and sells to another And afterwards comes an Inrollment That second Bargain and sale is void And an other Question was Pasc 4. Car. Com. Banc. If one makes a Lease for years by Indenture of Lands which he had not If the Iury be estopped to find that no Lease And by Richardson If the finding that no Lease be subject to an attaint But they should find the special matter And then the Iudges would judge that a good Lease And Sergeant Barkley cited Rawlins's Case Coo. 4. 43. to that purpose Crook and Hutton against him And Crook said That it was adjudged in London in Samms case That that is not an Estoppel to the Iury. Which was affirmed by Hutton And that they may find the special matter And then the Iudges ought to find that it is not a good Lease And Hutton said That there is a difference between a special Verdict and pleading in that case For in speciall pleading and Verdict is confost by all parties That he had not any thing in the Lease And then the Iudges gave Iudgment accordingly The King against Clough IN the case of a Quare impedit by the King against Clough before Richardson shewed how the Quare
rescous there is no remedy against him as it was adjudged And the difference is that when he goes to make execution it is at his peril if he does not take power enough with him so that he may do it And if the Gaol be broken it is no excuse for the Sheriff Also if the party taken before he come to the Gaol is rescued there is no remedy against the executors of the Sheriff If debt be brought against the Sheriff for an escape and in that a recovery the Plaintiff shall never take the party again And so also if he brought an action against the party and recovered the Sheriff may plead that And for the book in Fitzh Nat. brev cited it remains doubtfull Hutton a Stranger commits waste and the Lessee dies yet no remedy against the party who committed the waste for the Lessee is charged of waste And so also the Sheriff of an escape But after as it was told me by one who was present Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Humbertons Case IT was said by Richardson and agreed by Hutton That a term evicted upon an Elegit is grantable but upon a Statute Staple or Merchant not And Richardson said That Fillwoods case in the 4 rep 66. if it be well observed will prove that difference Isham and Lawnes Case NOte in evidence to the Iury in an Ejectione firm betwéen Isham and Lawne It was said by Richardson and Hutton and by divers Serjeants at the bar and not denyed by any If a Son disseise his father and levy a fine with proclamations to a Stranger upon whom the Father enters and dies The son may re-enter against his own fine Allen against Westley IN evidence to the Iury betwéen Robert Allen and Isaac Westley upon the 5. Eliz for perjury Richardson there remembred that there was one charged with perjury and it was layed that one swore that he drew his dagger and beat and wounded another And it was found to be with a staff and it was agréed not to be perjury for the beating was only material It was one Styles's his case and it was agréed by the Court in that case that although a witness swears the truth yet if it be not truth of his own knowledge as if he shews how one revoked a will by paroll in his hearing when the words were spoken to another in his absence he does not swear truly and it is a corrupt oath within the Statute And it appears in the case in which this perjury was supposed to be committed which was between Allen and Westley also that these words were good words of revocation of a will I utterly renounce and detest that Will and will make a new one But if they were That Will shall not stand I will make a new one they are not For the first shews a present purpose of revocation the last a fortiori but more afterwards Thomas and Kennis's Case before DAvenport argued for the Plaintiff And the Question here is Whether there was any Estate in Edward and Walter setled at the time of the Fine levyed Or their Estate was only in contingency Because that Richard was then living For I agrée that if at the time of the Fine levyed Edward and Walter had not any Estate setled or vested but all in contingency That then the Fine destroyed all the Remainders For it is clear when Tenant for life is and the Remainder in contingency levy a Fine That is a forfeiture and destroys all the contingent Remainders 1 Rep. 131. I hope that they will agrée that if there be an Estate setled in them that Tenant for life levies that Fine Although that they in the Remainder do not enter within 5 years after the death of Tenant or after the estate escheated And that was adjudged 21 Jac. Tooker Lawns Case in the Kings Bench. But the Case was Mich. 33 34 Eliz. The Question then is whether Edward and Walter having any Estates setled in them two Estates are so limited to them joyntly for their lives so long as Richard and Anne shall have issue male of their bodies living Secondly The Estate to them was to their own use and that was not joyntly but successive And if any of those uses were in esse at that time of the Fine then they fall out clearly with the Plaintiff I conceive that both their Estates were in them First concerning the first Remainder limited to their joynt use in which it is to be considered Where the not setting forth of the Lands makes it contingent It is a strange Case That if the directions for the setting out had been observed that then there might have been a present Estate setled upon a subsequent Condition and not upon a precedent Condition Where it ought to be agréed when the Indenture is made with a Covenant to levy a Fine That no use will rise before the Fine Coment 302. Then although some things ought to be done before the uses will rise If those things had been done the use ought to be raised For certum est quod certum reddi potest 17 E. 4. 1. When contracts are upon incertainties when the thing uncertain is become certain when the Indenture was sealed that made a contingent use in the limitation but when the thing had been done it shall make a perfect use in the limitation But now it is become impossible by the non-performance c. It had been urged that so there shall be a double contingent which is concerning the Houses c. I say there is a great difference between a Collateral use which does not depend upon the other Estates and an Estate limited in course of a Remainder I agree if they be contingent Remainders the Fine will destroy and overthrow them but if there be a collateral clause by which a use is limited As if there be a Proviso that if such mony be not payed it shall be to such an use That contingent use is not destroyed by Fine 1 Rep. 130 134. Chidleys Case where the difference is directly taken If a Feoffment be made to the use of the Feoffee for life with divers contingent Remainders over If Tenant for life makes a Feoffment all the contingent Remainders are destroyed But where the contingent came in by a collateral Clause and not by way of Remainder otherwise it is As a Feoffment to the use of a man and his wife which shall be a Remainder over That is a good use to the wife and cannot be destroyed by feoffment Dyer 274. and Bracebridges Case cited in Chudleys Case 133. It was adjudged accordingly In the third branch here it is If he dies then she should have the Houses during widdowhood But the course of the Remainder came in the fourth clause And that had relation to the first And as to the second as it is shewn that at the time of the limitation it was not the intent that the Remainder shall be contingent to Edward and Walter
