secrets of his Clyents cause Not to disclose a Clyents cause and thereupon he was forborn to be examined Pilkinton and Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a tryal to be had at the Bar between Pilkington and Bagshaw Tryal at the Bar. the Plaintif would not put in his writ that the tryal might goe on Whereupon Roll chief Iustice bid the Cryer to call the Attorney of the Plaintif to appear and to bring in the writ upon pain of 20 l. and said Pain of 20 l. Attorney put out of the Roll. Non-sute upon the Record that if he brought it not in he should be put out of the Roll. Serjeant Maynard moved that if he brought not in the writ that the Plaintif might be called non-sute upon the Record which Roll chief Iustice answered might well be because the parties have day in Court by the Record or Roll afterwards the Sollicitor who had the writ brought it in yet Roll chief Iustice said There shall notwithstanding the writ be brought in be 20 l. fine set upon him for his trifling with the Court. The Protector and Sumner Pasch 165â— Banc. sup SErjeant Bernard moved that Sumner that appeared in Court upon his habeas corpus directed to the Kéeper of Northampton Gaol might be bailed To bail a prisoner denied for that having killed two men upon the Highway the Iury had found it Man-slaughter se defendendo Roll chief Iustice answered The Iuries conclusion is contrary to their premises Therefore let the prisoner be sent to Northampton Gaol whence he came yet that may not be for the fact was done in Peterborough Tryal Writ ad reâ—piendum and therefore he cannot be tryed at Northampton therefore let him be sent to Peterborough Gaol with a writ ad recipiendum to the Gaoler there to take charge of him Pilkington versus Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar in a Trespass and Ejectment betwixt Pilkington and Bagshaw Trespass and Ejectment the question being whether Copyhold lands may be entailed by the custom of the Manor It was said that if Tenant in tail and the issue in tail of Copyhold lands in tail joyn in a surrender in a Court Baron of the Copyhold lands Estopel Copyhold lands in tail Customary entail Fine State enjoyed Seisure of Cepyhold lands that this is not an estopel for it ought to be by fine or deed indented And Roll chief Iustice said that Copyhold lands in tail are not within the Statute of Westm 2. but it is a Customary entail like in its nature to another entail and such an estate must be docked by fine or by some other customary way It was also said by him that if Copies of Court Rolls be shewed to prove a Customary estate the enjoynment of such estates must also be proved otherwise the proof is not good It was also said upon the evidence That a seisure by the Lord made of Copyhold entailed lands within the Manor of Wakefield in Yorkshire is in the nature of a recovery to deck the entail and that the manner of doing it is either for the Copyholder to let his Copyhold for more years than he ought or to refuse to do his service and then the Lord seifes the lands for a forfeiture and grants it to another by the consent of the Copyholder that made the forfeiture It was then also said by Roll chief Iustice Custom that a Custom cannot be urged for a thing that had its beginning since Rich. the 1. if a Record can be shewed to the contrary Common recovery Recompense in value Custom Copyhold destroyed It was also said by him that a common recovery suproseth a recompence in value to all persons who lost the estate by the recovery He said also that he conceived that there could be no such Custom to cut off entails of Copyhold lands by the forfeiture and seisure of the Lord for his seisure upon the forfeiture destroys the Copy-hold estate by the Common Law for it is in the Lords election after the seisure whether he will grant the estate again or no and you do not prove that the Custom binds him to it Nota. Harris and Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved in the Case of one Harris To amend an old judgement Denied that the entry of a judgement twelve years past might be amended upon the Roll. But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be after so long time past Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a writ of Error brought to reverse a fine levied by an Infant being a Feme Covert Day to inspect an Infant The Court was moved for a day to bring in the party that levied the fine to be inspected by the Court which was granted and at the day she was brought into the Court and viewed and two witnesses deposed that she was within age at the time of the fine levied Entry upon the Roll. which was entred upon the Roll upon which the Issue was tryed Pasch 1655 Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice Election That if there be two Kinsmen in equal degree of kindred to the Intestate it is in the election of the Ordinary to which of them he will grant Letters of Administration Pasch 1655. Banc. sup AN Outlawry was reversed Outlawry reversed because the place where the County Court was held is not shewed in the secundo exactus Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was moved that there was a judgement given in the Common Pleas To affirm a judgement a writ of Error depending and thereupon the Defendant brought his writ of Error to reverse the judgement in this Court and since pending the writ of Error the partses were agréed and therefore they desired the judgement might be affirmed because that otherwise satisfaction of the judgement cannot be acknowledged upon the Roll because the Court of Common Pleas were forclosed to do any thing further upon the judgement given there by reason of the writ of Error But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be Denied for you shew no cause why we should affirm the judgement and therefore we will make no rule in it but enter satisfaction upon the Roll if you will at your own peril Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice that an Action upon the case will lie against one that brings vexatious actions against another Action upon the Case for vexation or for entring of Actions of a great value to force his adversary to put in great bail where he hath but small cause of Action Nota. Trevanian and Penhollow Trin. 1655. TRevanian brought an Action upon the case against Penhollow for speaking of these words of him Plea to an Action on the Case Thou hast taken a false Oath at the Assizes and art false forsworn The Defendant pleads that the Plaintif had agréed to accept of 3 Iuggs of Beer from him in satisfaction The Plaintif
the mony is not paid a Iudgement is obtained against White for the mony White makes his will and makes his Heir at law his Executor and dyes leaving lands to descend White as Heir brings a Writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement It was argued by the Councell of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that the Writ did lye because although the Action in the former Iudgement was but a personal Action yet in this Case the Land of the Heir may be charged by the Iudgement Heir Elegit for an elegit may be thereupon taken out to charge â—is Lands and therefore the Iudgement concerns him as Heir as well as Executor and therefore it is reason he should bring a Writ of Error to reverse the Iudgement because he may be prejudiced by it Executor And a Case in Trin. 29 Eliz. rot 631. Banc. Reg. was cited that the Heir is pridy to the Iudgement and therefore shall have a Writ of Error Error and he is not meerly terr-Tenant 13 E. 4.2 Roll Iustice the terr-Tenant sole shall not have a Writ of Error upon an extent Error And in the Case at the barr the Heir is not privy to the Iudgement and the extent is only upon him as terr-Tenant and he is not made privy to the Iudgement by the extent but after Execution he may have a Writ of Error and he said Bail the Bail cannot bring a Writ of Error upon the Iudgement given against the Principal and the same reason is here and it will be very hard to maintain this Writ of Error Adjourned to the next term Terry and Baxter Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 23 Car. rot 394. TErry brings an Action of Debt upon an Assumpsit against Baxter Demurrer upon an Dclaration in Assumpsit to stand to an award to stand to an Award The Defendant pleads nul arbitrement the Plaintiff sets forth the award and assigns a breach The Defendant demurs and for cause shews that part of the award was to pay 5 l. to the poor of the Parish of D. which was not within the submission and so the award was not good Rolle Iustice answered if the award be void to the 5 l. Award good in part i a good award awarded to be paid to the poor yet it is good to the rest for it is perfect as to the ending of all differences between them which are submitted and therefore shew cause on Monday next why judgement should not be given for the Plaintiff Morefield and VVebb Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 23 Car. rot 50. VVEbb brings an Action upon the Case against Morefield in the palace Court at Westminster Error to reverse a Iudgement in an Action upon the Case and hath a Iudgement Morefield brings a Writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgement and Assigns these Errors 1. It is not shewed in the Declaration that the cause of Action was infra jurisdictionem palatii But Rolle Iustice answered Iurisdiction that it was shewed to be infra jurisdictionem Curiae and that was good enough for the Court is alleged to be held by Letters patents Retorn A 2d Exception was that there was not fifteen dayes for the retorn of the Venire facias as there ought to be But to this Rolle Iustice also answered that the Court is held by Letters patents and therefore it may be retornable within fifteen dayes though by the usual course of the Common law it cannot And therefore ordered the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error to shew better matter otherwise Iudgement should be affirmed against him The King and Holland Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case between the King and Holland was moved again For quashing an inquisition for the King Inquisition and the Councell against the King moved that the inquisition found for the King to entitle him to the use of the Copyhold might be quashed because the King cannot be intitled to such a use because it is a thing in privity only and cited the Statute of 27 H. 8. of uses Vse and Cooks 1. rep 123 and said that the King cannot be intitled ot Copyhold lands of an Alien much lesse to the use of Copyhold lands Copyhold King VVrong Protection Trust if he should 1. The Lord would be wronged which the King ought not to do but to protect his subjects for the protection of the subject is not only matter of honour to the King but also of trust in the Crown 2ly A stranger is wronged by it 3ly The Copyholder of the Manor cannot have remedy for the injury done him Sute for he ought to sue in the Lords Court and not else where and here he cannot do it and the rule in law is de minimis non curat lex and it is much lesse for the honnour of the King to have a Copyhold estate Honour which is a base tenure But it may be objected that if the King shall not have this use he shall be in a worse condition than a subject To this it is answered that he shall be so in cases which touch his royalty and may be a disparagement to him Copyhold which indeed doth not make him in a worse condition though it may seem so but it is more for his honor and a Copyhold is an estate at the will of the Lord and ought to be protected by the Lord and the King cannot be Tenant at will to any Alien Trust and therefore cannot have a Copyhold estate and an Alien is not capable of a trust because it is a thing in Action which an Alien cannot have and therefore he cannot derive it from him Twisden for the King in his Argument considered 1. Whether the King can have a use at the Common law which is for an Alien 2. Whether a trust differs from a use for the first he said that an Alien may purchase lands Alien Praerogative and a use at the Common law but he cannot retain them therefore the King shall have them by his Praerogative and a use is not a thing in privity but is an Antient inheritance at the Common law 2ly There is no confidence annexed to cestui que use or to the Feoffor but may be disposed of 3ly Things privity in Action may be given to the King Privity and a use is an inheritance in the nature of a Chattell 4ly A use is grantable over Privity and therefore may be given to the King and the meaning of the word lost in the Statute is to be intended that it may be lost for the difficulty of finding such subtile conveyances and not that the right was really lost Trust And for a trust it is but a new name given to a use and invented to Defraud the Statute of uses and a trust of a Copyhold is all one with another trust for it is the taking of the profits of the land and not the Estate in
Hill 24. Car. rot 1062. THis case arising upon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae Argument upon the Case concerning the Manor of Callidown given to Mr. Pym. touching the title of the Manor of Callidowne being part of Sir Thomas Morgans estate that was given to Mr. Pym by Ordinance of Parliament and heretofore argued on both parts was again spoken to First by Twisden who argued for the Plaintif who said the Question is Whether the estate setled by Sir Thomas Morgan before the year 1641. be forfeited by the Act of Parliament and consequently well given to Mr. Pym or no And he said the intent of the Parliament in making this Act is first to be interpreted and he held that according to the Act no estate passeth but such estate as Morgan had in the year 1641. and no more for no man can forfeit a thing that he hath not but only that which he hath but Morgan then had not this estate and therefore he could not forfeit it 2ly There is a priority of vesting the estate in the Parliament and next from the Parliament to the Trustees and the Trustees can have no more than is forfeited to the Parliament and the estate setled before the year 1641. is not forfeited to the Parliament 3ly The penning of the Act is considerable The Act saith all the said lands that is all the said lands that Morgan had in the yeart 1641. and not all the lands that Morgan ever had before that time and had setled for the precedent words are restrained by the words subsequent Althams case 8 Rep. Dyer 369. and from the preamble of the Act to make a construction to punish innocent persons is against the Law of God Man and Nature Nichols case f. 398. Of rewards and punishments consist the essence of Commonwealths and it could not be the intent of the Parliament to punish innocent persons 3 Ed. 4. 2. The Parliament did not intend to give more of Morgans estate than what he had 1641. for then they might give that which might be evicted which they intended not And whereas it is objected that there is a clause of Revocation in Morgans settlement and so the estate was not absolutely setled It is answered That notwithstanding this power of Revocation the estate is not given by this Act unto Pym for it cannot give a power 7 Rep. 13. and a power cannot be forfeited and Mary Morgan had an interest in the land notwithstanding the power of Revocation And notwithstanding there is no saving for Mary yet the estate is not passed for Mary Morgan is not intended to be punished Nichols case Com. f. 483. and so there needs no saving for her 14 H. 8. f. 2. and it cannot be intended because there is no saving for her that therefore she shall forfeit her estate and the saving is not therefore idle for it hath an operation another way The saving is not intended of the estate of a Collateral Auncestor only for this is the begging of the question for the saving saves not any thing and the penning of the words are against this exposition and so he concluded that nothing was given by the Statute to Mr. Pym but the estate of Morgan which he had in the year 1641 and prayed judgement for the Plaintif Steel the Recorder of London for the Defendant said he would only answer the argument of Twisden because he had heard no other arguments And first he held that the Ordinance reaches all the estates that Morgan had as well before as at the time 1641. and the estate setled by Morgan before 1641. was the estate of Thomas Morgan in the year 1641. 2ly The lands are expresly named which are given by the Statute it is not material who hath the estate in them for certitudo nominis tollit demonstrationem Dowbey and Dudingtons case and Mildmayes case 1 Rep. do interpret how the word others shall be interpreted And here cannot be said to be any injustice in the Parliament The Question here is Whether the estate be setled by the Parliament and if it be setled it would be a supposition of injustice to suppose it is not rightly done The Law hath invested the Parliament with a power to dispose of all lands and therefore it cannot be intended injustice And the estate is not in Mary Morgan notwithstanding the Conveyance because there is a clause of Revocation in it for it is a void Conveyance as to her estate by reason of the clause of Revocation for that makes it fraudulent And the estate of Mary Morgan is not passed by the Statute notwithstanding the clause of eviction in the Ordinance an if or an an are no saving of an estate and here is no eviction in the case and here is no saving otherwise their estate cannot be saved for then the lands are all passed And the saving extends to the lands descended to the Children of Thomas Morgan from Collateral Ancestors and not from Tho. Morgan the Father and as reasonable a Construction ought to be made of an Ordinance of Parliament as this is as of an Act of Parliament and so he praid Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said He did not doubt of the power of the Parliament in this case but of their meaning whether they intended these lands should be forfeited or not And the Ordinance was made by the House of Commons without any proviso in it and the proviso was put in by the House of Lords and he enclined that Mary Morgans estate was saved But Jerman Iustice said he conteived that Maries estate was not saved but only the estate of strangers The Court was divided and said they would consider till next Term and then give Iudgement in this and the Case of Garret and Blizard Quaere What Iudgement was given in both cases for I was not in Court at the day they were spoken to again Vincent against VVallis Hill 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 966. rot 906. IN a Replevin for distraining of Cattel the Defendant emparled A Demurrer to a plea in a replevin after imparlance and afterwards pleaded that the lands are antient Demesne where the distress was taken and to this plea the Plaintif demurred Serjeant Parker for the Plaintif and against the Demurrer held that the plea is not to be admitted because that the party hath made his defence Plea and cannot therefore afterwards plead to the jurisdiction of the Court and cited 11 H. 4. f. 47. 2 H. 7. f. 17 b. That freehold only is to be sued for in antient Demesne And 2ly the plea is not sufficient for it doth not appear that the lands are held of the Manor but only are parcel of the Manor and such lands are pleadable in other Courts 20 H. 6. Nat. Brev. 11 M. 41 Ed. 3. 3ly It is not said that the lande are pleadable by Writ of Droit Close which ought to be 2 H. 7. f. 17. 3 H. 6. f.