If I grant to a man that if he mary my Daughter he shall have my Mannor of Dale for years the mariage ought to be before he shall have any thing in the Mannor But if it had been that he should have had my Mannor for 7 years if he mary my Daughter Then the mariage is conditional subsequent that if he does not mary I shall have my Mannor again 10 E. 3. 44. The Abbot of Bosneys The difference is there put by Brerewood Trin. 4 Car. Com. Banc. 36. H. 6. An Annuity granted untill he was promoted to a benefice That is conditional from the Defeasance But if it was that the Grantée did such an Act that he should have an Annuity And ex vi termini there is a perfect Estate before the if and the former if is well explained by the last That if there be not issue male then the Estate shall cease 10 Rep. 41. A Condition in its nature is not to precede an Estate As if the Lands be given to a woman for years si tam diu vixerit 35 Assise plo 14. The Case in point of a Remainder which comes to our Case and conteyns both the parts of that difference As it is in Colthursts and Binshams Case The Prior and Covent of Bath leases Land for life the Remainder to W. Si ipse inhabitare et residens esse velit infra praedict terram And if it shall happen that the said W. should mary before H. Then the Remainder to P. And the Question is whether it is a Condition precedent or subsequent Resolved that the second is precedent For that that the Si precedes and for that makes the Estate contingent But for the other Si after the Estate limited Si ipse inhabitare vellet They were the very words of Mountague Chief Iustice It cannot be denyed but that it is subsequent and then goes in Defeasance and the other ought to shew the non-performance of it And that Case is more strong than our Case is For that Estate is by way of Livery not by use For in Case of Livery there he ought to have a time to do the thing And our Case then he should have for life determinable upon the Si c. And that construction of Vses shall be clear by the intent which appears that there ought to be a present Estate Where uses are by Indenture if by one construction the Intent is frustrate and if by another upheld That ought to be taken ut res magis valeat c. The Lord Sturtons Case Where a Lease was made of a Mannor to two Hubbards to have to them and to two others for their lives the first two dye And it was ruled that it was good but to the first two for their lives and not for the lives of the four Because they shall take but in point of Estate See more after Termino Trin. 4 Car. Com. Banc. The King against the Bishop of Canterbury THe King brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Canterbury Sir John Hall and Richard Clark for the Church of Marleborough in Northamptonshire And declares that Richard White was seised of the Mannor to which the Advowson belonged And the 6 Iac. by Indenture he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his wife for their lives and to the Heirs of Richard White And after White presents one Boynton and dies and his wife maries with Sir Iohn Hall The first of Iune 6th Iacob by Deed grants proximam advocationem to two to this intent that he might receive of such a Parson that he presented all mony as should be agréed betwéen Grantor and Grantee And that this was done Boynton lying in extremis And then the 26 Ian. 16 Iacob there was a corrupt agreement between Sir Iohn Hall and one of the Grantees That for 200 l. to be paid by the Clark Blundell That the other Grantee should present him And the first of February Blundell pays Sir Richard the mony and the second day he was presented instituted and inducted accordingly And that upon this it appertained to the King to present The Bishop pleads but as Ordinary Sir Iohn Hall makes a Title and traverses the corrupt agreement The Incumbent pleads by Protestation that there was not any corrupt agreement as it was alleged and not answers whether the mony was paid or not But that he is Parson imparsonee of the presentment of But 16 Iacob after such an agreement scil 17 Feb. he was presented by the Letters Patents of the King to this Church and never answers to the Symony And it was held by the Court to be naught and only pleaded to hinder the Execution before the Iustices of Assise If the Tryal went against the Patron Upon a Prohibition ONe libells against another in the Spiritual Court for the tithe of two pecks of Apples and for feeding the Cattel upon the Ground And the Defendant for the Apples answered That there were two Pecks only growing in his Orchard and that they were stollen and never came to his use and for the Cattel that they were antient Milch-beasts and that they growing old were dry And that for a month they depastured with other Heyfars and that after they put them in a Meadow out of which the Hay was carried And afterwards he fed them with hay in his House Atthowe Because that the Answers were not admitted prayed a Prohibition Hutton If Appples are upon the Trees and taken by a Stranger shall the Parson be hindred of his tithe Yelverton If I suffer one to pull my Apples the Parson shall have tithes But if they be taken by Persons not known the Parson shall not have tithes of them Which was granted For they are not tithable before plucking And for that if he suffer them to hang so long by negligence after the time that they are imbessed By Yelverton he shall pay tithes For the second matter it was agreed by the Court and for the depasturing in the Meadow and for the Hay with which they were fedd afterwards tithe shall not be paid Because that the Parson had tithes of them before But if the Question is for the tithes when he went with the other Heyfars By Crook that is no cause to excuse the tithe Harvey If I have ten Milch-kine which I purpose to reserve for Calves and they are dry The Parson shall not have tithe for their Pasture But if I sell them by which it appears I kept them for fatting There tithes shall be paid Hutton agreed That although that there was so small time yet when they went with the Heyfars he shall pay tithes for them Goddard and Tilers Case GOddard against Tiler in a Prohibition Tiler sued for tithes of Milk and Calves upon which modus decimandi surmised A Prohibition was granted viz. That every Inhabitant should pay 4 d. for every Cow and 2 d. for every Calf which they proved that there was never tithe paid in specie But
W. who died seised of the Lands which descended to his Vncle who was the Defendant Crawley Two things are required to maintain the action Whether the Defendant be heir Secondly who held lands by descent from the Obligor now is heir at Common law And now the heir by the Mannor shall be charged in debt as well as the Heir at Common law Dyer 228. All Brothers in Gavelkind shall be charged 11 H. 7. 12. The heir of the party of the mother shall be charged and so shall Bastardeign 4 E. 3. 14. Heir by Borrough-English And in this Case R. is not heir but by the Mannor Yet he shall be charged 32 Eliz. Dyer 368. by 4 the Iustices And the Defendant here had Lands by descent from the Obligor by which he shall be charged which was agreed by the whole Court But by Richardson It is not sufficient that he be heir in Blood and heir by the Mannor But he ought to have also Land to him by descent from the Obligor But here the Plea is that the Land descended to him immediately And for that you ought to have pleaded that the Obligor died and Lands descended to W. his Son and Heir who died without issue seised of the said Land which descended to R. his Vncle as Brother and heir to the Obligor Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Grays Case HEnden shewed cause that a prohibition should not be granted to the Ecclesiastical Court where the case was That one Brother had taken administration and the other would have distribution of the goods of the intestate And said that issues might enforce distribution of it And it is grounded upon Magna Charta cap. 18. Where there is a saving to the wife and the issues their reasonable part And upon the same reason that there may be a division between the issues so there may be between the Brothers but more remote degrees have no distribution And it is hard that one Brother shall have the whole estate and the others nothing And the Ordinary here is the most indifferent man to make distribution Hutton if the eldest son had lands descended to him and the youngest took Administration It is reason that the eldest shall have distribution And by him and Harvey a Writ de rationabile parte bonorum lies only where there is a custom And they said if it should be admitted that the Ordinary should distribute to the Brothers by the same reason he may to more remote degrees And he declared their opinions that many terms before they were against those distributions But they said That now the Ordinary would have an Obligation before they granted a Prohibition and they coloured their Obligation with the Statute of 31 E. 3. cap. 11. That an Administrator shall be count able to the Ordinary And Harvey said that be knew where a man that was rich died and the Ordinary had 600 l. to pious uses before he would grant administration But he said that in the time of Sir Iohn Bennet such an Obligation was questioned and they would not endure the tryal of it Hutton said that now for that that they could not distribute they might invent a new way scil divide the Administration As if the Estate be 400 l. they might grant Administration of the Goods of the value of 100 l. to the other But by him and Harvey That is illegally granted Doctor Wood and Greenwoods Case DOctor Wood libels against Greenwood in the Ecclesiastical Court for tithes of Wool Wood and Apples c. And he shews that he was Vicar there and that the 8 E. 1. there was a composition that the Parson should have the tithes of Grain and Hay praeterea the Viccar should have Alteraginum And for that that those tithes did not belong to the Viccar he prayed a prohibition And Henden objected that the Parishioner ought to set forth his tith and not dispute the Title of the Parson or Viccar But the Viccar ought to come in the Spiritual Court pro interesse suo but notwithstanding that and notwithstanding the Viccar refuses to claim those tithes that always within memory they have been paid to the Parson yet a prohibition was granted And in the end upon this Composition power is reserved to th◠Ordinary if any doubt or obscurity be in the composition to expound or determine it And if he please to encrease the part of the Viccar And there was not power of diminution As by Hutton It is also usual in such compositions And they say that the word Alteraginum shal be expounded according to the use As if wood had always been paid to the Viccar by vertue of this word so it shall continue otherwise if not And so it had been ruled in the Eschequer And upon that president it was ruled accordingly in this Court And by them wood is minuta decima as in the case of St. Albans it was ruled Sir Richard Dorrel against Blagrave SIr Richard Dorrell was Plaintiff in action of debt upon an Obligation of 400 l. against Blagrave who demanded oyer of the condition which was that if Blagrave fulfilled and kept all Covenants and agreements in an Indenture c. between him and the Plaintiff which on his part is to be performed and kept Then the Defendant pleads that he had performed all the Covenants on his part to be performed c. And the Plaintiff shews that Blagrave the elder by his Indenture granted a rent of 20 l. per annum to one that he intended to marry for her joynture which was to commence after his death And that it was out of all his lands in Watchfield And afterwards by the same Indenture he Covenants that he was seised of a good and perfect estate in Fee simple of lands and tenements in Watchfield to the value of 40 l. per annum And he assigns for breach that Blagrave was not seised of an Estate in Fée of the lands and tenements aforesaid in Watchfield Whereupon the Defendant demurred And Heidley moved two questions First that admitting the breach here well assigned yet the obligation is not forfeited And then when the Defendant is bound that he perform all Covenants on his part to be performed and not to the Covenants broken As if Lessee for years rendring a rent at Michaelmas and the Annunciation covenant to pay the rent at a day and afterwards he fail and then a Stranger is bound that he perform all Covenants c. That extends to the failer of payment which is past here in our case And by the whole Court not allowed For by such means all assurances of England should be deluded And now in this case the Indenture and the Obligation shall be sealed and delivered at the same time But if the Obligation had been sealed afterwards at another day yet it was allowed For by Richardson Suppose that the Condition of the Obligation recites the grant c. And the condition is that if the land