judgement in a trover and conversion Prestwood moved that the record is not certified for it is returned by one who is not Iudge there Abatement for it is returned by the Maior Aldermen and Deputy-recorder whereas the writ of Error was to return a record before the Maior Aldermen and Recorder 1 E. 5. f. 3. Jordan and Tompkins case 1648. Upon this the writ of Error was abated Wats against Dix Hill 1649. Banc. sup Trin. 24. Car. rot 1529. THis case was again argued Argument whether a lease well made according to direction of Deed in trust by Hales for the Plaintif and by Twisden for the Defendant I could not hear Hales but imperfectly Therefore I omit his Argument Twisden that argued for the Defendant put the case briefly thus A Feofment was made of lands to I. S. in fee until he should make a lease of 21 years to A. B. from the feast of Philip and Iacob I. S. makes a lease for 21 years to begin at the feast of Philip and Iacob And he held this was a good Lease made according to the direction of the Deed. 2ly If it be not a good Lease yet the use shall not revert to the Feoffor 3ly He held that there is neither a good bargain and sale nor doth it work by way of use For the first point he held if it had been by way of pleading it had not been good in pursuance of the Agreement otherwise it is being found by verdict but here the agreement and the intention of the parties is satisfied and the variance is not considerable de minimis non curat lex 10 Iac. Hob. f. 120. 38 E. 3. f. 7. Waste 35. 2ly In the Iudgement and estimation of men at and from are accompted to be all one in signification In the Stat. of 32 H. 8. it is so taken and in the Stat. of 27 H. 8. of enrollments and words shall be construed according to common intendment And if there be a variance yet the use rests in the Feoffees and shall not revert to the Feoffor for the word until is an Adverb of time Borastons case Sir Andrew Corbets case â—1 Rep. f. 85. Dyer 300. 3 Eliz. Mores Reports 3 Iac. Sir Guy Fairfax case if they make not the estate the estate remains in them And if it do not remain in the Feoffees yet it cannot revert to the Feoffor for he hath conveyed from himself all the estate that he had and if it return to the Feoffor it is a disseisin 2 Rep. Butlers case And for the bargain and sale that cannot be good for here is no Consideration but that which is past and not continuing which is no good Consideration Plow Com. 302.15 Car. Burton and Sherly 2ly The Consideration if there be any is not meritorious for ought any thing appears the monies may not be discharged which are laid out and so the Defendant remains unsatisffed and so there can be no Consideration Allens case 23 Car. 3ly If the debt be discharged yet it cannot raise a use for here is no monies paid but a debt And a use is not raised here because it was the intent of the parties to pass the land by way of bargain and sale Ed. Foxes case 13 Eliz. Plowd 32. 11 Car. Whitfield and Pierce rot 438. And if one intend to pass an estate out of himself he may do it either by the Common law or by Statute law Roll chief Iustice said if lands are passed for money only the déed ought to be enrolled but if it be for money and natural affection Enrollment Vse it is not needfull to enroll it but the lands will pass without enrolment And so here the land passes one way or other and if the use will rise all the other points are out of dores And there is here a continuing consideration to raise a use But the main question is whether the use riseth to the Feoffor if not all the other points are gone And he held that here was only a meer matter of trust the intent is not that the Feoffees shall have any thing by the not performing the trust but the use shall be to the Feoffor And there can be no disseisin in the case And here is a material difference in point of law in the making of this lease Lease for it is made for one day more then was agreed by the deed for that lease was to begin from the feast of Philip and Iacob and this lease is made to be begin at the Feast of Philip and Iacob Ierman Iustice held that the intent of the parties is performed and that there is no material difference and held for the Defendant Nicholas Iustice said here is no performance of the agreement for all the parties agreed not to this Lease for it is made for longer time than was agreed and he held that the use shall be to the other parties by contingency and that here is no disseisin Ask Iustice said all the difficulty is whether the lease be made or not and he held it was a good lease according to the agreement and said that the intent is not that the Feoffees shall have any thing but that it shall result to the Feoffor Roll chief Iustice said Intent the intent of the parties shall not be implyed against the direct rules of Law Nil capiat per Billam nisi c. Pendarvis against Dawkes Hill 1649. Banc. reg PEndarvis brought an Action of Accompt against Dawkes for divers sums of mony as his receiver Arrest of Iudgement in Accompt The Defendant pleads that as to all except ten pounds ne unques receptor upon this an issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that it doth not appear what ten pounds they are that are menrioned in the plea and so it is incertain whether they be part of the monies for which the Action is brought Roll chief Iustice said he ought to have expressed what ten pounds it is for as it is it is incertain and so not good Venire de novo Therefore take a venire facias de novo for though the issue be not well joyned yet the Declaration is good Cowley against Locton Hill 1649. Banc. reg Trin. 24 Car. rot 932. IN a writ of Error to reverse a judgement given in an Action of Debt upon an Obligation the case was this Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement ment in Debt One was bound in an Obligation for the payment of certain sums of money to a Feme sole the Feme takes Baron and dies I. S. takes out Letters of Administration of the goods and Chattels of the Feme and brings an Action of Debt upon the Obligation against the Obligor The Obligor pleads that by the entermariage of the Feme the Debt due upon the Obligation became due to the Baron and demands Iudgement Si Actio Chose in Action To this Plea the
is a Iudgement well given Plea and it is too late to assign it for Error But the Court advised Postea Kerman against Iohnson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 153. KErman brought an Action of Trespass and Ejectment against Johnson Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectment and upon a special Verdict found the Case was this A man devised to I. S. his whole estate paying his debts and Legacies and dies possessed of Goods and Chattels to the value of five pounds only and dyed also seised in fee of divers lands and was indebted forty pounds at the time of his death The question was whether the lands passed by the Devise Barry of Councel with the Plaintif argued that the lands did pass because that wills ought to receive a favourable construction And 2ly The intent of the Testator is to be considered who by the words all his estate did mean to comprehend as well his land as his goods and chattels for there is no restraint of the words here 7 Ed. 3.10 The word estate is a word of large extent and extends as well to the real as personal estate if it were in Case of grant much more in the case of a Will And there is another word used here to explain the Testators meaning to be to devise his lands as well as his goods and that is the word All which comprehends all manner of estates without exception Next if the land should not pass his debts and Legacies cannot be paid according to the express intent of the Testator and the intent of the party ought to be satisfied although the words be not proper because it is in a will though it might be other wise in a grant And whereas it is objected that the Iuries finding of the value of the debts and Legacies is to no purpose because the will cannot be helped by the averment of the Iury. I answer that averments if they stand with the will may be received to make the Testators intent to appear But besides this is not an averment only but a true stating of the Case to the intent to find out the Testators meaning 3ly The devisee of the land is not made Executor but Trustee or Devisee this is since the Statute of Devises 32 H. 8. The 2. question is what estate the Devisee hath in the lands I conceive he hath Fee simple because he hath all the Estate which must be the largest and that is Fee-simple Hob. rep pl. 280. The word whole goes both to the quantity and quality of an estate also And here the consideration that he is to pay all his Debts and Legacies is a good consideration to pass the fee-simple of his lands and though there may be a surplusage after the Debts and Legacies paid this hinders nothing for it is his intent that the Devisee shall have that surplusage and so he prayed Iudgement for the Plaintif Twisden for the Defendant argued that either nothing passeth by the Will or if any thing then only an estate for life passeth He agreed that improper words may sometimes pais things yet sometimes proper words will not passe things viz. if the intent of the party appear to be contrary 24 Eliz in the Earl of Northumberlands case A Devise of all his Iewels did not pass his Collar of Esses and his Iewels annexed to his Parliament Robes and the words here are not that he deviseth all his estate in his lands but his whole estate generally and if the words here should pass the lands yet the fee simple passeth not but only an estate for life in the lands which do pass nor do the words paying his Debts and Legacies cause the Fee-simple to pass for here is no likelyhood of any loss to the Executor for the words are not that he shall pay all his Debts and Legacies and if he be an Executor as the contrary appears not he shall not be charged with more than the personal estate will discharge The words do amount to a Condition and it is not found that there are any Debts or Legacies paid and so it is not performed and the heir may well enter into the lands in question for the Condition broken 2ly The Verdict doth not find how the lands are held whether in Socage or by Knights service and so it appears not whether they can be devised or no and they shall not be intended to be Socage lands Dyer f. 207. Hill 32 El. rot 2. and Pell and Browns case 3ly It is not found that the Testator dyed seised of the lands as it ought to have been and he prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Special Verdict Roll. chief Iustice to the second Exception to the Verdict answered that in a Special verdict it is not necessary to find whether lands be held in Sorage or by Knights Service and he said that the words in the Will do goe to the nature and extent of the estate as Barry urged and he doubted how the verdict shall supply the Will if it be defective for that is only to make the intent of the Will certain Adjourned to be argued again Postea Marshal against Ledsham Trin. 1651. Banc. sup MArshal as Administrator brings an Action of Debt for rent Arrest of Judgement in Debt and upon a Verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and takes exception that the Plaintif had not shewn by whom the Letters of Administration were granted unto him as he ought to do but only says that the Administration debito more commissa fuit But it was answered that it is too late to move this Exception after a Verdict for the Iury have now found that the Administration was duly granted and the Letters of Administration were produced in Court and therefore not necessary to shew who granted them Declaration and it was said that in a Declaration it is not necessary to shew by whom Letters of Administration are granted or to say they were granted by him Cui pertinuit or per loci illius Ordinarium But in a Plea in Bar it is otherwise for this is not the cause of the Action Plea and effect of the sute but to shew they have been in the Spiritual Court Judicium nisi pro quaerente was afterwards given Antea Giles against Timberley Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 176. AN Ejectione firmae vi et armis was brought in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgement in an Ejectione firmae and a judgement given for the Plaintif upon a nihil dicit and in a writ of Error brought in this Court to reverse the judgement the Error assigned was in the judgement which was entred thus Ideo consideratum est quod recuperet and the word Capiatur was omitted which ought not to be because the Action is a Trespass vi et armis Roll chief Iustice said It is an ill course they use in the Common Pleas to enter
the Arbitrators have all of it to agree in and till it is ended the Vmpire hath no power at all otherwise the submission would be repugnant in it self The rest of the Iudges concurred in all and so ruled That the Plaintif all capiat per billam nisi Theoballs against Newton Mich. 1651. Banc. sup ONe was sued upon the Statute of Inmates and the distringas jurata bare date on a Sunday and out of Term and so is erronious The question here was whether it be not helped by the Statutes of Ieofails of 18 Eliz. and 21 Iac. Roll chief Iustice held Ieofails that the Statutes extend not to penal Laws although it be ambiguously penned nor to any processes grounded upon them for the Proviso exempts the Original action and by consequence all processes depending upon it are excepted Venire de novo so that here is no good tryal but there shall be a venire de novo nisi Tayler and Webb Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Case of Tayler and Webb which arose upon a special verdict upon these words of Will Special Verdict upon the words of a Will viz. I make my Cosen Giles Bridges my soll ayere and yexecutor was again moved and argued by Hales and he made three questions 1. Whether any estate passeth by the words of the will 2ly If any what estate passeth 3ly Whether the false Orthography doth hurt the Will For the first he said that by making one his sole heir his land passeth to him The word heir is to be considered either in relation to an Ancestor and so one cannot make one his heir or it may be considered in relation to a thing to be inherited to wit lands or tenements and so one may make another his heir and thus a Custom may make one a mans heir as it is in Borough English and an accident may thus also make one a mans heir as it is in the Case of possessio fratris Coundens case Hob. Rep. Case 947. And here it is all one to make one his heir and to make hint heir of hislands and the reasons are First the word heir here cannot have any other relation than to the Testators lands for he cannot make him his heir otherwise and the words may be more reasonably intended so 2ly The words carry in them the plain intention of the Devisor that the party should have his lands although the words are not very proper â— H. 7. A devise of lands to his son after the death of his wife passed an Estate for life to the wife although no such Estate was expressed in the Will so here although no expresse Estate of land be devised yet the Devisee shall have the lands by the intent of the Devisor 3ly In ordinary speech if one make such an one his Heir it is intended that he gives him his lands 8 Car. in the C. B. in Spurt and Bents case A devise of his inheritance was held a devise of his lands and Trin. 3. Iac. in Terryes case A devise of all his rents in tayl passed his lands because in vulgar acceptance it is the rents of lands and in Pits and Sands case in this Court A devise of all his free lands in Holford did passe a portion of Tithes and in the case of one Iohnson a devise of all his estate passed all his lands And the words cannot bear the fence to make him Executor according to the Civill Law as hath been objected for the Will shall be intended as it is to be an English mans Will and so the word Heir in it shall he interpreted according to out Law and not the Civill Law and even in the Civill law to make one his Heir doth convey unto him all his lands for he is haeres testamentarius although not haeres legitimus And in this Will here are two expressions for the party is made Heir and Executor which two words cannot signifie one thing for that would be an idle expression 4ly There are some clauses in the Will which shew the intent of the Testator was to convey his lands if it were needful to make use of them 1. There are several annuities for the Devisee to pay 2ly He directs him where the conveyances and assurances of his lands were laid up which plainly shew he meant he should have his land 3ly The words Heir and Executor are joyned together to shew that he gives him all his lands and goods else one of the words must be imperfect and ineffectual which shall not be intended For Authority 7 E. 6. Br. devise 38. by devising that one Son shall be Heir to the other it shall be intended of lands so in construction of law it shall be here intended that the Devisor made him Heir of his lands Hob. Reports in Sparkes and Burnells case William and Anthony shall be each others Heir and it is not said of land yet adjudged that it shall be so meant and so is it in our case and if I have lands in see simple and make one my heir it shall be intended that he shall have my lands in see simple although I say not that I make him Heir of my lands For the second question the reasons before expressed do also shew that the lands are passed in Fee as it is in Purnells and Hambletons case for the word Heir shall relate to the same Estate that the party had in the land who makes the other his Heir 8 Iac. Inkersals case For the 3d point whether here shall be any good devise at all by reason of the false English he said it was all one and to as good effect as if the words were all true English and neither the incongruity nor the insufficiency of the words shall hurt the Will as it is pretended For 1. This is not in case of pleading or of writs but in conveyance of lands It is true that in the former it doth hurt because writs and pleadings may be amended if they be naught but it is fatal in conveyances for they cannot be amended as in Trotman and Standards case Trin. 1651. in this Court it was held that impropriety of words shall not hurt it they can admit of a good construction Desinet in piscem mulier formosa superne 2ly This is in a Will which is such an instrument that is much favoured in Law and therefore to be favourably construed 3ly This is an English Will and admits of much variety of dialects and therefore is not to be critically interpreted Neither are there here any insignificant or missignificant words as hath been objected but significant for the sound of the word as it is written is the same as if it had been rightly spelled for Ayer and Heir sound both alike As in 3 H. 4. f. 4 Baxter and Baxster sounded alike 2ly If the word Heir might receive any other sence yet it cannot do so here because there are other words joyned to it to declare and signifie that the
for another man he had unwillingly committed a Trespass against the Plaintif in taking away 2 or 3 wheele-barroughs of Earth of the Plaintifs soil and therefore it was prayed that the matter might be referred to the Secondary to tax the damages and Costs for the Trespass which he was ready to pay that the proceedings might be stayed But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be but you may confess the Action Reference He le against Green Hill 1651. Banc. sup IN an Ejectione firmae a special Verdict was found upon which the Case fell out to be this A man being Lessee of a Manor for 199 years Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmae deviseth the Term to his wife for life with power to make such estates in as ample manner as he himself might have done during her life and the remainder in Tall to his Daughter and dies the Feme proves the Will and accepts of the Legacy and after makes a Lease for 99 years and dies and the daughter brings an Ejectione firmae against the Lessee of the Feme The question was whether this Lease made by the Feme were a good Lease or not Merifield argued that the Lease was not good after the death of the Feme because she having but an estate for life Lease and the Lease for 99 years being derived out of it when the estate for life ends the estate derived out of it must end also And 2ly If the Feme had any power to dispose of any part of the Term longer than for her life by the same reason she might have disposed of all of it which cannot be intended for the Testator did not mean that she should have power to destroy the Entayl made upon his Daughter And as to the Objection that she hath dissposed of but part of the Term and therefore hath not destroyed the Entayl I answer It matters not what she hath done but what she might have done for by the same reason that she disposed of part she might have disposed of the whole The rest of the Argument I could not hear Henage Finch on the other side argued That the Lease made by the Feme continues after her death because the Feme had a power given her to make such a Lease and by vertue of that power the Lease continues for the power given unto her relates to the Estates to be made by her and not to the continuance of her life And here the intent of the Testator is to be considered which was that his wife should have the power to dispose of all the Term if she would for he trusted her with it because she was his Wife and Mother of his Daughter to whom the Entayl was made and the very subject matter shews his intent to be so and because there is no other power expressed against this in any other part of the Will and the words that give her this power would be idle and trifling if they should receive any other Construction 2 Car. Banc. Reg. Danyel and Ogleys case and Gibs and Whites case 1 Car. nor does the assent of the Feme to the Legacy to have the Term for life destroy her power to make estates 2ly She hath well executed this power for the Iury have found that it is the Lease of the Feme 9 Iac. Suckham and Hawkins case a power given to an Executor may be executed by parts Roll chief Iustice held Lease the Lease was good for a Will ought to be so interpreted that all the parts of it may stand together and if the Feme here have not power to make this Lease the Clause of giving her this Lease is idle and the meaning is so without doubt the Feme hath the sole estate in Law in her and the power given here is but a restoring to her of that which she had before by the Law and her consenting to the Legacy doth not take away her power to make Estates And this limited power and the remainder to his daughter may stand together for it might be that the wife would not make such a lease and then the daughter should have had the land in tayl but if she dispose of it the daughter shall not have it Ierman as Roll. Nicholas Iustice held that the Feme could only dispose of the land during her life and that the Testators intent by the words was that the Feme should not be tyed to occupy the lands her self during her life but might dispose of them Ask as Nicholas that she can dispose of the lands only during her life for the power is only given during her life and this interpetation will make all parts of the Will stand together better than the other interpretation Adjourned Antea Dekins against Latham Hill 1651. Banc. sup Entred Hill 22 Car. rot 946. IN an ejectione firmae a special verdict was found Special verdict in an ejectione firmae upon which the Case fell out to be this One seised of lands covenanted to levy a fine to the use of himself and his wife for life and after he leased the lands for 21 years for 3 l. rent per annum by equal portions and after the death of I.S. to pay a gross sum of 125 l. by way of fine payable by 5 l. a year quarterly with a proviso in the Indenture that for default of payment of the rent or fine or for want of reparations it should be lawfull for the Lessor to re-enter After the Lessor levyes a fine and assigneth over his interest in the reversion The question here was whether the condition of entry be transferred over to the Assignee by the transferring over of the reversion Hales of councell with the Plaintiff held that the lease proceeds from the Husband only and not from the Baron and Feme and the condition is transferred over for the condition runs joyntly as well to the fine reserved as to the rent and is as it were a several condition in Law although it be comprised but in one clause and not several clauses and the condition as to the rent is transferred though not as to the fine In 19 E 4. f. 7. The law makes a several distribution of one praecipe and so may it do here of one condition and Rawlins case in the â— rep cited against this comes not to this case for there the question was of the suspension of a condition but here it is of the transferring over of a condition 2ly If it be but one condition yet it is well transferred by the Statute of 32 H. 8. C. â—4 an extinguishment in part is not extinguishment of all although a suspension of part be a suspension of all and the Grantee of the reversion shall have advantage of the condition because 1. He is within the words of the condition as to the condition 2ly The clause of re-entry is within the words of the Statute and Knights case objected comes not to this case for there