charged be to the value of 40 l. per an that will be a good condition and the Obligation shall be forfeit If the condition was that the Land was then of such a value it was presently a breach of the Condition The second matter was whether the breach was well assigned or not And Richards Yelvert held that the breach is not well assigned There are two things in the Covenant one of the Estate another of the value Here may be a breach to be assigned upon the Estate but then it ought to be general For the grant out of all his lands and tenements in Watchfield is not a conclusion to him who had lands and tenements in Watchfield then the Obligation is forfeited As if one be obliged to make a Feofment to I. S. of all his lands which he had by descent in D. If he had no lands there it is not a forfeiture So here But if the rent was granted out of particular land as out of the Mannor of D. There the grantor is included to say but that he was seised of the Mannor of D. which was granted As to this diversity the word praedictis had relation to lands and tenements in Watchfield for no lands were named But the material thing is the value c. And if praedict goes to all the Lands then the breach goes to more than the Covenant and then it is not met with But admit that it goes to all yet it is all one For the intention of the parties was that the value of 40 l. joynture per annum shall be mentioned But the Plaintiff does not mention the value And it is sure that the word praedict may goe to all the lands in Watchfield or to lands of 40 l. And if the Defendant had rejoyned he might have rejoyned generally scil That he was seised of lands in Watchfield in Fee simple and he is not forced to shew his particular estate in the lands And admitting they had gone to tryal upon that issue what might the Iurors find And if they had found the value it is nothing to the breach That is more than was in their charge and so void But Hutton and Harvey on the contrary and said that the breach is well assigned And Hutton took this difference That if the Covenant was that he was seised of such particular lands of such value The breach ought to be assigned in particular also but where it is that he was seised of lands of such a value the breach is now well assign'd here it is a recital of lands of the value of 40 l. per an to that predict has relation And it does not appear to us if he had more lands in Watchfield than of 40 l. per an But these things were agreed by all First that the antient pleading in the time of H. 6. is now changed and the general pleading of all Covenants in the Indenture in form although that the affirmative is good And the Plaintiff ought to shew the particular Covenant broken c. Secondly in the principal Case if the Plaintiff had replyed that he was not seised of lands and tenements in Watchfield in Fee-simple without praedict or deque fuit seise de nullis terris vel tenementis praedictis in Watchfield of the value of 40 l. in modo forma secundum formam conventionis is a good assignment of the breach And the Defendant forced to shew the particulars The Plaintiff discontinued the principal sute and begins again but that he might not doe without the license of the Court as they said Because that they might agree afterwards to give Iudgement Taylors Case TAylor was Plaintiff against Waterford in debt upon an Obligation and the Defendant demanded Oyer of the Condition quae legitur ei in haec verba If the Defendant should pay such costs as should be assist at the Assizes without shewing for what the Obligation should be void And the Plaintiff replies that post confectionem Obligationis Pasch .. 4 Car. Com. Banc. the aforesaid words were written upon the Obligation and the truth is that they were endorsed upon the Obligation by memorandum after the Delivery And Atthowe moved that the Plaintiff might not reply in that manner because that when Oyer of the condition was demanded that was entred for a condition and so was admitted by the Plaintiff And for that he is concluded to say the contrary But Serjeant Davenport replyed on the contrary And said first that the words of themselves will not make a condition It is Litletons case That some words doe not make a condition without a conclusion as what is contingent 39 H. 6. And admit that the words will make a condition yet they were written after delivery 3 H. 8. Kellways reports Hutton If there be an Obligation made of 20 l. if it be written upon the back of the Obligation before the sealing and delivery The intent of this Bond is to pay 10 l. for such costs That is no good condition Which Iustice Harvey only being present agreed And if any thing may be part of the condition it ought to be written before the sealing and delivery But it is no condition if it be written after And by them here is no conclusion but that the Plaintiff may plead that the words were written after sealing and delivery Termino Pasch Anno 5. Car. Regis Com. Banc. Mericke against King IN evidence to the Iury he who had purchased the land in question It was said by the Court he shall not be a witness if he claim under the same title Richardson said that the conveyance may be proved by other circumstances And the same reason was also agreed by the Court That if a Feoffment be made of a Mannor to uses that if the tenants have notice of the feoffment that although they have not notice of the particular uses their attornment to the Feoffees is good For the Feoffees have all the estate And Harvey said that so it was agreed in one Andernes's case Sir Richard Moors Case IT was said in evidence to the Iury. The case was that a man prescribes to have common in 100 acres and shews that he put his cattel in 3 acres without saying that those thrée acres are parcel of the 100 yet good And Hitcham said that so it was adjudged in this Court. And Richardson said it was an Huntingtonshire case Where a man alleged a custom to put his Horses c. And the custom was for Horses and Cows And adjudged good Hutton said there can be no exception to the Witness who is Cozen to the party to hinder his evidence in our law To which all agréed Clotworthy against Clotworthy THe case between Tenkely and Clotworthy was cited One grants an Annuity for him and his heirs to be paid annually at two usual feasts for 30 years which was to begin after the death of the grantor And it was agreed by all Richardson being absent that