one as if the party had appeared for if he had appeared the Case would have béen otherwise So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi c. Pasch 1652. Banc. sup MEmorandum One brought by Habeas Corpus from the Fleet remaâ—â—ed One was brought into the Court by the Mareschall of the Fléet by vertue of a habeas Corpus directed to him out of this Court and because it did appear upon Record that the party was charged with divers debts when he was turned over to the Fleet he was not suffered to put in Bail here but was remanded Gossage against Tayler Pasch 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 117. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease for years of a Messuage Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectrueâ—â— and certain lands in Hatfield Broad-Oak in the County of Essex upon a special verdict found the case fell out to be this Rich. Frank seised amongst other lands and Tenements of the Messuage and lands in question upon the mariage of his Son Leventhorp Frank with Susan Cotele levies a fine of the lands to the use of himself during his own life and the life of Leventhorp his Son and after during the life of Susanna Cotele the wife of Leventhorp the remainder to the use of the heirs to be begotten upon the body of Susanna by Leventhorp her Husband The question here was whether the word heirs shall be intended the heirs of Leventhorp and Susanna his wife or whether the estate shall be intended to be limited to the heirs of Susanna only and that Leventhorp shall have barely an estate for life in the lands Serjeant Glyn of Councel with the Plaintif held That Susanna Cotele hath an estate tayl executed in the lands and that the word heirs shall relate only to the heirs of Susanna and not to the heirs of Leventhorp 1. Because that here is an estate limited for life unto Susanna by an express limitation and her heirs shall take immediately after the estate for life ended and they shall not come in as purchasors By express Terms the word heirs is not limited to any person but it is left to the construction of the Law and that doth apply it to Susanna as to a person to whom Richard that setled the lands hath expressed most affection as appears by the Deed Lit. f. 6. Sect. 28. There is an expression of the party to whom the word heirs shall relate but so is not here and therefore the cases differ In 3 Ed. 3. f. 31 32. It is ruled that both parties have an estate tayl because the estate is limited to both but so it is not in our case so those books are not against me In our case it doth not appear that Richard did intend to advance the Husband of Susanna and therefore it is not reason that the word heirs should relate to him but to Susanna his wife only for in case of limitation of estates the intention of the party is to be considered and doth direct the matter and the preceding limiting of the estate to Susanna and not to Leventhorp doth shew that the party did mean to promote the heirs of Susanna Lit. Sect. 27. Dyer 27. A second reason is drawn from the penning of the déed which in the limitation of it doth encline more that the word heirs should be applyed to Susanna than to Leventhorp for the words upon her is as much as to say of her and then it is the same case with Littletons case 3ly The Intention of the Donor appears to be such by the circumstances of the entire limitations which do shew that he did intend that Leventhorp should not have such an estate whereby it should be in his power to deprive his issue and therefore the word heirs are to be applyed to Susanna and not to Leventhorp for if it should be applyed to both then Leventhorp might destroy the estate of the issue contrary to the Donors intent And whereas Dyer 99 is objected against me I answer that case is not against me for there the word heirs is expresly limited to a certain person viz. to the heirs of the body of both of them but so it is not in our case and whereas Hill 13 Iac. Lane and Panels case in this Court is also objected against me I answer that that case is in effect the same case with Dyer and the question in our case came not in dispute And the will of the Donor in deeds is to be ohserved Lit. 22. C. Tayl. 1. rep Shelleys case 103. 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding in gifts in tayl this rule holds not so that a gift in tayl may be limsted contrary to the rule of the Common Law And I know not of any authority in print or writing against me but in 13 Ed. 3. Fitz. tit variance 81 there is an expresse authority for me and 4 H. 4. Fitz. br 448. in my experience I have known many estates limited as this is in the Southern parts held good estates tayl if it should be otherwise many estates would be shaken Roll chief Iustice We have delivered our opinions before against you viz. that it was not the meaning of the donour to apply the word Heirs to the body of Susanna only for this construction would offer violence unto the words as appears by Littleton who interprets that they are to be applyed to the Heirs of both the partyes and your reason is founded upon a wrong ground and expresly against Litletons case and for your second reason it is of no waight for the words are all one as if he had said to the Heirs of the Husband and wife begotten upon the wife 3ly We are not to frame a meaning against plain words which shew the Donors intent to be against you And the Baron cannot Bar the Estate tayl as you suppose Tayl. for the Feme hath an Estate for life and if she survive she may revive the remaining Estate and we must not consider of inconveniences which possibly may happen against the expresse words of the deed and the multitude of conveyances made in this manner are of no force to alter the Law Ierman Iustice as Roll. That the word Heirs shall be applyed to the Heirs of both partyes because voluntas donatoris secundum formam chartae expressa est observanda Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Garland against Yarrow Pasc 1652. Banc. sup THis case being in arrest of Iudgement formerly spoken unto in an Action upon the case for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Act on for words you are a knave and keep a Bawdy house was again moved by Christ Turner who held that the words are not actionable 1. Because they are of spiritual cognisance 2ly It is not said that he kept a common Bawdy house 3ly here is no special damage laid 10 Car. These words he is a pimp adjudged not actionable in Lewis and Whittons case 4ly It is not alleged that he
mony and thereupon the Defendant moved to have the moniés out of Court Roll chief Iustice Peremptory The Plaintiff hath lost his mony â—y this verdict therefore let him shew cause why the Defendant should not have them for it is peremptory to the Plaintiff Franklin Mich. 1653. Banc. sup IN an Action of Accompt the Defendant was adjudged to accompt Motion for Merchants to be joyned to Auditors assigned to receive an accompt and Auditors were assigned The Court was moved that they would order to joyn some Merchants to the Attorneys on either side to help them to mannage the Accompt because the Attorneys were not skilfull in such businesses Roll chief Iustice We can make no rule for this but you may by consent advise with Merchants to assist you in drawing up the Accompts Mich. 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice One burned in the hand may be a Witness one that hath been burned in the hand for Felony may notwithstanding be a witness in a Cause for he is in a capacity to purchase Lands and his fault is purged by his punishment Townsend and Barker Mich. 1653. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 743. TOwnsend brought an Action upon the Case against Barker Arrest of judgement in an action for words that had béen a Copartner with him in trade for speaking these words of him You are a cosening Knave and did cosen me of 1200 l. at one time and that was in making an accompt in the year 1648. Vpon a verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because though they he spoken of a Tradesman yet they are not spoken of him in reference to his Trade but in reference to an Accompt and although by way of reduction and consequence they may reflect upon his honesty yet they are not actionable and though his reputation be impaired by speaking them yet he cannot be endicted for cosening in his Trade by reason of them because they are spoken of a singular and particular abuse and not of a general cosening used in his Trade and an Action upon the Case lies not for words which are only scandalous by way of reduction and if the words should hinder the party to get a Partner hereafter to trade with him yet he may use his Trade and so cannot be prejudiced nor are the words that he cheated him but that he cosened him which are not of so violent a construction Wild on the other side said that here is a Partnership which is necessary to the driving of a Trade and without which it cannot be so well driven and the Accompt is incident to all Partnerships and prayed for Iudgement Roll chief Iustice If the Copartnership continued the words were actionable without doubt for then they must be spoken of him in the way of his Trade Case but here the Partnership being ended makes the matter more considerable but yet as it is the words are scandalous and may hinder him from getting a Partner for the time to come and it may be he cannot mannage his Trade without a Partner and although an Accompt be a private thing yet the Plaintiff is disgraced by the speaking of the words and none will deal with a man that will cosen his own Partner and we must countenance Trade and Traffique and mens credits and the Accompt is not so collateral a thing to trade as Hales objects as is the hiring of a shop to trade in or the like German Iustice ad idem and said that Copartnership is necessary to support Trade and the keeping of a true Accompt is the principal thing between Partners Nicholas and Ask Iustices ad idem Judicium nisi pro querente Bird and Christopher Mich. 1653. Banc. sup IN this Case upon giving of an evidence in a Trespass and Ejectment Extinguishment of a Proviso in a Deed. it was said by Roll chief Iustice that if I do enfeoff I. S. with a Proviso contained in the Deed that it shall be lawfull for me to revoke this Feoffment and afterwards I levy a fine to I. S. of the same Land this is an extinguishment of the Proviso of revocation Olive and Tong. Mich. 1653. Banc. sup Trin. 1651. rot 1426. Vpon a special Verdict in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment Special Verdict in a Trespass and Ejectment the Case in effect was this One whose Sirname was Mills seised of gavelkind-Gavelkind-lands in Kent in fee by his last Will and Testament devised these Lands to Elizabeth his Daughter in tayl with a Proviso in the Will that if his Daughter Elizabeth did mary one of his own Sirname that then she should have the Lands in fee-simple Elizabeth maried one whose Sirname was Mill but commonly called and known by the name Mills also The question was whether she had maried one of such a Sirname whereâ—â— according to the Proviso in the Will she had a fee-simple in the Lands â—evised unto her or whether his Sirname should be accompted a distinct name from the Testators so that Elizabeth by the Will could only have an Estate in tayl in the Lands devised unto her It was argued first that the name Mill and Mills shall not be said to be one and the same name no more than if she had maried one of a clear differing Sirname in sound yet commonly called also Mills could she have been said to have maried one of his own Sirname and the Proviso here is not a particular pointing out of the person whom his Daughter should mary but a general limitation directing her to mary one of his own Sirname and this ought to have been punctually followed because the name was used to induce the affection of the Devisor to enlarge the estate given by him If he had devised his Land to his Daughter E. if she shall mary a Protestant or an Earl she must mary one that is really so and not one called or only reputed so And as to the objection that this construction would make contrariety in the Will which is not to be admitted this will not be if the Will be taken compositive as it is penned or together and not abstractive and taken to pieces and if it should not be intended that she should mary one who in truth was of his name there would be a contradiction in the Will and here is an Emphasis in the word Own which must be meant his real name and not of a reputative name Roll chief Iustice If a Iuror be retorned by the name of Mills and is sworn by the name of Mill shall this be a mistryal quasi non and the words found alike as Baxter and Backster At an other day the Case was put again by Hales and argued for the Plaintiff and he made divers points in the Case but I could not well hear him but the only point insisted on was the point formerly spoken to and the sum of his Argument was that we are in
the goods were found by the Baron and Feme and were converted ad usum suum whereas it ought to be in the plural number to wit ad usum eorum or ad usum of Pew and his wife for as it was it supposed the Conversion to be made only by the Husband which is contrary to the Action it self which is brought against both Upon this Iudgement was stayed till the other should move Long and Bennet 23 Car. Banc. Reg. LOng brings an Action upon the Case against Bennet and declares that he would not suffer him to take unum Acrum ligni which he had sold to him in such a place Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Declaration ought to have been unum Acrum bosci and not ligni for that was uncertain The Court said they would Advise of the exception Declaration because it was in an Action of the Case The same Term Iudgement was given because Damages only were to be recovered and the words used were but inducements to describe the thing for which Damages only were demanded yet it might have been more properly expressed Barker and Martyn Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brings an Action of Trespasse Arrest of Iudgement in an Actâ—on of Trespass and declares against the Defendant for breaking his house and taking away quinque Instrumenta ferrea Anglice Fetters and a verdict was for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the word Instrumentum is not a word that signifies Fetters but that it is so general a word that it may expresse any other thing as well and that the Anglice joyned with it to interpret what it means cannot help it because there is a proper Latin word which might and ought to have been used to expresse Fetters by Rolle Iustice said that by the Statute all pleadings ought to be in Latine Pleadings and every particular thing therein ought to be expressed by a Latin word if there be a proper Latin word for it as here there is and therefore the proper Latin word being not used but another which cannot signifie the thing the Anglice doth no good but part of the Declaration shall be judged to be in English and so it cannot be good And judgement thereupon was stayed till the other sould move Curtice and Columbine Pasc 23. Car. Banc. Reg. Mich. 22 Car. rot 433. CUrtice brings an Action upon the Case against Columbine upon an Assumpsit by paroll to find meat drink lodging Error to reverse a Iudgement in an Action upon an Assumpsiâ—â— c. for the Plaintiff and to teach him the trade of a mercer This agreemet was afterwards by consent of both partyes put into writing Vpon the tryal the Plaintiff obteins a Verdict upon the paroll agreement and hath Iudgement thereupon The Defendant brings his Writ of Error in this Court and Assignes for Error that there was no Assumpsit declared upon or proved sufficient to warrant the Verdict and Iudgement because that by reducing the Agreement to writing the paroll agreement became ipso facto void and so no Action could be brought upon it but it ought to have been brought upon the Agreement expressed in the deed and the issue ought to have been joyned upon that and not upon the verball Agreement which is void The rule of Court was to shew cause why Iudgement should not be reversed Barker and Martin Pasc 23 Car. B. R. BArker brings an Action of Trespass for an Assault and Battery against Martin simul cum Arrest of Iudgement in Trespasse c. and hath a Verdict against him It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Action ought to have been brought particularly against the other Trespassors together with the Defendant and not against the Defendant in particular with a general simul cum against the rest which is uncertain and signifies nothing against the rest and the rather because the Action is commenced by bill and not by original although it could not be good though it were by original but it was said by Rolle Iustice that it may be the Plaintiff could not Arrest the other Trespassors Trespasse and that he will do it when he can and that he may well proceed against them at divers times as he can take them but that whensoever he shall have had satisfaction for the Trespass done him from any one of them he cannot proceed against any of the rest and it was ruled that Iudgement should be entred Cook and Allen. Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. A Iudgement given in an inferior Court was reversed in this Court Iudgement reversed because the Venire was ill inferior Court Common pleas because the Venire was Venire facias c. and did not shew from what place the Venire should bee which by Rolle Iustice ought to have been expressed at large it being in an inferior Court and not with an c. although the use of the Common pleas be to make the Venire short with an c. The King and Holland Entred 16 Car. Argued Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe case was in effect this An argument upon a special Veâ—dict A Copyhold was surrendred to I. S. in trust that Holland an Alien should take the profits thereof to his own use and benefit upon this an inquisition was taken for the King and this matter found whereupon the lands were seised into the Kings hands and upon a tryall concerning these lands a special Verdict was found comprising the aforesaid matter The case was argued against the Kings Title by Mountague of the Middle Temple and for the Kings title by Hales of Lincolnes Inn. The substance of Mountagues Argument was 1. To consider the nature of the trust 2. The nature of the land out of which the trust was raised and for the first he held because it was a trust for an Alien to take the profits of the land and in that the Alien had no estate in the land therefore the King could not have it as he might have had the land if the Alien had had any Estate in it and he said that this trust was a thing only in Action and lies in privity and not to be seised upon by another and said a Villein was a parallel Person in law to an Alien in respect of purchasing of lands and had a Copihold been surrendred thus in trust for a Villein the Lord should not have seised it and this is but a trust not Executed which is in the nature of a use at the Common law and not as it is now by the Statute besides this trust is raised out of Copyhold lands and therefore the King cannot seise the lands which the Alien hath not for if he should the Lord of whom the land is held would be preiudiced and he cited Beverlyes case 4. rep 126 and a case in 23 Eliz