the principal case Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Iohn Costrell against Sir George Moor. JOhn Costrell and Ioan his wife brought an action upon the Case against Sir George Moor and declares That whereas the said Iohn and Ioan were seised of a Messuage and lands in right of his wife Ioan A man having land in right of his wife in trust they cannot both joyn in the action but the Husband only and that the said Iohn and Ioan and all their predecessors time out of mind c. had common in such a waste which is the soyle of the Defendant pro omnibus a veriis levantibus cubantibus c. and the Defendant had inclosed 20 acres of the said waste and made a fish pond of it there so that they could not take the profits as before with their cattel Vpon the general issue pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And Crawley moved in arrest of Iudgement For that the prescription is ill made and that the Husband and wife cannot joyn in this action but the Husband might bring the action only And also where it is said that they cannot take the profits with their Cattel when the wife cannot have Cattel during the Coverture Richardson said the prescription is good and it would have been better if he said all those whose estate the wife had But this tantamounts and is as well in substance for that goes meerly to the estate of the Wife Trin 5 Car. Com. Banc. which was granted But for the second I doubt if the Wife may joyn in this Action If a man be seised in right of his Wife he may have Trespass for Trespass done upon the Land there the Wife shall not joyn for she cannot have the dammages if she survive And there is no difference between this Case and the principal Case It is Trespass on the Case and for the personal and temporary trespass and such for which the Wife should have the Action after the death of the Husband unless that the Defendant continue the Pond c. I agree if Battery be done to the Wife they both shall joyn for the Wife might have had the Action if she survived And so it was resolved in the Cooks of Grays-Inns Case they might joyn For the wrong was done to the Wife But here the Husband only lost the benefit of the Common and the wife could not take it with her Cattel For she had not any Cattel during the coverture And Yelverton also was of the same opinion But Hutton said In a Quare impedit the Husband and Wife shall joyn And yet the avoidance goes to the Executors of the Husband Hitcham In an Ejectione firm or ravishment of Ward the Feme joyns quod concessum fuit Yelverton said that in 4 E. 4. it is express that the Wife shall not joyn in trespass done upon the Land of the Wife for dammages shall be recovered in lieu of profits Moor against Everay MOor and his Wife brought dower against Everay To parcel he pleads non tenure and to the other parcel ne unque seise de dower which goes to the tryal and there the Tenant makes default and upon that a petit cape is awarded and now at a day in bank one Lumbard prays to be received upon the Statute of Gloucester to save his term c. But Henden alleged to the contrary First That Statute is not to this purpose in force by the Common law Tenant for years cannot falsifie 6 Rep. Periams Case Then because it was hard that a recovery should be had by Covin and the Lessee for years without remedy for his term the Statute of Gloucester was made which gives a receipt for the Lessee for years after the Statute 21 H. 8. was made which gives the Lessee power to falsifie The Common experience of the Court is If an habens facias seisinam issue there is not any saving of the term of Lessee for years Hil. 39 Eliz. in Bests Case A receipt was moved and denied For if the Lessee had a good term he might have trespass for entry upon him Littleton though says in his Chapter of Tenant for years that he shall be received Hutton The Statute of Gloucester aids them only who knew and had notice of the Recovery 21 H. 8. aids them who had not notice of it And it is better to prevent mischief than to remedy it after and as to that a final Bar. I was of Counsel in some Cases where the Lessee was received And if the Lease be not good the Lessor may avoid it by Plea scil Traverse or Demurer And I remember the issue taken upon the Term and found against the Termor And it was Mr. Fulhams Case against Sergeant Harris Sed adjournatur Fawkenbridges Case IT was moved he having Iudgement before to have costs where the Court doubted because that it was a special Verdict and the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 15. says That where a Verdict is found against the Plaintiff But in a special verdict it is neither found for or against But it may be said that when it is adjudged against the Plaintiff then it is found against him And 4 Iac. cap. 3. which gives costs in an Ejectione firmae had the same words if any verdict c. But it may be answered That as in Demurrer no costs shall be recovered no more in a special verdict For that the Plaintiff had a Prohibition causam litigandi And the Statute may be intended of vexatious Sutes c. But Brownlowe said that he had many times given costs upon the Statute of 4 Iacob For that the Prothonotaries were commanded to search Presidents The University of Cambridge THe Vniversity of Cambridge claimed by their Charter to be Clarks of a Market and that they had power by their Office to make orders and execute them And they made an Order that no Chandler should sell Candles for more than 4 d. ob the pound And because that one R. sold for 5 d. he was imprisoned and a Prohibition granted But it séemed that an Habeas corpus was more proper For he was not presented First For that they could not imprison without course of Law Secondly Because that as Clarks of a Market they have nothing to do with but Victuals and Candles are not Victuals The Sheriff of Surrey against Alderton THe Sheriff of Surrey returns a rescous against one Alderton That whereas there was a Iudgement had against B. and a fieri facias awarded upon that by vertue of his Warrant directed to R. to take the Goods of B. By vertue whereof such a day the said R. diversa bona catalla ipsius did levy and had them in his custody No rescous can be of Goods and one Alderton rescued them from the Bayliff contra voluntat ipsius Rich. The return is naught First For that that it is rescued from the Bayliff Secondly It is of Goods whereof a rescous cannot be returned Yelverton contrary in