the land and the King shall have it And to that which is said that the King cannot be a Copyholder it is not so clear for I conceive the contrary for a surrender of a Copyhold to him is good and of a use too and he cited these books 9 H 6. fol. 25.20 B. 3. f. 3.11 rep 91. Rolle Iustice said that a Trustee or cestuy que trust cannot take the profits of the land Cestuy que trust Equity Outlawry Law Equity but hath only his remedy in equity for the Estate in the land is only in the party trusted and the King shall not have the profits of the land upon an Out-lawry against the cestuy que use or cestuy que trust And Law and Equity ought not to be confounded therefore if the King hath equity for a thing he ought not to sue for it at the Common law so is it in this case at the bar Adjourned Chapel and Drew 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 11 Car. rot 921. IN this case the party being attainted of felony Exception to a pardon for Felony Pardon pleaded his Charter of Pardon and Claims thereby to be restored to his Goods and Chattels forfeited to the King by the felony and the Question was whether as the Pardon was penned he should be restored or no the words of the Pardon upon which the Question grew were these pardonavit remisit relaxavit and it was held that he was not by these words to be restored to his Goods and Chattels for the words do not amount to a Surrender in case of a ommon person much less in case of the King and there ought to have been the word restituit Roll Iustice said this Pardon was drawn by Noy Attorny General and was too short Felony Tryal and it was said by him that if one be committed to the Gaol for one felony the Iustices may enquire and try the party for another felony for which he was not committed Tylers Case Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. AN action of Debt was brought against Tyler upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Demurrer to a Replication and the Plaintiff declares of an Arbitrement made the 28th day of May in such a year ready to be delivered up the nine and twentyeth day of May in the same year The Defendant pleads nullum Arbitrium The Plaintiff replies that the Award was made by the Vmpire the 28th of May ready to be delivered up upon the same 28th day of May and to this replication the Defendant demurs and shews for cause that the Plaintiff had set forth double matter one in his Declaration and the other in his Replication for the Award set forth in the Declaration and that set forth in the Replication cannot be intended to be one and the same But Roll Iustice answered that the Issue to be tryed is not to be taken upon the day of the Award made and therefore it requires no answer Demmurres and so cannot be double and one ought not to demur for the doubleness of the matter upon a thing upon which no Issue can be taken and â—â—led better matter should be shewn or else Iudgement should be given for the Plaintiff Estwick and the City of London Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case of Estwick and the City of London was again argued by Serjeant Glynn for the City Argument in the Case of the VVrit of Restitution to a Common-Councel-mans place Restitution Custome in his Argument he insisted upon three particulars why Estwick could not be restored to his place of a common-Councel-man 1. That a common-Councel-man may be removed or suspended from his place at pleasure by the custome of the City 2ly That he cannot be restored by Law 3ly No restitution can be in this case as it now stands First the custom to remove a common-Councel-man is good for it first began by agreement and such a custome is good at the common law much more here and it is not an unreasonable custome although it may seem so prima facie like as it is in the case of a Lord that feiseth the Lands of his Villein and in the case of a Copyholder that for feiteth his Estate by the felling of Timber A second reason is it agrees well with the nature and condition of the office of a common-Councel-man to be subject to this Custome Tryal and we know that many things shall be tryed by Custome contrary to the course of the common law 3ly We see that the order of the Parliament is a rule to try matters concerning their Members and so it is here in the Citie to try their Members 4ly If it should not be so it would prove destructive to the City by waiting till such an offender might be removed by a course in Law which is far more tedious than this customary way To the second point he said that by Law there can be no restitution to this office and this is proved by the very nature of the Writ of Restitution which is to restore the party to a freehold or some other matter of profit neither of which can be in our case and a writ of Restitution is to restore one to a possession where one may not be restored by an ordinary way neither doth the Statute of Magna charta extend to our case for a common-Councel-mans place is merely grounded upon the custome of the City and not upon the Common law and he said there are three grounds for a Writ of Restitution 1. A contempt to the King 2ly A hurt to the Common-wealth 3ly Particular dammage to the party but none of these is in our cause and therefore there is no cause for a Writ of Restitution The case of Sir Iames Baggs having a Writ of Restitution was because he was deprived of his Trade and Freedom Constable Church warwarden free-hold and our case differs from the case of a Constable or a Church warden or any case that can be cited for a Church warden is an officer in relation to the Common wealth for the execution of Iustice wherof the Common law takes notice and likewise a Constable is a known Officer to minister Iustice in relation to the publique Recorder so is it of a Recorder of a Corporation and so they all differ from our case For authority to this point in 17. Iac. but moved first 16 Iac. Warren a common-Councel-man of Coventry was denyed upon the retorn of his Writ to be restored and our case and retorn is more strong against the Plaintiff and Burman a Gentleman of one of the Inne of Court being expelled could not be restored by a Writ of Restitution and lately a common-Councel-man was removed for not taking the Protestation For the third point whether upon the Writ it self as this case is there can be any restitution made I conceive not because it is directed to the Maior and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London and so
Verdict he doubted whether it could be helped now in this Court though it might have been helped in the inferior Court where the Action was brought by examination of it and therefore ruled to shew cause why Iudgement shall not be reversed on Friday next It was this Term reversed at the Defendants motion for his own expedition Brooke and Brook Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 580. BRooke brings an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Brook the condition was Demurrer to a plea in debt upon an Obligation that the Obligor should make an Estate of inheritance to the Obligee in such lands at such a day and place and for not doing it he brings his Action The Defendant pleads that he was ready at the day and place to make the Plainiff an estate of inheritance in the lands The Plaintiff demurs to the plea Notice and for cause shews that the Defendant doth not shew that he gave notice to the Plaintiff of his being there To this Roll Iustice said it is not necessary to give notice of the day or place A second exception was that he had not shewed that he gave the Plaintiff notice what estate of inheritance he would make him To this Roll Iustice said he ought to have shewn Time Place that he gave notice what estate he would make him and therefore let the Defendant shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have Iudgement Kale and Iocelyne Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 1282. KAle brings an Action of Debt against Iocelyne an Executor Demurrer to a plea by an Executor in Debt for reâ— brought against him Plea Executor VVaiver Covenant and declares for rent grown due since the death of the Testator by virtue of a lease for years made of certain lands by the Plaintiff unto the Testator which yet continues and declares that the Executor debet detinet c. The Defendant pleads fully administred the Plaintiff demurs upon the plea For pleading in the debet and the detinet Bacon Iustice said it was good and so had been adjudged To which Roll Iustice answered it had been adjudged pro con to be good and to be bad and he said that an Executor cannot waive a Term let to the Testator for he is bound by Covenant to hold it and said that the Declaration was good in the debet and detinet prima facie for it shall be intended that the land let to the Testator is worth as much by the year as the rent that is paid for it till the contrary be shewn and then it is reason that the Executor be charged Bacon Iustice said that the Executor may waive the possession if he find that the rent is more than the land is worth otherwise it may be mischievous to him Roll. Iustice said that the Declaration must be in the detinet and debet otherwise it will be mischievous to the Plaintiff and said that a specialty shall be satisfied before a rent reserved upon a lease by deed Allets which Bacon denied and it was said that a lease for years shall be assets in the hands of an Executor although the rent reserved be the full value of the Lands let by the lease The Defendant was ordered to shew cause why Iudgement should not be given against him Baker against Edmonds Mich. 23 Car. B. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 222. BAker brings an Action upon the Case against Edmonds Special verdict in an Action upon the Case whether a verdict maintains the issue joyned and declares that whereas I. S. was indebted unto the Plaintiff in a certain sum of mony and afterwards being so indebted became a Banckrupt and that a Comission upon the Statute of Bankrupt was taken out by him and other creditors against him and that it was found that the Defendant was indebted to the Banckrupt the Commissioners of the said Commission did assign over the Debt of the Defendant mentioned in a certain schedule amounting to such a sum unto the Plaintiff in part of satisfaction of the Debt owing unto him by the Banckrupt by virtue whereof he demands the said Debt of the Defendant who did assume promise to pay the same and for not performing his promise he brings his Action the Defendant pleads non Assumpsit and thereupon an issue was joyned and a speciall verdict was found to the effect as the Plaintiff had declared but they further find that the Debts mentioned in the schedule and assigned over to the Plaintiff amounted to such a sum whereas they find that the Defendant did not owe unto the Banckrupt so much as that Debt assigned is but a lesse sum And upon this verdict the question was Verdict Issue Assignment whether the verdict did maintain the issue which was non Assumpsit if it did then they find for the Defendant if not then for the Plaintiff In the breaking of the Case it was moved whether the Assignment were good or no in regard that the Commissioners had mistaken the Debt for the Debt assigned by them was greater than the Debt found by the Iury and so might be another Debt But to this Roll Iustice said that the assignment was not judicially before them in question for if it were it would be judged an ill assignment but here it comes not in issue but only whether the Defendant did assume and promise or no and the speciall verdict concludes not upon the assignment but whether the speciall matter found do maintain the issue or no therfore he was of opinion that the Plaintiff ought to have his Iudgment Bacon Iustice differed in opinion said that it is dangerous for Commissioners of Bankrupt to assign Debts particularly Commissioners The rule then was to argue it the next Term At which time Ward of Councel for the Defendant argued that the verdict was for the Defendant for this reason viz. Because the Debt laid in the Declaration and the Debt found by the verdict are not the same and so the Defendant did not assume and promise that which is laid in the Declaration for there is no such Debt found and if he should be charged with that he might be doubly charged Averment for he may be again charged for the debt found by the verdict and circumstances of quantity time and place are averred in a Declaration to make things certain and if they fall the Declaration is not good 18 E. 3. fol. 25. 1. rep 74. Palmers Case 2ly The Declaration is insufficient for it expresseth not what the sum is but saith a sum mentioned in a schedule of Debts which is incertain Roll Iustice interrupted Ward and said all that you have argued is out of dores but the last matter touching the Declaration and to that Hales of Councell with the Plaintiff said the Declaration is good and certain enough for there appears no other sum in the schedule than is mentioned in the Declaration Bacon Iustice The
enough 2ly It doth not appear that there are divers Churches in New-Sarum where the Proclamation was made To the third exception the Proclamation is said to he made prout breve postulaâ— and that shall be supposed duly done and implies all requisite circumstances and he cannot make another return and it is impossible to be otherwaies To the fourth it is not necessary to retorn the place of the Summons and it is said that it was made secundum formam Statuti which supplies the rest And to this the Court said that the words secundum formam Statuti extend far And Roll Iustice said that Proclamaiton in one place was good in all Holhead of Councel with the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error proceeded and took these exceptions in the demand of the Dower 1. The demand is generally de rectoria which is not good Demand Rector for the incertainty of it for there may be a Rector of a College of a Province of a Bishoprick as well as of a Parish-Church and therefore it ought to have been de Rectoria Ecclesiae parochialis de c. 12 H. 4. f. â—9 pl. 1. 2ly The demand decimarum is too general and not good and it ought to have been decimarum granorum soeni c. for the demand de omnimodis decimis quibuscunque is too general 11 Rep. Herberts case 1. To these exceptions Hales answered that a demand in a Writ of Dower need not to be so exact as in other original Writs for original Writs are not alterable but ought to answer the forms in the Register To the second he said that rectoria shall be intended the Rectory of a Church and the Statute extends not to this besides the place of the Rectory is described which makes it certain enough To the third it is not necessary to express the Tithes particularly and the demand being of the Rectory it compriseth all the Tithes also the demand is de omnimodis decimis which is a general demand and compriseth all and is not de decimis only for that might be incertain Holhead The demand is de rectoria de omnimodis decimis which is a demand of one thing twice and that is not convenient for by this means the party may recover dammages twice and the Court will be also inveagled by this means and it matters not though we have not pleaded to this for the Court ought to take notice of it Notice because it is in the original Writ Next there is no form in the Count for cum pertinentiis is informal for it refers to the Parish and not to the Mannour 27 E. 3. f. 86. Pl. 3. Haleâ— This is but a variance in form and is not material and also it shall be intended to refer to the Mannour and not to the Parish Holhead The demand is not warranted by the Writ for the Vill and Parish are not named in the Writ but are named in the demand 11 Rep. Arondels case Hales The demand is not de rectoria in Tymsbury but de Tymsbury and is the denomination of the thing demanded Tithes Parissi and not of the Vill where it lyes Holhead It is not said where the Tithes extend and they may extend to divers Vills as a Parish may 19 E. 3. f. 9. Hales Here is one demand and it includes all the Tithes Roll Iustice You have demanded the Rectory in Tymber and not the Rectory of Tymber and by the grant of ones Mannour in Dale no more of it passeth than what doth lye in Dale and here it shall be intended so much of the Tithes as are in Tymber Holhead Here is a demand of Dower of such things whereof Dower lyes not viz. of a quarry of Stones and it appears not that the Quarry was open in the life of her Husband and if it were yet it is improper to demand it by the name of a Quarry Hales the word Quarry is a good word well-known what it means for Quarrera is an old wel-known Latine word for it Dower and she is as well dowable of it as of a Mine of Coles and it shall be intended to be open because she demands it by that name of a Quarry Holhead The demand of the Dower is also of a Hundred of which a Woman is not dowable because it is an entire thing and cannot be divided and the demand should have been de tertia parte proficuorum hundredi To this Roll Iustice answered then by your reason she shall never keep a Court. Hales It is well enough demanded for a demand shall be of the thing it self and not of the profits of it for the profits were not in the Husband but he was seised of the Hundred and the profits are a thing incertain Holhead The execution of the Habere facias fesinam is not well executed for by it two third parts are assigned for Dower and that is more than the demand Hales That is but a repetition of the thing demanded Holhead A thing not demanded at all is assigned for Dower viz. view of Frank pledge Hales That is but an incident to another thing that is demanded viz. the Hundred and by the demand of the Hundred the view of Frank-pledge is demanded and all other incidents to the Hundred Holhead Here is an assignment also of all tenures and she cannot have Homage because she is a Woman Hales She shall have all tenures which she is capable of and so all shall be understood in this place and no other she shall have Holhead The Iudgement is also if 15 Copiholds Tenements which lately were Copiholds Roll Iustice This is good enough and what loss have you by it Holhead The Assignment is also of the 3d. part de Copicia de Structuris and other words there are which are also incertain And there is error in the assignment of dammages for the dammages are assigned ultra valorem terrae which is against the Statute Roll Iustice Dammages Iudgement the Statute is an addition of the value and dammages for the Iudgement is perfect without returning the Writ of the dammages and so hath been adjudged in the Common pleas Holhead Here is an ill suggestion of the Feme for the suggesteth that her Husband dyed seised in fee of all the Lands out of which she demands her Dower and that is not true for he dyed seised of part of them in tayl To this the Court said that is not material if he dyed so seised that she ought to have Dower Holhead Dammages are given ultra valorem which I conceive is not good Roll Iustice It is well enough for dammages are given and the value by the Statute Holhead The retorn of the Elegit is not good Hales That is another Record and appears not now in the Court Roll Iustice The Elegit hath no reference to the former Record Holhead There is one error in fact and that is confessed by your joyning in demurrer Doubleness Roll
because of a mistryal for taking away divers parcels of Ribbin from him The Defendants pleaded by way of Iustification the Custom of London against Hawkers viz. to take away wares from any that sold them up and down the Streets The Plaintiff replyed that there was no such custom and issue was taken upon it thereupon the custom was certifyed by the mouth of the Recorder a tryal upon it in London a verdict for the Defendants The Plaintiff moved in arrest of Iudgement that it was a mis-tryal because it was before them that were interesâ—ed in the cause and therefore desired there might be another tryal Roll Iustice said it is against natural equity for one to be Iudge in his own cause Tryal although the other party admit it to be so and therefore it is a mistryall though it were at the request of the Plaintiff because it is against natural reason 8 E. 3. f. 69. 5 Ed. 3.8 9 H. 7. f. 21. Hil. 38 Eliz. in the Exchequer The prayer of the Plaintiff cannot help the tryal for the consent of both partyes cannot change the Law much lesse the prayer of one of the partyes Hales of Councel with the Defendants argued that it was not a mis-tryall and said this concerns them in point of privilege of the City and not meerly in point of interest before whom the Iudgement was gievn 2ly The consent of the party hath barred him of the advantage which otherwise he might have had But Roll Iustice answered here is point of interest as well as point of privilege for part of the goods taken come to the benefit of the City and therefore they ought not to be their own Iudges for this is against natural reason and so it is a mistryal But it doth not appear here whether the Maior and Aldermen be another Corporation or not and distinct from the Corporation alleged which certified this custom by the mouth of the Recorder and this is the sole doubt in the Case The Court ordered that there should be a new tryal except cause shewn to the contrary Q. whether there shall be a Repleader or a new venire VVhite and his wife against Harwood and his wife Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. WHite and his wife brought an Action upon the Case for standerous words Whether a writ abated by death of one of the defendants Abatement against Harwood and his wife the Defendant dyes the Feme takes another Husband pending the sute It was moved that the writ was abated The Court inclined that because the Defendant had by her mariage changed her name therefore the Writ was abated but took time to advise Slade Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for Iudgement formerly stayed upon a certificate made by Baron Atkins For Iudgement stayed upon a Iudges certificat that the verdict passed against his opinon Bacon Iustice said Iudgements have been arrested in the Common pleas upon such certificates Hales of Councell with the Defendant prayed that this Iudgement might be arrested and that there might be a new tryal for that it hath been done heretofore in like cases But Roll Iustice held it ought not to be stayed Attaint 9 though it have been done in the Common pleas for it was too Arbitrary for them to do it and you may have your attaint against the Iury and there is no other remedy in Law for you but it were good to advise the party to suffer a new tryal for better satisfaction And let the Defendant take four dayes from hence to speak in arrest of Iudgement if the postea be brought in if not then four dayes from the time it shall be brought in Andrews against Baily Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a tryal at the Bar between Andrews and Baily Denisation by Letters parents do enable to purchase not to inherit lands Denization Inheritance upon an ejectment lease touching Sir Iohn Prowds title to Lands It was said that a man cannot be a subject to two several Princes And that denisation by letters patents do enable the party to purchase Lands but not to inherit the Lands of his Ancestor as Heir at Law But as a purchasor he may enjoy lands of his Ancestor Dunch against Smith and others Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Hil. 23 Car. rot 37. DUnch brought an Action of Debt as an Executor for arrerages of a rent charge due to the Testator Demurrer to a Declaration in Debt against Smith and others the occupyers of the Land The Defendants demur to the Declaration and for cause shew that it doth not set forth what estate the Defendants have in the lands charged with the rent and so it appears not that they are to pay the rent Hales of Councell with the plaintiff answered that it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to set it forth for he is a stranger to the Estate cannot know what Estate it is Roll Iustice said It doth not appear by the Declaration whether the Defendants claim under him that granted the rent or no. But move it again Saturday next Postea Smith against Hale Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. SMith brought an Action of Debt against Hale for rent Demurrer to privilege of Parliament The Defendant pleaded that he is Tenant and Servant to the Lord Moone a Lord of the Parliament and prayes his Writ of Privilege may be allowed The Plaintiff demurs It was argued by Barton of the middle Temple that the plea was ill for the very matter of it for the privilege is against the Common Law and also against the Statute Law and for proof cited 1 E. 1. f. 26. 2 E. 3. f. 3. 2 Ed. 6. C. 8. Roll Iustice answered Privilege you ought not to argue generally against the Privilege of Parliament for you know that every Court hath its privilege as this Court also hath therefore apply your self particularly to this question Admittance whether a Writ of privilege belongs to a Parliament man so far as to protect his Lands and Estate and I conceive he is so priviledged And you have admitted his privilege by your own Demurrer But we will advise Wright Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation to perform Articles Plaintiff after a verdict for him moves for a new tryal The Defendant pleaded Covenants performed The Plaintiff had a verdict and after verdict and before Iudgement he moved for a new tryal because it appeared that there was no issue joyned the Plaintiff moved it for his own expedition for he feared if he should enter Iudgement that the Defendant would bring a Writ of Error The Court answered that there was a perfect issue joyned but the pleading is not good and it was your own fault to joyn issue upon such a pleading when you might have demurred Tryall Yet let the Defendant shew cause why he should not consent to a new tryal and a Repleader Mich. 24 Car. Banc.