ought to be no remitter in this Case to the old Entayl and thereby I adde more that if there be a remitter it is but for a time By the Office following it is remitted and ended I must profess that whatsoever I have thought upon this Case and advised upon it with my self I have met with two strong affections Zeal and Indignation Zeal in the behalf of the King to preserve the antient Rights of the Crown and against the invasion of Rebells and Traytors Bigod that sometimes brought a puissant Army into the field to depose the King failing in that enterprize now to rise in Question against him that what he could not gain by the sword he might supplant by the Law for though Ratcliff bear the name of this Case yet I see nothing but the hand of Francis Bigod his Estate his Right his Title Land per descent that maintains it therefore let it not seem strange that I am warm in this Case for Zeal and Indignation are fervent passion and I do profess to give Prerogative to the rights of the Crown in my care and vigilancy and it is nobile Officium judicis debitum due by Oath of Office to watch for him who works for us ne quid detrimenti capit respublica and if Charity begins at it self so ought Iustice to do that the King who grants Iustice to all should not be wanting to himself Because I desire to be plain and clear in my Arguments I will make the Questions as single as is possible for multiplex judicii nunc parit consusionem et quaestiones quo sinpliciores eo laudiores ergo will I make this first point a single Question Tenant in tayl of Land in possession makes a Feoffment in fée Question whether any right of the Entayl remaineth in him still against his own Feoffment and to what ends and uses and what he may do or suffer by force of this right in this Question I take no exception at the validity of the Feoffment made by Francis Bigod at cestui que use in tayl by the Statute of R. 3. and not the then Tenant in tayl in possession yet notwithstanding taking the Case at the worst I am of opinion that this Feoffment gives away all the Estate of the Tenant in tayl and as concerning the Issue in tayl inheritable to that Entayl and to him in the reversion there remains still in the Issue a right to that Entayl by force of the Statute de bonis condi and it is confessed on both sides that there remains a right of that Entayl by force of the Statute for their use and good and whether it be for the Lessor himself sleeping till there be an Heir to claim it or in the preservation of the Law which is termed an abeyance or in nubibus is the Question by which it appears that the exact enumerations of Rights as jus habendi redimendi percipiendi possidendi recuperandi finendi inferreth that there was no right because it was none of these rights makes but a noyse for there is jus recuperandi when the time commeth but it is in the mean time till the person inheritable appear which may put this right in execution which the Lessor cannot do against his own Feoffment it is the only Question and upon this exact division of Rights they have left out one whole member of Rights such are the Rights to depart with an Estate and not to get or keep are omitted such are the Rights to give or release or jus extinguendi or jus renunciandi to renounce or disclaim of which kind this very right is That Tenant in tayl hath after the Feoffment which had not discontinued finally to Bar the whole Entayl for by that Right which is left after the Feoffment the Estate tayl may be recontinued again for the root of the Entayl is left alive still Now see the reason of this and let the Statute of West of Estates tayl and the pleading and practice upon that Statutes which are the expositions of Law judge the Statute recites the form of Fee-simple conditional which now are intayls and then sheweth 2 mischiefs that the Donces after issue had power to alien and disinherit their Issues and that the Donors were defeated of their reversions both being against the minds of the Givers and the remedy provided in these words It is ordained that the Will of the Giver according to the force of his Gift expressed in his Deed shall be from henceforth observed so that they to whom the Land was given under such Conditions shall have no power to alien but that it shall remain to their Issue after death and shall revert to the Donor after death and if a Fine be levyed of such Lands finis ipsi jure sit nuilus but if neither Fine or Feoffment be void for they are but voidable not as before when they bound both Heirs and Donors absolutely so that it appears whereas before the Statute the Donee had power absolute post prolem suscitatam and so totally and in a sort rightfully to disinherite their Heirs the Act being not against the rules of positive Law to bar to all purposes aswell his Issue as the Giver as also himself Now since the Statute that very power of Alienation remaining against himself not restrained by the Statute though he may still disturb and discontinue it against them by exposition which the Statute hath received which as Littleton saith Discountenance cap. 171. is a wrong to the Issue and the Giver So that upon this Statute I reason thus that the Tenant in tayl hath the whole Estate in tayl and all the right of it in himself and may finally and totally bar it as well against his Issue as against himself by Common recovery but by Feoffment or Fine he could not by reason of this Statute And that ergo summum jus or verum jus intayl though it be discountenanced is not barred by the Feoffment for it is not in his power by that kind of conveiance and a non posse ad non esse valet argumentum necessario negative so that the Argument stands thus What the Tenant in tayl had and hath not parted withall remaineth in him still but the main right in tayl he had and hath not parted ergo it remaineth in him still for qui non habet potestatem alienandi habet necessitatem retinendi If you say that he hath parted with it I deny it for the Statute hath taken from him that power by Fine or Feoffment only finis ipse jure sit nullus which before he could have done and the practice of the Law is answerable to this both towards the Donor and towards the Issue The Donor hath two things whereby he may be benefitted and prejudiced the one in his Rent reserved the other in his reverter but the Issue prejudiced only in his Descender Now for the Donor when the Donee hath made a Feoffment and hath excluded