between what the Law directs and what the devise directs all the difference is in the manner how his Son Iohn shall come to the Estate 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 134. 37 Eliz. A man seised in fee had issue two Daughters and devised the Lands to them and to their Heirs and it was questioned whether they were Ioynt tenants and I conceive they are and where one omits a thing in a conveyance which the Law supplies this shall not hurt and he cited Iennings and Pollards Case 6 Car. Hales on the other side argued that the Son takes by purchase and not by descent for the devise is not to the Son in present but after the death of the Testators wife and if he had the Lands by descent he should have them presently VVaiver It is true the Son might have waived the taking by purchase and might have taken by descent but here prima facie he shall be intended to be in by purchase and not descent for here doth not appear to be any actual waiver of the purchase and the Son doth here as I conceive take by way of remainder and not by way of reversion And as to the verdict I conceive it is not good for it doth not shew how the lands are held whether in Chivalry or Socage and so it appears not whether the Testator had power to devise all of them or not for if they be held in Chivalry he can devise but two parts of them as the Statute directs 2ly It appears not that the Testator had but one Son by his first wife 3ly It is not shewed that the Lands are parcel of the Mannor 4ly It doth not appear in whose possession the Lands are Roll chief Iustice said Lands that are given by Will shall be intended to be socage tenure Intention if the contrary do not appear And he held that the devise is void and that it is not in the power of Iohn the Son to make the election to take by descent or by purchase at his pleasure but he must of necessity take the Land as the Law directs which is by descent Maxim and it is against a maxim in Law to give a thing to such a person to whom the Law gives it if it had not been so given 3 4 Phil. Ma. Dyer 134. and therefore the Plaintif ought to have Iudgement And as to the verdict he hath primer possession Verdict and therefore if the other make no title the verdict is for him and good enough Bacon Iustice to the same intent viz. that the Heir doth here take by descent and not by purchase for this the Law says and he cannot alter it and cited Foscues Case 4 Car. and a Case in 7 Iac. And so judgement was given for the Plaintif Franck against Burt and others Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintif brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his House For costs for the Desendant upon non-sute of the Plaintif and carrying away his Goods at the Tryal the Plaintif was non-sute The Plaintif moved that there was error in the Declaration and therefore there could have béen no Iudgement and prays that he may be spared costs Roll chief Iustice answered that heretofore it hath been made a question whether the Plaintif being non-sute should pay costs Cests but since the Statute of 4 Iac. it is clear he ought to pay costs for the vexation of the Defendant and so it hath béen ruled here and you are out of Court now by being non-sute and therefore you must pay costs And therefore except better matter be shewed let them be paid Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a Prohibition to the great Sessions of Carnarvan in Wales to stop a sute in an English Bill of Equity exhibited there For a prohibition to the great Sessions at Carnarvan in Wales whereas by the Bill it appears there is no matter of Equity in the Case but only matter tryable at the Law The Court answered if they proceed there against Equity we cannot hinder them There was wont to be an Agent here from the Commissioners there for us to confer with in such cases as these but it seems there is not any here now Therefore give notice Prohibition and let them shew cause the next Term why a Prohibition should not be granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon reading of a retorn made by the Sherifs of the City of Norwitch upon a Habeas corpus directed unto them for one Chambers It was said by the Court How a Habeas corpus to an inferiour Court should be retorned Retorn that it hath been ruled That upon a Habeas Corpus to an inferiour Court to remove Corpus cum causa they ought to retorn all the causes that are depending there concerning the party that hath the Habeas Corpus if any of the causes depending be for above five pound of which they ought not to hold Plea and therefore because all the causes were not retorned here upon the retorn of this Habeas Corpus The Court held the retorn was not good and ordered that it should be amended upon pain of ten pounds by Monday next Raph against Davye Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. RAph brought an Action of the Case against Davy for speaking these words of her to the Plaintifs mother Arrest of judgement in an action for words viz. Your Daughter innuendo the Plaintif is a brazen faced Whore and deserves to be hanged and for speaking these other words to the Plaintif herself viz. you Huswife are a Thief and have stollen my Purse The Plaintif had a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement Averment that the Plaintif doth not aver that her Mother had not any other Daughter besides herself and so it is uncertain whether the words were spoken of her or no. But the Court held it was well enough without such averment because the Declaration is that the Defendant habens colloquium of the Plaintif did speak the words and that makes it certain enough And therefore bid the Plaintif take her Iudgement Jennings against Lee. Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. IEnnings brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Lee. The Defendant pleads a special plea Arrest of Iudgement in an action of assault and battery and justifies The Plaintif replies de injuria sua propria and upon this an Issue is joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that the replication was not good because it answers not the special matter pleaded nor takes any traverse by an absque tali causa as it ought to do and so there is no issue joyned and consequently there can be no Iudgement Roll chief Iustice said that the replying de injuria sua propria Traverse Issue Ieofails and not traversing absque tali causa is not good for there is not an affirmative and a negative and so
to alter all or any part of the settlement made at any time during his life The verdict finds further that there was an Ordinance of Parliament made in the year of our Lord 1645. that Sir Thomas Morgan should forfeit all his lands and estate which he was then seised or possessed of or had been seised or possessed of from the year 1641. and that by the same Ordinance the lands in question were given to Mr. Pym that by virtue of the said Ordinance he encred was seised pro ut that Mr. Pym died so seised after whose death the Plaintifs lessor as his heir entred made a lease to the Plaintif after that Sir Tho Morgan died Mary the Defendant claiming as tenant in remainder for life after the death of Sir Thomas her father by vertue of the settlement made 13 Carol. entred into the lands in question and the Plaintif as lessée of Pym brings the action Vpon this special verdict the Question was Whether by the Ordinance of Parliament made not till the year 1645. yet looking back to the year 1641. the remainder of the lands in question which was setled 13 Car. being before the making of the Ordinance and also before the time to which the Ordinance looks back be forfeited by the Ordinance or not Forfeiture Latch of Councel with the Defendant argued That it was not forfeited 1. Because that the Ordinance is penal and retrospective or looking back and therefore it is odious in Law and shall not be largely interpreted but as strictly as may be 2ly The preamble of the Ordinance sets forth 2. things as the reasons why the Ordinance was made 1. Mr. Pyms deserts to whom the lands were given 2ly Morgans offences for which he was thus punished and both these grounds for making the Ordinance can extend no further than to the year 1641. and so not to the time of the settlement made 13 Car. by Sir Thomas Morgan for then neither of these causes alleged were in being 2ly The purview of the Ordinance is double 1. punitive 2ly remunerative 1. the punitive part which concerns the punishing of Sir Thomas Morgan 2ly the remunerative part concerning the rewarding of Mr. Pym and the punitiue part made in the year 1645. cannot reach the estate setled upon Mary his daughter so long before viz. 13 Car. for it can reach no further back than to the year 1641. at the most to which time and no further the Ordinance is retrospective and in the Statute of 23 H. 8. general words of an Act are restrained Besides there is a demonstration in the Ordinance that shews the Ordinance doth not extend to the estate of the Defendant as may appear by the provisoes conteined in it for although the children of Morgan are to be punished within the Ordinance by the second proviso of it yet this extends not to so long time as to 13 Car. when the estate was setled but only to the estate as it was in the year 1641. And therefore prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Wadham Windham on the other side argued that the estate of Morgan though it was said to be setled 13 Car. was forseited by the Ordinance Because the estate was not absolutely setled at that time for there was a proviso in the conveyance to revoke the settlement so that at the time of the Ordinance made the estate was in Sir Thomas Morgan absolutely to dispose off as he pleased and by the words of the Ordinance all Morgans estate is passed without any saving and the provisoes of the Ordinance do prove that the Children of Sir Thomas Morgan were excepted out of the savings made to preserve the estates of others Also Boons and Favours bestowed use to be amply expounded and this being a Boon bestowed by the Parliament shall receive as large a construction as is possible Besides Morgan was a Papist therfore it may well be supposed that he intended not this for any real settlement but only by way of subtility for some private reasons for we know that Papists do use to make such settlements as this was to preserve them from penalties of the Law And the words of the Ordinance are accumulative to convey all Morgans estate and there are no restrictive words and if there were they should be void here for the Manor of Callidown being the Lands in question are expresly given by the Ordinance and as to these Lands the rights of all men are bound and therefore if there were a saving it would be void as it is Cook rep Alton Woods Case And an act of Parliament sometimes is as a conveyance sometime as a judgment and both waies a saving in it is void and srivolous 1 Rep. 4. A conditional estate or a right may be saved by Iudgment or fine but not an entire estate or interest Saving and therefore the estate of Mary in the Manor of Callidown cannot be saved by any proviso and he cited Alton Woods Case for authority in the principal Case f. 51. But admitting a general saving had been good to save Maries estate yet as the words of the Ordinance were penned her estate is not saved by it for the words were put in the Ordinance for the advantage of Pym and not to provide for Mary for she claims from Thomas Morgan and so prayed Iudgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice said that the provisoes in the Ordinance are not void to all persons as Windham argued for Strangers are clearly provided for by them But let the Case be argued again Saturday fortnight Postea Hatwood against Payte Mich. 1649 Banc. sup Entred Hill 24 Car. rot 78. THe question insisted upon in this Case was Whether Tithes be extendible upon an Elegit whether upon a recovery in an Action of Debt against a Parson the Tithes be extendible by Elegit Hales of Councel with the Plaintif held that they are because that Tithes may be said to be Tenements and the Parson hath a Free-hold in them although he hold them jure Ecclesiae But Roll chief Iustice said Elegit that a Parsonage cannot be extended but that the Debt may be levyed out of the profits of it by the Sherif as it was wont to be done Extent for now there being no Bishops the profits cannot be sequestred by the Bishop of the Dioces Sequestration as they used to be But Ierman and Nicholas Iustices doubted Clergy Ask Iustice agreed with Roll and said that by the Common-law the Clergy are no more privileged from paying their debts than Lay men are Roll chief Iustice said it hath been heretofore questioned whether a Clergy-man be subject to watch and ward or to contribute to satisfie for a robbery done within the Hundred but now it is no question but they are subject and shall contribute Adjourned till Saturday to be argued again Postea Tyndal and others against Harington Mich. 1649. Banc. sup TYndal brought an Action of Debt
not from Morgan their Father It was answered that there is the same reason to provide for Morgans state that was rightly conveyed from him before the year 1641. as of a strangers so deriving from Morgan It is also objected that the Trustees for Pymm and the Common wealth shall have Morgans lands and they shall not be said to be forfeited It was answered that the Act distributes no more than is forfeited which can be no more than Morgan had at that time 2ly The Parliament took no notice that Morgan was seized in fee simple nor what estate he had 3ly After the estate of Mary Morgan ended the reversion in fee returns to Thomas Morgan so that Mary hath but a particular estate and the Ordinance may be satisfied though Mary Morgans estate be not forfeited for the reversion may be forfeited and the particular estate preserved as Cleres Case is and the saving is not here repugnant as it is objected nor destroyes the generality of the Ordinance for it is here satisfyed And the Parliament doth not take notice of the conveyance made by Thomas Morgan nor of any other estate than that he had at the time of the making of the Ordinance otherwise there would be a great inconvenience but it is objected that the Sons claiming under Thomas Morgan are excluded out of the saving It was answered that although they are yet they are not excluded out of the body of the Act Dyer 273 â— o Eliz and here the excepting of the interest of the Daughters in the saving hath its effect viz. the estate which they have of Thomas Morgan after 1641. which shall be given by the Ordinance and not that which they had before and so prayed judgement for the Plaintif viz. Mary Morgans lessee Maynard for the Defendant viz. Pymms heir said That the Act is the rule to measure our case by and that the Act doth take away the right of all the Children and that the saving helps none but strangers and notwithstanding the recompense reserved for Pymm if the estate shall be short it is intended of such an estate not within the saving and the estate of the Children is not within the saving and here is not a general gift but these lands particularly And in this case Morgan had power to revoke his settlement and so there is no breach made by the Ordinance of Common Iustice as is objected because he had an interest in the estate notwithstanding the settlement And all parts of the Act stand very well here together upon the best construction of it according to the makers intent If I grant all my trees fruit-trees will not pass but if I except all my Apple-trees all other fruit-trees pass and the inheritance in Morgan doth not satisfie the Act and so prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said Mr. Maynard you mistake the first part of the Ordinance for do you think that the Ordinance looks further back than 1641. in other lands not expressed and he seemed to encline for the Plaintif but the other Iudges for the Defendant But the Court concluded that it was a great case and deserved great consideration and therefore ordered That it should be argued again the first Saturday the next Term. Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved upon an Assidavit for a Habeas Corpus for one committed for suspition of felony For a Habeas Corpus for one comitted for suspition of felony for uttering counterfeit money because the Iustices will not bail him Roll chief Iustice said It is dangerous to remove such a prisoner and there is a Commission of Oyer and Terminer to try such Offenders and we have no Copy of the Mittimus now but if you bring it we will make some rule in it Mittimus If the prisoner be bailable if the Iustice will not bail him Case bring your Action against him Coswell Mich. 1649. Banc. sup ONe Coswell outlawed moved to reverse the Outlawry upon these exceptions 1. Instead of proxim there is used px for an abbreviation of it To reverse an Outlawry Abbreviation without any dash 2ly Instead of Infra scr the abbreviation of infra scriptam there is used infra sr And for these exceptions it was quashed Dell and Brown Mich. 1649. Banc. sup IT was moved formerly to reverse a Iudgement in an Action of Trespass for the taking away of three Cowes because the Declaration doth not say neither pretii nor ad valentiam as to two of the Cowes Error upon â— Iudgement in Trespass Serjeant Earl moved for Iudgement notwithstanding that exception for he said it was not necessary to express either and urged 19 E. 2. br f. 842. and Pas 20 Ed. 3. f. 2.8 H. 6. reg 97. b. But Roll chief Iustice answered That which you urge is against the received opinion Declaration for if they he live Cattel that are taken it ought to be pretii but if dead it ought to be ad valentiam Therefore shew cause before the end of the Term why the Judgement should not be reversed Spry against Mill. Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Pasc 1649. rot 208. SPry brought a writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him upon a nihil dicit in an Action of Trover and Conversion for a Mare in the Court at Lanceston in Cornewall Error to reverse a judgement upon a nihil dicit in a Trover and Conversion and these Errors were assigned 1. In the judgement it is said ideo ad eandum Curiam consideratum est whereas it ought to be per eandem Curiam 2ly It is recuperare debeat whereas it ought to be debet But Roll chief Iustice answered that is well enough in a judgement upon a nihil dicit 3ly In the awarding of the Venire it is praeceptum fuerit 4ly It is for the Iury to enquire in forma praedicta 5ly The Defendant is not demanded To this Roll chief Iustice said The Defendant did appear and so that is not material Judgement 6ly It is said Consideratum suit and it should be Consideratum est Roll chief Iustice said that was a good exception for the incertainty of the words Vpon this Error Prestwood the Councel on the other side moved that the Record is not removed Certiorari for the Certiorari to remove it was directed to the Maior and the Recorder and the Record is returned by the Maior and Deputy recorder Roll chief Iustice said It appears not to us that the Recorder hath power to make a Deputy Therefore advise upon it and so will we Postea Mich 1649. Banc. sup A Retorn made by an Officer of the Admiralty for one committed by their warrant was read To discharge a prisoner upon a return by an Officer of the Admiralty and it was prayed by Hales of Councel with the Prisoner that the retorn might be filed and the Prisoner discharged for these reasons 1. the party was committed for rescuing
an Obligation of 2000 l. for the payment of 1000 l. The Defendant appears and imparls and after imparlance pleads in Abatement of the writ that he is Earl of Nova Albion in Ireland and ought to be impleaded by that name and not by the name of Edmund Plowden Knight upon this plea the Plaintif demurred 1. Because it came in after imparlance whereas a plea in abatement of a writ ought to be pleaded before imparlance 2ly Plea The plea is sâ—ivolous for he pleads that he was Earl of Nova Albion before he entred into the bond which he cannot now plead Estoppel for he is estopped to plead so by his own déed which testifies the contrary Roll chief Iustice said it is a dilatory plea for he is but a Knight here though he be an Earl in Ireland and his own Obligation stops him from pleading as he doth And therefore let him shew cause why he shall not plead in chief within a week otherwise let Iudgement be entred Vid. antea VVats and Dix Hill 1649 Banc. sup Entred Trin. 24 Car. rot 1529. AN ejectione firmae was brought for certain lands in Lincolne Shire and upon not guilty pleaded Argument upon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae there was a special verdict found to this effect I. S. being seised of the Lands in question in Fée made a Feoffment there of to A. B and C. D. and to their Heirs till they should maite a Lease of the said Lands for divers years to certain uses to begin at the Feast of Philip and Jacob next comming The Feoffees enter and make a lease for years of the Lands to begin from the Feast of Philip and Iacob next The question was whether the Feoffees have made such a Lease as the deed of Feoffment directs and so the uses are raised thereupon or whether it shall be intended another lease and not warranted by the Feoffment and so no uses raised Latch held that the Lease is not warranted by the deed of Feoffment and that there are no uses raised for the words at the Feast and the words from the Feast make several beginnings of the Lease and so here is another Lease made than the deed intended 2ly It is not in effect and intention the lease of the parties because it is not made according to their directions and so there are no uses raised for the authority is not pursued nor the precedent condition observed and so the lease hath another beginning and another ending and so it must be another Lease Fitzh graunts 63. And here is not the same reversion intended to the party viz. his Son Watson because it is upon another Lease and so a different reversion And although the Iury might have found the intent of the party and so the same Lease yet they have not found it 2. rep Crumwells case 5. rep Earl of Rutlands case and if the Iury find evidence only and not matter of fact the Court can give no Iudgement 9. rep Downhams case the meaning of the party ought to be found Oxfords case 10. rep 11. Iac. Banc. Reg. Isack and Clarkes case 3 Ed. 6. Bendloes Reports As to the second point viz. whether the use shall result to the Feoffor or remain in the Feoffees he held that it doth result to the Feoffor and remains not in the Feoffees For first there was no other thing intended to be in the Feoffees than to make the lease good and that is not here done and Dyer 300. cited is not to this purpose The intention of the parties is not prevalent in directing of uses and Dyer 300. may be applyed to our case to determine the use 4. rep 82. Barbers case Mich. 2 3 Eliz. Bendloes Reports the use reverted Dyer 16 Eliz. Humphrestons case An estate ought to be made in convenient time otherwise the use is to revert out of the Feoffees to the Feoffor according to his first estate 3ly For the question whether a good estate passe to Elizabeth and the others he held that there did a good Estate passe either by bargain and sale or otherwayes But it is good by bargain and sale notwithstanding it be upon consideration past which is no consideration and the other consideration expressed to raise the use hurts not and here is a good consideration Mich. 8 Iac. Gosman and Carington C. B. There was no good consideration but a curtesie 13. and 14 Eliz. Horwoods case there was a good consideration although there be no monies paid but land for land 2ly If it doe not pass by way of bargain and sale yet it shall pass by way of Covenant to stand seised to uses and the consideration expressed is good to raise the uses Bedles case 7 Rep. these considerations cannot be silenced by the considerations of bargain sale nor shall the intent to pass it by way of bargain sale hurt it if he take by way of use yet it makes not the joyn tenancy operate as a tenancy in Common so it is the same lease declared upon and not divers and there is no disseisin by the entry of the Lessee at election for though he be not Lessee by the Lease intended yet he is Lessee by the one Lease or the other for the Lease is made either by the Feoffor or by the Feoffee and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintiff Pannell for the Defendant put the case at large and made these questions 1. Whether here be such a Lease as the first Indenture doth direct 2ly If the use do not arise where the estate is 3ly Whether there be a good bargain and sale 4ly Whether there be a good consideration to make a bargain and sale 5ly If there be not a good bargain and sale whether it shall enure by way of Covenant to stand seised to a use and he said if all these points be not for the Plaintif all is against him and he held that the words at and from are all one as to signifie the intent of the parties The words have here an extraordinary signification according to time and place and at or in a place are all one and the word at may be satisfied with time precedent or subsequent quae incontinenter fiunt inesse dicuntur et instans est indivisibile and he denied Berwicks case in the 5th Report to be law And here is no need of a forced construction for the intent of the party appears by the case 8 rep 91. For the second point if the Lease be not good and no use raised then where the estate of the land is And he held that it is in the Feoffees not withstanding for here the use is limited but not in the cases put on the other side And here was a fee simple determinable but it being become impossible it is a fee absolute Trin. 18 Car. Roll and Bois and Dyer 300. is mistaken in putting of the case on the other side And it cannot result for
displacings of estates because it puts an estate in a stranger who ought not to have it as Bredons Case is where one doth acknowledge another to have the inheritance by the fine this is a forfeiture By the fine here the Conusor acknowledges more to the Conusee than he hath and he might have expressed in the fine the estate that he hath in the Land and no more and so there is an estate in possession here Ierman Iustice said the fine shall not be construed to do wrong but the Case is of consequence therefore he would advise Nicholas held it was no forfeiture Ask was of the opinion of the chief justice Roll chief Iustice said estopels will make forfeitures in many Cases Q. what Iudgement was given Meers against French Hil. 1649 Banc. sup Entred Hil. 24 Car. rot 24. AN ejectione firmae was brought for ejecting the Plaintiff out of a rectory Arrest of Iudgement in an Ejectione firmae and declares of a lease thereof made unto him by Indenture The Plaintiff had a verdict the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintiff had declared of a lease per Indenturam Declaration and doth not say in curia prolatam The Court answered if an Indenture be pleaded but by way of inducement it is not necessary to say in cruia prolatam otherwise if it be pleaded to entitle the party by it 2ly He declares that the Defendant did eject him out of such a close and doth not say whether it was pasture or arrable land nor how many Acres it was Roll chief Iustice said it is not good if it be of a close of Land if he do not give it a name nor declare of what nature the land is 3ly He declares that the Defendant ejected him de uno Crofto which is incertain But Roll chief Iustice said That a writ of Dower and an Assise will lie de uno Crofto and so will an Ejectione firmae Dower Assise although a Formedon will not lie de uno Crofto And therefore let the Plaintif take his Iudgement except cause be shewed to the contrary Monday next Postea Hill 1649. Banc. sup Entred Trin. 24 Car. C. B rot 1010. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common Pleas in an Action of Trover and Conversion of divers goods Error to reverse a Iudgement in Trovers Conversion for many improper words used in the Declaration to express several of them as 1. Argentum servitium is used to express a silver Salt-cellar which is not good for servitium is Latin for service And in Parker and Martyns case in this Court Instrumentum ferreum anglice a Horse-lock was held not good and 3 Iac. Robotums case Hama anglice a Crow of Iron was adjudged naught 2ly He declares de duobus Castoribus anglice two Hats 3ly De duobus Catents pro patinis anglice Dishes 4ly De duodecem Crinalibus et plagulis anglice Coifs and Crosscloaths Ed. Turner prayed for Iudgement notwithstanding these exceptions Because as to the 1. there is no proper word for a silver Salt-cellar and it is here well enough described by divers words 2ly There is no proper Latin word for Hats called Demy-Castors and therefore it is lawfull to frame words so for the rest being new things not known to the Romans there are no Latin words for them so words may be invented well enough to express them and servitium argenteum is here with an anglice and therefore it is a good description of the thing and de instrumento ligneo Composito anglice a skreen hath been adjudged good because there is not a proper word to express it But the Court doubted of the words used for Coâ—fs and Close-clothes because they are divers things Ierman Iustice said argenteum servitium anglice a silver Salt-cellar cannot be good for servitium is Latine for service But Roll chief Iustice said if servicium signifie nothing then the Iury gave no damages for that and then the rest may be good But yet the Iudgement was ordered to be reversed except cause shewed and was then at the prayer of the Councel pronounced which if it be not prayed the Iudge will not doe it Quod nota Peise against Mablye Hill 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 1649. rot 222. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given at Launceston in an Action of trespass upon the case Error to reverse a judgement in an action upon the case for words for these words These Town weights in Georges possession meaning the Plaintif who was the Common weigher of the Town are false and cosening weights The 1. exception was that here was no Communication had of the Plaintif but the words are only spoken concerning the weights 2ly The judgement is not well entred Case Judgement for it is said to be given ad eandem Curiam whereas it ought to be per eandem Curiam Upon these exception the Iudgement was reversed Colson against Ree Hill 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 561. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Court at Newcastle upon Tyne in an Assise of Novel disseisin Error to reverse a Judgement given in an Assise Assise of Nusance The Error assigned was that the Plaintif doth declare that the Defendant did disseise him de uno muro lapideo and that the Defendant had erected a house in the place to his nusance The Court answered The Plaintif ought to have brought an Assise of Nusance for this wrong which because he hath not done let the judgement be reversed Batisford against Yate Hill 1649. Banc. sup Pasc 1649 rot 289. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action of Trover and Conversion for these errors Error to reverse a judgement given in a Trover and Conversion Venire 1. It is said of the Iurors in entring of their verdict Dixerunt pro querente and aly In the awarding of the Venire it is ideo praeceptum fuit with an and so it is not certain whence the Venire issued as it ought to be The rule was the judgement should be reversed if cause were not shewn to the contrary Cooke against More Hill 1649. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 645. COoke brought an Action upon the case against More upon an Assumpsit Demurrer to a plea in an â—ction upon an Assumpsit to pay for certain barrels of béer sold and delivered unto him such a day The Defendant pleads specially that he did not assume as the Plaintif hath declared To this plea the Plaintif demurs because that by thus pleading the Plaintif is tied up to a particular day whereas he may give in evidence for any other baâ—rels of beer sold at any time before the Action brought The Court ordered cause to be shewn why the Plaintif should not have judgement upon this demurrer Banbury against Basely Hill 1649. Banc. sup
agreed that by the conference set forth in the Declaration it is agreed that there was a Bastard Child and it is a scandal to the party whether there were a Bastard Child or no and if there were none you ought to shew it on the Defendants part Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement Elsy against Mawdit Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 409. THe Case of Elsy and Maw dit was again moved Arrest of judgement in an action for words wherein the Plaintiff had a verdict against the Defendant in an Action upon the Case brought against him for speaking these words of him Thou Sirrah art a rogue and a run-away rogue and didst run away at Oxford and art a rogue upon Record at Oxford upon a motion in arrest of Iudgement Iudgement was stayed till the Plaintiff should move Hales now moved for Iudgement because the words are actionable for they make the Plaintiff to be such a Rogue as may be endicted within the Statute and receive corporal punishment But Twisden denyed it Roll chief Iustice held it was within the Statute Yet the Court would advise In this case Ierman Iustice said That if one say that another is forsworn in a Court of Record the words are not actionable but if he say that he is forsworn upon Record the words are actionable But Roll chief Iustce held there was no difference between the words but that they are both Actionable Antea et Postea More against the Earl Rivers Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Mich. 1649 rot 588. MOre Arrested the Earl Rivers by a bill of Midlesex in a plea of Debt The Earl was therupon brought before Mr. Iustice Nicholas to put in bail Earl Rivers case touching privilege of pecrage and not being able to put in sufficient bail according to the course of the Court was committed to the custody of the Mareschal of the Marshalsea the Earl being in custody brings himself into Court by a habeas corpus and there pleads his privilege of his peerage and sayes that he ought not to be arrested and demands Iudgement of the Writ and prayes to be delivered to this the Plaintiff demurred Hales of Councel with the Earl argued to divers points but I could not here him well But the main question he insisted upon was whether that by taking away the house of Lords in Parliament whereby their voice and place in Parliament was gone the Privilege of his peerage not to be arrested for Debt was also taken away and he argued that it was not for he said that at the Common Law no capias did lye against a Peer Capias and the Statute of E. 3. which gave a capias for Debt against others did not give it against a Peer and it doth appear here that the Defendant is really an Earl and not in nomination only and he cited 27 H. 8. f. 22. b The reasons he said why an Earl had the privilege not to be arrested are two The first is in respect of the dignity of his person being called comes a comitando rege as some have thought and he is called by the King consanguineus noster The second is in respect of the presumption of his sufficiency of estate in lands to be summoned by and not by reason of his place in Parliament for they have the privilege not to be arrested as well in the vacancy of Parliaments as when the Parliament doth sit and the privilege of Parliament is that he shall not be sued but the privilege of peerage is that he shall not be arrested in his person and so they are distinct privileges and by taking away the Lords house the former privilege is taken away but not the latter and this privilege annexed to the person not to be arrested may belong to a person that hath not the privilege of Parliament as for example unto Widowes of Peers which could not be arrested and yet had no place in Parliament so that the excluding them from the Parliament doth only take away their privilege of Parliament and not their privilege of peerage and Nevlils case is that the privilege not to be arrested belongs to them in respect of the dignity of their persons 9 Rep. Salops case And it hath been a question whether comes be so called a comitando rege or in respect of their Counties whereof they were Earls and I conceive the latter derivation is the truer and then the taking away the King takes not away their privilege for the Counties remain 2ly Earls have by intendment sufficient fréehold to enfcore them to come in and answer at this day and therefore are not to be arrested and imprisonment of a mans person for debt was but a suppliment to make him answer where he had not sufficient freehold which we cannot intend here Nat. brev f. 93. And an Earl shall be amerced higher than another man in regard of the presumption of his freehold and Earls are called majores Barones in this respect 7 E. 4 Nevils case and the widow of an Earl had the privilege not to be arrested for the two very reasons that her husband had it so was it of a Bishop Abbot and Prior of England but otherwise it was of a Bishop that had a Bishoprick out of England And the late Statute that takes away the Kingly office doth not take away their names and dignities nor the presumption that they have fréeholds and therefore they are not to be arrested and their will be since the Act no more a failer of right than there was before and so he prayed the Writ might be abated Abatement Roll chief Iustice answered your Clyent ought to have prayed the Writ might have abated before he was turned over to the Marshall of this Court◠for then he was in Midlesex where he was arrested but now it is too late for now he is in custodia Marescalli Declaration and any body that hath cause of Action against him may declare against him Ierman Iustice said that the Writ is now determined which you pray to have abated so your prayer is to no purpose Roll chief Iustice said that the dignity of the person of an Earl may relate to him as he is Peer of the Parliament and the other presumption that he hath sufficient freehold may also fail but it doth not appear here by averment that he hath not freehold therefore it may be a question whether there shall be intended a sailer of Iustice for want of freehold if the party should not have been arrested and he agreed that an Earl as a Peer of Parliament had a double privilege one of his person to be free from arrests Arrests the other of his Estate to be free from sutes and he said if it had appeared by averment that the party had freehold it had been good without doubt to free him from arrests Ierman Iustice said he is now in custodia and the Declaration against him is good and now
to the Sheriff for his appearance and therefore it was prayed that the party arrested might be discharged and that the bond given to the Sherif might be delivered up Roll the chief Iustice answered Endict the Bailies that made the Arrest or bring your Action against them if you please Discharge for we will not discharge the party arrested Bois against Cranfield Mich. 1650. Banc. sup rot Q. BOis as Executor to another brought an Action of Debt upon divers Obligations made to his Testator Debt upon divers Obligations by an Execution The Defendant pleaded that he did pay a lesser sum than is expressed in the Obligations to the Testator during his life and that he did accept there of in full satisfaction of the said Obligations To this plea the Plaintif demurred Roll Chief Iustice upon opening the matter said that the question here is whether the payment or the acceptance of the money paid in satisfaction be to be traversed And he held it was indifferent to traverse either of them Traverse but he said it was more proper to joyn issue upon the payment but the Court would advise It was then also said that if one pay money in satisfaction of an Obligation and the party to whom it is paid saith that he will receive it for another cause Satisfaction payment yet if he receive it it shall be judged to be paid in satisfaction of the Obligation for he must receive it upon such terms as the other will pay it Brian against Stone Mich. 1650. Banc. sup STone moves the Court for an Attachment against Brian and others For an Attachment for that he was arrested by a Latitat out of this Court in the County of Wilts and thence carried into the Town of Malborow and there arrested by a Serjeant of that Town by a writ out of that Corporation and the Plaintif procéeds there against him upon that writ and not upon the latitat by which he was first arrested which is a contempt to this Court. Attachment Habeas Corpus cum causa The Court ruled the party should have an Attachment nisi c. and also should have a Habeas Corpus cum causa Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Recorder of London moved for the Inhabitants of Bishopsgate against one Withringes For the setting a moderate fine upon one that submitted to a fine who for refusing to serve upon the Ward mote Enquest was indicted for his refusal in London and convicted and fined 20 l. the Defendant being committed for not paying his fine removed himself hither by a Habeas Corpus but now hath submitted himself to a fine it was therefore prayed he may be moderately fined here The Court thereupon fined him 20 l. Beal against VVyman Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 849. VPon these words of a will Question upon words of a Will viz. I give and bequeath one half of my lands to my wife after her death I give all my lands to the heirs males of any of my Sons or next of Kin Latch made these questions in the Case 1. Whether there were a good estate created by these words of the will 2ly Whether the estate were destroyed by the fine levied of the lands For the 1. he held that the heirs males of any of his Sons are words certain enough to create an estate for it is all one as if he had said to the heirs males of all his sons if they have heirs males or to those who have heirs males and the words or to the next of Kin are also certain enough being joyned with the precedent words and shall be meant to the next of Kin and their heirs males if his sons have no heirs males For in a Win if there be words to express the meaning of the Testator it is sufficient enough though the words be not apt And he cited 21 Rich. 2. Devise 27. and 8 Rep. 46 and said that the case in 30 Ass pl. 47. is the same with this in terminis And here is no contingent remainder but only a contingent devise there is no necessity for a particular estate to support it for it ariseth out of the estate of the Devisor yet if there were néed of a particular estate here to support the remainder here is a particular estate in the wife who by implication of the will doth take all the land during her life as it is 13 H. 7.29 H. 8. Br. Devise 48. Trin. 3 Ed. 6. Bendloes Plow Com. 521. Whelpdales case Pasch 25 Eliz Com. Ban. To the 2 point he spake not holding it not material Hales of Councel on the other side held that the wife had not an estate for life in all the land by implication of the will but only an estate for life in a moyety of the land and so there is no particular estate to support the contingent remainder which he held was in this case that it is not a contingent Devise as Latch urged for the remainder here depends by way of remainder and not as a contingent Devise And he held the Devise it self to be void admitting all the precedent matter alleged to be true 1. Because the devise is uncertain for the intent of the deviser doth not appear for it appears not what heir male shall have the land whether the heir male of his son or the heir male of his next of Kin for the words are disjunctive 41 42 Eliz. Com. Banc. in the Case of Tayler Sawyer land devised to a Mans Issue was adjudged a void devise for the incertainty of it And he held that the intent was that the heir male of his son should inherit before the heir male of the next of Kin otherwise the further off of Kin should have the land before the nearer of Kin. And he said that Hill 2. Car. Rot. 1288. Com. Banc. in Hunt and Fishers case the case at the Bar was adjudged in point Roll chief Iustice said That the intention of the Testator here is coeca sicca Intention and senceless and cannot be known Will. and we ought not to frame a sence upon the words of a Will where we cannot find out the Testators meaning Ierman Iustice held that the devise was not void but that the words are to be interpreted as they may stand with Law and as the words will bear Nicholas Iustice prima facie that the devise is void but yet it is questionable Ask Justice to the same intent Roll chief Iustice said that there is too much way usually given to ambiguous devises But let it be argued again the next Term. Parker against Cook Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Hill 23 Car. rot 660. THe Action was an Action of Trespass quare Clausum fregit Upon a Demurrer the question was whether a Copyhold were forfeited or not The Defendant pleaded a special plea of justification viz. That the Plaintif was a Copyholder to his Manor and that for