himself from all rights as concerning himself yet the Donor shall by force of this Statute which at the Common law he could not And if the Donor will release all his right in the Land to the Donee after a discontinuance by Feoffment his release though it will extinguish no right to the very Land yet it will extinguish Rents which proves that the Donee by his Feoffment cannot dismiss himself of all his right but that by the Statute of West his alienation is disabled as to that but that the Donor may avow for the Rent But wheresoever Tenant in tayl suffers a Recovery or levies a Fine the Rents together with the entayl ceases And the answer as to that is imperfect to resemble it to the Case of tenant in see simple doth alien and yet the Lord may avow upon him for the Cases have no resemblance for as Littleton well distinguisheth when Tenant in fee hath departed with his whole Estate he is no more Tenant to the Lord to avow upon though the Lord if he Will may avow upon him for the arrerages and if the Lord after future alienation release to him all his rights in the Land the Release is void to release the Rents and Services in all which it differs materially from the other Case and it is an equall proportion of the Law That when the Lord aliens his signory the Tenant is to he acquainted that all Arrearages may be paid that he may have no after-reckonings for after notice and the Arrerages paid the avowrie vanisheth Now for the Heir in tayl claiming from his Ancestor after his Feoffment by descent from him thereby allowing a right to remain in him against his Feoffment The Case is more difficult because during the Feoffor there can be no motion of that right neither by the Feoffor who hath hard himself nor his Issue because his Right is not yet come yet let me put this Case upon the Statute 11 H. 7. upon the opinion of Mountague Chief Iustice If Tenant in tayl Iointress make a Feoffment the person to whom the land doth belong after her death may enter and hold it according to his right Now till such Entry there is a discontinuance but when the Issue enters he is an Heir intayl et quasi eins per discent But now generally when Tenant in tayl hath made a Feoffment and dies the Heir shall bring a Formedon in the Discender and shall count that descendere debet from that Ancestor that made the discontinuance performam doni and therefore the Writ saith discendit jus it is as much devenit jus It is true that regularly a Feoffment bars all former rights and future rights yet respect to be had to Estrangers Albanies Case 2 Rep. Archers Case 1 Rep. 66. 9 H. 7. And therefore in Archers Case Lands were demised to one fore life remainder to his first Heir male Tenant for life made a Feoffment in fee and died his next Heir was barred of his right for ever by the Feoffment A man seised of Land by right of his Wife makes a feoffment in fee and then the Estate is made back to the Wife she is thereby remitted and her Husband shall never be Tenant by the Courtesie and therefore well resolved if Tenant in tayl discontinue and levy fine with Proclamations is no bar to the Estate tayl Now this Case is irregular because it standeth by Act of Parliament which is able to make the same Act good to one purpose or person and void or voidable to another as the Statute of Ecclesiastical persons and binds the party but is void or voidable against the Successors and shall nevertheless when they enter be in by succession And that there is still a right remaining in the Tenant in tayl appears in that he hath still in him a power to bind it more finally and totally by fine and recovery if he pursue them rightly and therefore note Cuppledikes Case If Tenant in tayl with divers remainders over make a Feoffment and Feoffee vouch not the Feoffee Tenant in tayl in possession but the first in Remainder by the Statute the Feoffees are not bound but are remitted and Maunsells Case there is cited where one recovery is a bar to 3 several Intayls with double voucher And this is called jus extinguendi which he could not extinguish and discharge if not in him and in his power and therefore there is no cause to frame Abeyances needless and in vain but the Law allows not nor admits not but in Cases of necessity as in the vacancy of Bishops Parsons and other Ecclesiastical persons or the like Remainders to right Heirs upon Freehold abeyances are not allowed but where the original Estate required them or where the consequences of Estates and Cases do require them As for the first in Case of single Corporations Bishops Deans and Parsons which must dye and a vacancy of freehold or a Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. yet living Or Secondly in Case of congruity as if a man gives a Warranty and die his Heir in ventre sa mere may not be vouched but if there be Heir he may be vouched and a Vouchee may take and plead a Release quasi tenens or may lease a Fine to the Defendant of the Land in Question But for Estates that of their own nature and origination creation are perfect and intire as this Estate entayl is the Law permits not vain affected abeyance or fictions by the voluntary Act of the party as this to no good which should preserve a right to serve the Heir and to defraud the King which was one of the principal reasons for the making the Statute 27 of H. 8. for the transferring of uses into possession Vses being but a kind of abeyance and shift to kéep the profits to the use and defraud the King and Lords of their Escheats and them that had a right to know against whom to bring their Actions Littleton was confounded in himself when he made an abeyance of totum statum suum and yet made an Estate for life which is condemned in Walsinghams Case by the Iudges Again though fictions take place amongst common person the King is not bound by fictions and therefore the King is not bound by his remainders by recompence feigned upon a common recovery warrant collateral binds not the King but warranty with real and actual Assets nor the King is not bound by Estoppels of his own recitall certa scientia as it is in Altenwoods Case And I hold plainly that as the Land in possession is distinctly and literally given to the King so the right is as literally directly and plainly given to the King by discharge of that ancient right whereof formerly it was bound for when the Statute saith that the King should have the Lands saving the right of all persons other than the Offenders and their Heirs and such as claim to their use it is plain that the eye of the Statute was not