for septuagent and Pary and Dayes case quinquegent for quinquagint and these held no materiall variances Latch on the other side said the word in the Bond is uncertain and the condition hath nothing in it to reduce it to a certain signification and if it make any certainty in it it must make it signifie 400 l. and then the Plaintiff hath failed in his Declarasion and Hobarts case differs from this and as for Osborns case it is variously reported and so not to be relyed on Roll chief Iustice What say you to sessanta But the question here is what shall be meant by the word whether 40. or 400. And in Fiâ—zâ—â— berts case Iudgement was given upon a demurrer Variance that gent for gint was a material variance and our case is all one with that If the doubt be whether it should be 40. or 400. how shall we know the intent of the partyes and if it be certain it must he understood 400. and the Action is brought but for 40. l. 44 Eliz. Mich. rot 1301. Gray and Davis case Sexgint was adjudged to be a Bond of 60 l. and not of 600 l. And it is the gent. and gint in all the cases that makes the difference And the case of sessanta comes not to our case and so concluded Iudgement to be against the Plaintiff Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Nicholas Iustice said that false Latin in a Bond doth not make it naught but he held this Bond was for 400 l. and not 40 l. and it is not incertain for the grammar rule ginta notat decem sed genta numero centum doth hold here Antea Gay against Gay Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1350. VPon a speciall verdict found in a replevin Whether an estate tail or fee conditionall The case was this A man seised of a Copyhold Borough English devised it to H. his grandchild and to his Heirs and if he dye during the life of his mother the remainder to H. his younger brother and to his heirs The question here was whether here be an Estate tail in H. or a Fee simple executory If it be an Estate tail then the devise was said not good because it is of a Copyhold but if it be a Fersimple Limitation then it is a good devise Roll chief Iustice said that a limitation of an inheritance after an absolute Fee simple is not a good limitation for this would be to make a perpetuity which the Law will not admit Perpetuity but if it be upon a contingent Fee simple it is otherwise Adjournatur Postea Heale against Greene. Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Hill 649 rot 370. IN an Action of Trespass and ejectment Case upon a special verdict in trespass and ejectment upon a speciall verdict sound the case proved to be this A man seised of a manor that had divers Tenants that held for lives by old rents deviseth it to his wife during her life with power to let and set and make estates out of them in as ample maner as the Testator might if he were living The questions were made by Latch 1. Whether this power given her to set and set c. doth not alter her Estate for life in the Lands devised to her 2ly Whether this power given her by the Will adds any power to her estate for life to make estates and he held for the first that the power given her did not alter her Estate And 2ly that it ads no power unto her Estate because the clause in the Will is one entire clause and not double and accumulative and so she can make no greater Estates than her estate for life will bear And for the obiection that is made That then the words that limit the power to her are void and idle He answered that it is not necessary that all the words in a Will should give something but some words may be explanatory of other words and so are these words here and yet the words here may add something to her Estate viz. to enable her to make Estates without impeachment of waste And the words shall not be intended of the time of Execution of the Estates made by the Feme for then they are idle Hill 1 Car. Banc. Reg. Danyel and Vplins case One may dispose an estate by Will for life with power to make Estates to continue after the death of the party that made them But here the estate is made only out of the interest of the wife which cannot endure after her life Pasc 44. Eliz. Bible and Dringhouse and so prayes Iudgement for the Plaintiff Hales for the Defendant made these questions 1. What power was given by the Will 2ly Whether it were well executed and he held the feme being executrix hath but an Estate for life But she hath a power to make estates as she hath done There is no question but such a power may be added The question only is if this power be added here in our case and he said it was added by the express words of the will for else those words are frivolous and operate nothing In Danyel and Vplins case cited which was entred 20 Iac. Hill 720. there is no express Estate given to the party but a meer power only and it was not by reason of the words added for they are only conjunctive words And Iustice Whitlock held there that the first words gave the power Though Iustice Iones differed in opinion and that case is the very same with ours The reason in our case That the words give power to the feme may appear by the comparing this part of the Will with the other parts of it In other parts of the Will where things are devised to his wife these words here used are not added and that argues that the Testator intended the Feme more power than in other things devised to her and the words themselves being a devise of a manor proves by the nature of the thing that the Testator intended to give power to the Feme to make Estates out of the manor And it cannot be intended that the words In as ample maner c do only give the feme power to assign over her term Vaughan and Longs case 24 C. the words were adjudged to be words to enlarge the power of the Legatée and so are they here And the subsequent clause during the term of her life restrains not the power for these words may be either referred to the Estates to be made or to the time of making them and here they are referred to the execution of the power and this is more suitable to the intention of the party in ordinary reason and they are added to expound the intent viz. that the remainder limited over shall not hinder the feme for he hath not barred her out and hath imposed this trust in her as Executrix and as Legatee And for the 2d point here is a good Execution of
the grant of the Office of the Custody of the house is a good lease for life notwithstanding it was Copyhold and it is not necessary to recite in the grant that it is Copyhold 2. That after the estate for life is determined the King may grant the house and land again by Copy of Court Roll because the Kings grants shall be taken favourably and not extended to two intents where there is no necessity for it as there is not here and we are not here to intend a collateral intent and so the Copyhold is not destroyed for the Law takes care to preserve the inheritance of the King for his Successors and it may be a benefit to the King to have it continue Copyhold viz. to have Common c. and his election is also destroyed if he may not have it Copyhold So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi Pawsey and Lowdall Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 275. IN this Case formerly argued Roll chief Iustice Iudgement reversed upon a special Verdict touching a Devise of Copyhold lands and Nicholas and Ask Iustices agreed that the devise of the Copyhold here is a devise to the Heirs of the Father and so a Fee-simple and that the party comes not in as a purchaser and for this cause the judgement was reversed nisi As to the other point whether the surrender of a Copyhold by a Tenant for life be good in this case the Court delivered no opinion Antea Trundall and Trowell Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 670. IN this Case it was held that Tenant in antient Demesn cannot after imparlance plead antient Demesn for he hath made a full defence Where antient Demesne cannot be pleaded for he says Defendit vim et injuriam quando c. which implyes all the rest Mich. 22 Car. Banc. Reg. Yet it was ruled to be again spoken to Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup THis Case formerly spoken in was moved again and Latch held Whether a good notice that the words obtulit se in maritagium conjungi was a good notice upon the whole matter and therefore that the Action did well lye Roll chief Iustice answered this is a personal thing and ought to be offered to the party himself otherwise it is no notice and that doth not appear here and if there be no notice implyed then the Action lies not and Holmes and Twists case is that there ought to be notice if the thing be to be done by the party himself otherwise if it be to be done by a stranger so is it here but the question only is if notice be implyed here or not Ierman Iustice said there is no tender of mariage if the other party be not there The rule was for the Plaintif to take his Iudgement Rooke against Smith Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROoke brought an Action upon the case against Smith for speaking these words of him Thou art a poor fellow Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case for words and art not able to pay 2s in the pound and art not able to pay thy debts Vpon an Issue joyned and a Verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable for 1. the Plaintif is not by them charged with the crime of being a Bankrupt and so there is no particular losse to him 2ly It is not showed that the Plaintiff got his living by buying and selling or that he is indebted and 11. Iac. Brook and Clarks case was cited Twisden on the other side answered that the Plaintiffs credit was impaired by the words and by his credit his livelyhood is in part mainteyned And he cited Viccary and Barns case Adjourned to the next Term. Wild afterwards moved again for Iudgement because the words being spoken of a tradesman he conceived them to be actionable Maynard on the other side held them not actionable because there is no particular damage alleged to grow to the Plaintif by speaking of them and because there is no crime objected against the Plaintiff for poverty is no crime but a man may be poor and honest at the same time and he cited two cases to be adjudged that a particular damage ought to be alleged And said that these Actions are not favoured in Law and therefore if the words be not cleerly Actionable it was not reason to make a forced construction of them to make them so Next the Plaintiff hath not averred that he was able to pay all his debts for all the things bought but only of a debt contracted by the buying of the Oyl mentioned Twisden denyed the cases put by Maynard of the particular damage and held the words actionable Roll chief Iustice said a man may be a Bankrupt and yet be honest for he may become so by accident Averment and not of purpose to deceive his creditors But here is no need for the Plaintiff to shew he had a particular losse by the words for it is enough that he is generally scandalised by them neither is it necessary for him to averr that he was able to pay all his debts as Maynard hath alleged Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Antea Owen against Jevon Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 211. OWen brought an Action of the case against Ievon for speaking these words of her Arrest â—f judgement in Action for words viz. This is the whore that my man Cowell begat a bastard on and spent all my mony upon and the quean hath been too long in Town to my ease Vpon an issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintiff Twisden for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment urged that the words are not actionable because there is no special losse or damage alleaged by the Plaintiff hapning to her by reason of the words said that in one Lighfoot and Pigots case it had béen ruled that an Action lies not for saying a woman had a Bastard and he cited also Winter and Barnards case Trin. 1650. in this Court. Vpon these reasons Iudgment was stayed till the other side should move Iay against Iay. Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1350. THis case formerly put and spoken to Argument in a special verdict touching the consideration of the words of a will was again spoken unto by Latch wherein he made this question viz. whether the limitation to I. and his Heirs were good or not and he held it was not good for he said that such limitation in case of a freehold is void He confessed that in the case of Pell and Brown 17 Iac. rot 44. the contrary was adjudged but that there did appear such apparent inconvenience in it that upon it the Court was afterwards divided and 21 Iac. in the Serjeants case it was made a flat quaere and ever since it hath been disputable whether a contingent devise be good or not and in Iacob and Tellings case it is not
determined and Hanbury and Cookrells case is not adjudged but if it be it is on my side and Mich. 37 38. C. B. rot 1149. It was adjudged upon solemn argument at the Bar and on the Bench contrary to the Iudgement in Pell and Browns case if lands be devised to one and his Heirs and if he dye without issue that the land shall be to another and his Heirs this is no Estate tail for it cannot stand with the rules of Law to devise â—uth an Estate for it is but a possibility and if it should be more it must be a Fee upon a Fee and so a perpetuity and it cannot be known within what bounds it shall end either in case of years or life or other contingencies and the comparison of Lampets case is not like to this case for that was or a Term but this is of a freehold and a contingent devise of a freehold is not good since the Statute of 32 H. 8. and Brook tit devise 2 Dyer 28 H. 8. f. 3â— is not an opinion against this And though there could be such a devise of other lands yet Copyhold lands cannot be so devised as the case is here for there cannot be so much as a possibility of reverter for there is no custom to warrant it Hill 5. Car. King and Leyden in this Court and Dyer 264. and though there might be a reverter yet he cannot devise it by will and if he could yet here the conbeyance is made up by surrender admittance and devise and the party is here in by the surrender and not by the devise and so is a Copyholder in by Act executed and not upon the contingency and the will is but to direct and though all this be otherwise yet the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgement for it appears not that the surrender is presented at any Court at all and here is nothing but a recitall found Ierman Iustice said by the Common Law there ought to be a presentment at the next Court Roll chief Iustice and Nicholas Iustice There is no certain time for the presentment but it is according to the Custom of the Manor so that it be within the life of the Tenant Roll chief Iustice said it is an inconvenience to devise such a contingent Estate Nicholas doubted for he said it would shake many wills if it might not be and so said Hales The Court would advise Hales confessed the verdict was imperfect but prayed it might be amended But Latch answered it is good enough for us the Defendants for we have primer possession The Court answered it would be good to have it amended and not to have a venire de novo Venire for that will be chargeable but if the verdict be imperfect to bring the matter in Law into question we can grant a new venire although it hath been heretofore doubted Therefore be advised so that it may be argued Antea Heal against Green Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 370. THe case between Heal and Green upon a special verdict formerly argued by Latch was again spoken to and argued by Twisden Argument upon a special verdict upon construction of words of a Will and he held that the Feme had power by the Will to make the lease notwithstanding that she hath but an Estate for life and cited 11 Car. B. R. Hill rot 810. Iob and Whites case and 21 Iac. Danyel and Vgnel and he said that the remainder limited to the daughter doth not hurt for it may very well stand with the will and the intent of the Testator appears upon the whole to be to give such a power to his wife to make this lease and cited 8 Car. Perd and Bensams case And there is a clause in the will that shews that the Testator did intend to advance his wife by this devise And the Feme shall be in by the power which shall make the estate of the lease good and it is not necessary to recite the power as it is held in Rogers case Maynard on the other side said he would not dispute the power but here is no such power given to the wife as it appears by the expresse words of the Will which doth only describe that she shall only make Estates but for her life otherwise she might make Estates in Tail or in Fee and if this should be the last part of the Will which doth limit the remainder would be destroyed and generals in a Will shall not revoke an express devise but they ought so to be construed that all the Will may stand together as Bonhams case is 8. rep Roll chief Iustice It is a difficult thing to shew the meaning of the Testator here but the general must not destroy the particular devise to which Nicholas Iustice assented and Roll enclyned that the Feme had power by the Will to make this Estate otherwise the words of the Will must be idle and void and it may be the Baron intended to give his wife such a power that she might destroy the remainders and otherwise there cannot be any construction made of the Will Ask Iustice differed in opinion and said it was unreasonable the remainder should be destroyed which is expresly limited by the Will and a Will doth differ from a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said that the words shall be expounded to shew his bounty to his wife but not to give her power to destroy the remainder Ierman Iustice There are expresse words for the Feme and the daughter and the Feme hath a power but not to destroy the Estate of the daughter Curia advisare vult Antea Booth against Lambert Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 201. VPon a speciall verdict upon these words Argument and judgement upon special verdict the question whether dower well assiâ—gâ—ed or not viz. I do endow you of a third part of all the lands my Cosen I. S. your husband dyed seised of The question was whether the feme were well endowed by these words because he doth not say that he endows her by metes and bounds Chase held she was not well endowed and cited 8 Ed. 2.15 and said that here is incertainty which begets dissention which ought not to be and the thing is not here entire but may be devided And this is an assignment of dower which differs from a demand of dower for a demand may be general as in the cases of Thyn and Thyn in this Court and of Fairefax and Fairefax and so the book of 8 E. 2. entry congeable S 5. which seems to prove the contrary that is not to our case for it differs from it Merifield of Councell on the other side held the feme was well endowed and agreed the cases put by Chase That of Common right a feme ought to be endowed by metes and bounds yet sometimes it is otherwise as 3 Eliz. Dyer 27. a feme endowed in Common And the feme that is to be endowed and the