action upon the case lies for retaining the servant of another And by them the retainer without being testimonial which is an offence against that Law is after the years of reteiner expired For so are the words of the Statute But they said that the Information was naught because that it does not appear that the Defendant did not retain him out of the Parish where they served before For the Statute says out of the City Town or Parish c. except he have a testimonial And the words secundum formam Statuti will not aid it And in the same Village or City c. The Statute does not require a testimonial because that there it was known c. And for these reasons after here said for the Plaintiff Iudgement was stayed if c. Jennings against Cousins IEnnings brought a Replevin against Cousins who avowes for damage feasant The Plaintiff replies that post captionam ante deliberationem he tendered 3 s. which was a sufficient amends for the Trespasse and the Defendant notwithstanding detained his Cattel contra vadum pleg c. Vpon which they demurred And by the whole Court the Replication is naught For Pilkintons Case was agreed to be good Law that the tender ought to be before pounding but any time before the impounding it is sufficient But here ante deliberationem implies that the Cattel were impounded and it is not shewn in certain that the tender was before And it was agreed in trespass That the Defendant may plead the Trespass to be involuntary and disclaim in the Title without pleading the Statute of 21 Iac. for the Statute is a general Statute Whereupon Iudgement was given for the Defendant Butts against Foster THe Plaintiff in an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That whereas he was a man of good fame carriage and behaviour and free from all blot or stain Yet the Defendant with purpose to draw his life in Question and traduce him amongst his Neighbours in presentia multorum c. crimen felonae ei imposuit ea occasione illum arrestari causavit et per spatium duarum dierum in custodia detineri coram Iohanni Pettyman uno Justic ad pacem c. duci procuravit nequisfime prosecutus est c. The Defendant pleads not guilty which was found for the Plaintiff And Hitcham moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Action would not lie And of that opinion was Hutton because that he did not proceed to indictment For there an Action of that lies in the nature of a Conspiracy But if an Action should lie here it would be a mischievous Case for by that every man would be deterred to question any person for felony And it was said by Hutton If one said You have broken the Peace and I will cause you to be arrested and procures a Warrant from a Iustice of Peace by which he is arrested No Action here will lye But Berkley on the other side said to the contrary and of that Opinion was Richardson Chief Iustice that the Action will well lye And by Richardson The Defendant ought to have justified that there was a Felony done and that he suspected him c. But he pleads not guilty And it does not appear by the Declaration what was done with the Plaintiff after he was brought to the Iustice of Peace and by that it shall be implyed that he was dismissed upon his examination And here the Plaintiff was imprisoned and carried before a Iustice of Peace which is an act done as well as in the case where there is an Indictment And an Attourney of the Court cited one Danvers and Webly's Case In that very case it was adjudged that the Action lay But it was adjourned to another day Champues Case OUnson makes his will gives 200 l. to Tho. Champues son of Jeremie Champues Also to other Children of Ieremy 20 l. a piece to be paid at their several marriages or ages of 21 years And after wills that his Executor should enter into bond to the several parents to pay the several Legacies to the several Children at the ages of 21 years or their marriages And his Executor after his death gave an Obligation to Jeremy Champues to pay the 200 l to Thomas at his full age or marriage But in the Spiritual Court afterwards upon libell it was ordered that he pay the legacies presently Thomas being under age of tender years And for that Henden moved for a prohibition Richardson although the sute for a Legacy be properly in the Spiritual Court yet if there be an Obligation given for the payment of it it is not turned to a duty in the Common Law and then it is not tryable there This is one reason why a prohibition shall be granted Secondly another reason is because that they sentenced the payment of the Legacy against the Will and against Law and the Obligation here will not alter the case for it is given to another person not to the Legatee and then the Legatee notwithstanding the Obligation may sue in the spiritual Court But by Richardson it is all one for here the Will orders the Obligation to be made Which Hutton changing opinion and Harvey agréed For now because the Obligation is given if the sentence shall be given the party is liable to the Obligation also to perform that And by Richardson it seemed that the clause in the will of the Obligation to be entered into by the Executor to pay at the marriage or 21 years of age the several Legacies c. extends to the first Legacy of 200 l. to Thomas although it be coupled to the last Legacy which should be by a new and several Item And by that clause the intention of the Testator appears that the 200 l. which is given generally and no time of payment named It shall not be paid until marriage of 21 years of age And a prohibition was commanded to be granted NOte It was said by Richardson chief Iustice If a man had a way over the Land of another for his Cattel and upon the way he scares his cattel so that they run out of the way upon the land of the owner and the party who drives the Cattel freshly pursues them c. That in Trespasse he who had the way might plead this special matter in justification Green against Brouker and Greenstead IN Trover and reversion the Plaintiff declares That whereas he was possessed of a bag of hops and a bag of flax to the value of c. And that the Defendant found them and the third day of October converted them And the Defendants plead that Sandwich is an antient Village and that the custom of forrain attachment is used there as in London and that these goods were lost upon default in November and traverses absque hoc that they were guilty of any conversion in October Pasc 7 Car. Com. Banc. or any other time or day than the times before which are