heir and an authority cannot divest them out of him this is not like to the surrendring of Copyhold lands into the hands of the Lord for such a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority may be revoked But which is more the Verdict here doth not find that the two Attorneys are customary Tenants of the Manor but only by way of recital which is not good for they ought to have been found to directly nor doth it appear that they were customary Tenants at the time of the admittance of the party neither is there any possession or title found in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is culpable neither is it found that the Customary Tenant who gave this authority had an estate in fee-simple in the lands and if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a Letter of Attorney neither is the authority given warranted by the Custom and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Wilmot for the Defendant As to the authority he said that it was good and did well enough survive the party that gave it because it is supported with a special direction from the party that gave it 1 H. 7.8 and this is the reason that an Executor may sell lands of the Testator after his death viz. because his authority is so supported 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31 E. 1. Fitz. Grants 45. And here in our case the heir hath neglected his advantage and therefore shall not now be admitted to take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with the circumstances of time persons and of a Custom which is not of a slight esteem in Law and by such a Custom which is very reasonable for it is but to enable the party to dispose of his own lands and far more unreasonable Customs than this are allowed in our Law as that in Kent for an Infant of 15 years of age to have power to sell his lands neither is this Custom contrary to any positive rule of Law for it is here to create the authority to begin after the parties death that created it and so it is not to determine with his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and this Custom extends but within the Manor which is but to a small compass of ground and so the publique is not much concerned in it and the case of 17 Car. in this Court Bambridge and Whaddons case differs from our Case for that was not supported with a custome as this is And it doth appear by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission is also found by the Verdict to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii and so that is well enough and then one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so no primer seisin shall be intended as was urged on the other side and it is also found that the Copyholder was seised Roll chief Iustice It will be a hard matter to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the Copy-holder was seised in fee of the Copyhold lands 2ly It is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land and then the custom doth not extend unto it nor is it found that the parties to whom the Letters of Attorney were made were Copyhold Tenants Disseisin And the primer possession will make a disseisin here by the Defendant if the custom be not-well found and so judgement must be for the Plaintif Devise And I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law Surrender A man cannot devise Copyhold lands and this case is worse but he may surrender to the use of his last Will. If you will not consent to a new tryal we will advise for it is a hard case and my Brothers have not been attended with Books Mich. following Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi It was moved again and the Court would advise Postea Batchelour against Parsons Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Mich. 1652. rot 381. BAtchelour brings a writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him for Parsons in an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas and the Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgement in debt that there are two Declarations in the Record one in the Emparlance Roll the other in the Plea Roll and the Original certified upon the writ of Error doth not warrant the first Declaration for it was filed after it Hales answered that the Record is good enough if the Original dowarrant the last Declaration for this is the common course used in the Common Pleas as the Clarks there do inform me there are many Cases like this in the Common Pleas. Wild of Councel on the other side answered that this is a strange course for they ought first to file the Original because it is the beginning and ground-work of the sute and it not being so done here the Iudgement is given without an Original this is a judgement by default and the imparlance is part of the sute Roll chief Iustice Imparlance Intendment Certiorari The Imparlance Roll is the principal part of the sute and to consound things by intendment that the imparlance may be touching another sute is not good and it matters not what the Custom is in the Common Pleas if it be against Law and both Rolls ought to be certified here Ierman Iustice ad idem Roll chief Iustice All the Record in the Common Pleas which is in the custody of the chief Iustice there ought to be certified by him upon the Retorn of the Writ of Error and here the Imparlance Roll is in his custody and therefore he ought to certifie it and if there be two writs of Error Error and one is good and the other naught we will take the best to affirm the judgement The Original ought not to be fitted to the Declaration but the Declaration to the Original because the Original is the foundation of the sute and therefore the course used in the Common Pleas is a preposterous course Original viz. to declare against the Defendant and after to file an original against him to warrant the Declaration It is here certifyed to be one Record and how can we take the emparlance Roll to be part of the Record it being not certyfied with it and if there be variance between the emparlance Roll and the plea Roll Variance it is Error We will advise but we must not suffer new wayes yet we are loth notwithstanding to reverse Iudgements given in the Common pleas Therefore shew cause next term why the Iudgement should not be reversed Kirman against Iohnson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup IN an ejectione firmae brought by Kirman against Iohnson a special verdict was found
and upon it the case sell out to be thus Special verdict in an ejectione firmae A having lands in see simple and also goods and chatels to the value of 5 l. only in Tavestock made his Will and devised to his wife totum statum suum viz. his whole Estate paying his Debts and Legacies and his Debts and Legacies did amount to the value of 40 l. Hales made 2 questions 1. Whether the lands passe to the wife by the Will or not 2ly If they do what estate passeth to her in the Lands For the first he argued that the lands do passe to the wife 1. Because the generality of the words do include the lands as well as the goods for the words are his whole Estate so that nothing is excluded 9 E. 4. a release of all Actions is held a release of all Actions that the party had in all his capacities 2ly The ordinary maner of spéech doth shew that he intended to devise his lands as well as his goods Riches case Mich. 45. Eliz. C. Banc. A devise of all his rents was held to passe all the partyes lands Also the subject matter in fact doth prove this to be his intent and although here is not a collateral averment to prove the intention but a collateral proof to declare the Testators intent this may be admitted to ascertain the Court of his meaning as it is in the case of proving an Act of Parliament In the Lord Cheneys case an averment standing with a Will was accompted allowable though an averment against a Will be not In Cooper and Lanes case 35 Eliz. a devise seigniori puero where the Testator had a Son and a Daughter was held a good devise to the Son although puer signifies as well a Daughter as a Son and the Daughter there was elder than the Son and Hill 8. Car. In Bartler and Rodes case in B. R. a devise of all his lands in Dale if he had leases as well as lands there passed not the leases For the 2d point he argued that a fee simple passed 1. Because his whole Estate is devised and that is to be applyed as well to the lands as to the goods 2ly Because in regard that there is a consideration for it to wit that the wife shall pay his Debts and discharge his Legacies and whereas it is objected that it is not said she shall pay all his Debts I answer that it shall be so intended Here is land and goods mentioned and not land only and it is found that the goods only are not sufficient to pay the Debts and also the goods were liable to the payment of the Debts without this expression in the Will and therefore the land must be intended to be devised And for the verdict it is not material to find the lands to be held in socage for they shall be intended to be so held because it is the most antient Tenure for where the Law creates a Tenure it shall be socage Tenure 2ly Lands may possibly be deviseable although they be not held in socage for if they be neither held by socage nor chivalry yet they are deviseable Dyer 307. Neither is it material to find the Debts and Legacies paid for it is a condition here an not a limitation and there is a person to take advantage if the condition be broken this is a special verdict the breaking of the condition if it had béen broken would have appeared upon evidence therefore it is not necessary to aver it it is in case of a Fee simple which is an Estate intended to continue Devise Roll chief Iustice held that the lands did passe for so he said the common understanding imports and the words do go to the value of the estate 1. It comprehends the thing to wit the land 2ly The extent of the Estate given viz. Fee simple and so it shall be here intended and the words paying his Debts and Legacies doth enforce this construction for they are to be paid presently which cannot be if the lands passe not in Fee and so the aberment it is but to supply the meaning of the Testator and stands very well with the Will and is not so collaterall as it is in Cheyneys case And for the verdict the lands shall be intended to be socage lands Intendment as being the most Common Tenure except the contrary were shewed on the other part Denham and Bakers case Mich. 24 〈◊〉 entred Trin. 23. rot 12.80 and the words paying his Debts and Legacies are words of condition and not of limitation Ierman ad idem and said Condition̄ Limitation when we say a man is a man of a great Estate we mean his Estate in lands as well as goods Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect but Ask said he doubted of the verdict because no Legacies are found and this is part of the case Iudicium pro querente nisi Antea Pickering and Emma Trin. 1651. Banc. sup EMma obteined a Iudgement against Pickering For a supersedeas upon an audita querela brought and had satisfaction upon it and gave a release to the Defendant yet afterwards takes out a capias ad satisfaciendum against him whereupon he brings his Audita querela and moves the Court that he may have a supersedeas to the capias ad satisfaciendum The Court desired to see the release and upon view thereof The rule was that the party should proceed in his audita querela but said they would grant no supersedeas because the release was ambiguous Custodes c. against Rivett Trin. 1651. Banc. sup VPon a rule of Court to shew cause why an Attatchment should not be granted against one Cause why an Attatchment should not be granted for proceeding to a tryal in an iuferior Court notwithstanding a habeas corpus directed to remove the cause An Affidavit was made that the proceeding to tryal was because it was supposed the habeas corpus was against the Statute of 21 Iac. The Court answered you ought to have returned this matter upon your return and not to have proceeded against the habeas corpus but let the Secondary examine the matter and then move again Return But it is dangerous to execute the Iudgement if the Statute be not against the habeas Corpus The Custodes against my Lord Morley Trin. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the behalf of the Lord Morley for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment preferred against him at the Sessions of Peaco at Hicks Hall upon the Statute against hearing of Mass For a Certiorari to remove an Endictment The Court answered that they would advise but that they did not see how a Certiorari could be granted at the prayer of the party but they said at the prayer of the Councel for the State it may be granted Baker against Smith Trin 1651. Banc. sup BAker brought an Action upon the Case against Smith and
in London and the Bill was found against him But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be granted upon a motion Good behaviour but you must prefer Articles against him here upon Oath and then you may move for it and if there appear cause in the Articles it shall be granted Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior For a Writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior of a Town to which he was elected for the Borough of Trevenny in Cornewall because the old Maior did not swear him in due time as he ought to do but did adjourn the Court before it was done Roll chief Iustice answered that there is no president to swear such an Officer yet ordered that notice should be given to the Town and presidents to be brought into Court if any were to warrant it Whitway against Pinsent Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 61. A Man made a lease of lands for years by deed Demurrer to a plea in Covenants and covenanted that the Lessée his Assigns should enjoy them during the Term the Lessor made the Defendant his Executor dyed The Lessee assigns over his Term a Stranger enters upon the Assignee the Assignee takes 40 l. in satisfaction for his being ejected of the Assignor and afterwards brings an Action of Covenant against the Executor of the Lessor the Defendant The Defendant pleads the acceptance of the 40 l. of the Assignor in satisfaction of the wrong done him in Bar of the Action and to this plea the Plaintiff demurred Bar. The question here was whether the Action of Covenant did lye against the Defendant since that the Plaintiff had received 40 l. of his Assignor in satisfaction Roll chief Iustice said that here is a double Covenant one of the Lessor and the other of the Assignor and therefore the party may have two Actions Action and therefore he is not here barred to bring this second Action though he have barred himself by the acceptance of the 40 l. from bringing an Action against his Assignor and the Defendant hath not pleaded that the 40 l. was given in satisfaction of both the Covenants for then it had been otherwayes Ierman Iustice to the same effect That they are several Covenants by several deeds and both the parties are severelly bound and satisfaction given by one of them is not the satisfaction of the other And he said if Lessee for years assign over his Term the Lessor having notice thereof and he accept the rent from the assignee he cannot demand the rent of the Lessee afterwards yet he may sue other Covenants conteined in the lease against him as for reparations or the like The rule was for the Plaintiff to take his Iudgement nisi Mich. 1651. Banc. sup SErjeant Glyn moved for a certiorari to remove an endictment of forcible entry that was once before removed hither For a certiorari to remove an endictment and after sent down by a procedendo because the Iustices below will not grant restitution Roll chief Iustice answered There is a plea put in and in such case it is not usual to grant a certiorari yet it may be that it may be granted therefore let the other side shew cause on Monday next why it should not be granted Cantrell against Stephens Mich 1651. Banc. sup CAntreli brought an Action upon the case against Stephens for stopping his way in a Meoow called Madbrook in the parish of Redriff in Kent Arrest of judgement for an Action upon the case for stopping a way upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintiff as Lessee to the Haberdashers company of London claimed to have a way for them whereas they having let the land cannot have the way but the Lessée in possession 2ly The prescription is not rightly applyed for it ought to be for them to have a way pro tenentibus et occupatoribus suis which is not so here Twisden answered it shall be intended Tenants and Occupyers to the Haberdashers though it be not said suis Latch said that a prescription per que estate is good in an Action upon the Case because no land is claimed and Green on the same side said the exception taken was helped by the verdict Wild on the other side said that it doth not appear that the Tenant who brings the Action comes in by the Haberdashers who claim the way and so he cannot prescribe to have it Prescription and the prescription ought to be laid pro tenentibus subtenentibus which Roll chief Iustice denyed and said that it is laid that the Haberdashers were seised in Fée postea huc usque and so they have the Fée at the time and may prescribe but it had been better for the party to have shewed that he was their Tenant but it being after a verdict the question is whether it be not helped Vpon reading the Record Roll chief Iustice observed that it appeared not whose Occupyer and Tenant the Plaintiff is but only by way of argument but said the question is whether the verdict do help it and he inclyned it did not Verdict because the Action is brought by the Tenant who hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath made only a title to the way in the Haberdashers Title but hath derived no Estate from them to himself At another day Roll chief Iustice said we must not take things by intendment and here is a failer in the very gist of the Action for the Plaintiff hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath no interest for it appears not how he is Ocupyer of the land for he doth not say he is Ocupator suus and as he hath laid the Declaration the Company ought to have brought the Action Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that upon a demurrer it had been cleerly naught and the verdict here doth not help it for no title appears for the Plaintiff and the verdict cannot give him that he had not before Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect Roll If it had been Ocupator suus I doubt it would not make the Declaration good because it shews not by what title So The rule was nil capiat per billam nisi Tayler against Web. Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 240. IN an ejectione firmae upon a lease for 7 years there was a special verdict found Special verdict in an ejectione firmae and the questions in the Case grew upon the words of a Will that were false orthography viz. I do make my Cosen Giles Bridges my Solle Ayeare and my Yexecutor meaning my sole Heir and Executor Powis of Councel with the Plaintiff held that the Will was good to make Giles Briges the Testators Heir and Executor notwithstanding the mis-writing of the words
and that by the Will the Land and personal Estate passed unto him for he said if by my Will I make one my Heir This is a devise to him of all my Lands in Fee for the Devisee is put in loco haeredis and shall be like an Heir by descent for he is haeres factus although he be not haeres natus Mich. 31 32 Eliz. rot 235 Godfreys Reports Hob. rep f. 34. b. Coundens case Hob. new edition 75. Spark against Burrell the very case in point adjudged 7 E. 6. Br. Done 44. and Devise 48. and in this Case the Devisee had annuities to pay and monies for Legacies which shews the intent of the Testator to be that he shall have his Lands and Goods neither shall the misspelling of the word Heir hurt the Will for the intent of the Testator shall be followed if it may be known as it may well be here Hob. f. 32.15 H. 7. f. 12. Cooks Lit. f. 323. Dyer 325. 2ly Misnaming in a Will shall not hurt the Will Dyer 323.21 Rich. 2. Fitzh devise 27.10 rep 57. 3ly False Latin shall not destroy deeds nor pleadings though it will abate writs a fortiori false English shall not destroy a Will 9 H. 7.16.10 rep Osborns case Hob. 227.10 rep 133. a. 9. H. 6.7 a. and here is only vitium scriptoriâ— and that cannot destroy a Will Hob. f. 162. Walkers case f. 104 104.9 rep 48. a. Dyer 17 Eliz. f. 342. Digbyes case Another reason is the word Heir is here written according to the pronunciation and sound of the word though it agree not in letters and H. that is left out is no letter but an asperte note and the language in England as it differs in time so it differs in place for men speak not nor write English in all parts of England alike and a Will in latin or greek is a good Will within the Statute so that it is not necessary for a Will to be good English and the Testator was bred in France and could neither write nor speak good English and his Will so much the rather is to be favoured And false English hath been allowed in a Bond viz. senteen for seventeen pounds 9. rep 48. a. much more may it be in a Will and so he prayed Iudgement for the Plaintiff Latch for the Defendant argued that the Will was not good he considered 2. points 1. When a man makes one his solle Ayeare and Yexecutor what construction the words shall have 2ly What Estate is conveyed by them And first he said that Hoberts Case cited by Powis was not to the purpose 1. Because it is not the principal case And 2ly It is but an opinion there and an Heir may be without land And for Counden and Clarks case that was cited as it was urged it is for me and not against me and there can be no authority cited that if one make a man his Heir that his lands are thereby conveyed to him in Fee simple But in our case there can be no certain intent of the Testator found out and the making of one his Heir in France where the Testator was bred according to the Civil Law there used is but to make him his Executor and so the Testator might mean it And if one in his Will say I make one of my Daughters my Heir and do not say of his Lands this shall not disinherit the other Daughters and if there should be any Estate conveyed here it cannot be but an Estate for life Brook Done 44.8 Jac. C. B. Inkersalls case 3ly The ill orthogrophy here makes the Will naught for a Will cannot be made good by conjectures Hob. 34. Mich. 23 Car. Robinsons case the Iudgement was reversed for writing the word Aeris insteed of aeris with a dipthongue Trin. 17 Car. C. B. rot 74. and in Skirret and Skinners case libis with a dash over put for libris was adjudged ill and in our case here are divers words miswritten And for the variation of our English dialect which is objected it is to no purpose because this will was lately made the dialect alters not in so short a time and the dialect of the County where the Will was made viz. Glocester Shire agrees not with the Will And Hill 6. Car. this Will came in dispute in the Court of wards and a decree there passed against the Will in this point The Court said the case is doubtful Will. because the Will doth not say I make him heir of my Land but generally my heir and Executor but the false writing hurts not a Will if the Testators mind may be found out Adjourned to be argued again Wood against Topham Mich. 1651 Banc. sup VVOod brought an Action of Trespasse upon the case quare filium baeredem rapuit et maritavit against Topham Arrest of judgement in an Action on the case upon not guilty pleaded and a verdidict found for the Plaintiff the Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and takes these exceptions to the Declaration 1. That the Plaintiff doth not say cujus maritagium ad ipsum pertinet 2ly That he doth not say that the Heir was within age and Maynard of Councel with the Defendant said that the exceptions are not to the writ but to the Declaration and the Action being a Trespasse to recover the Damages the Plaintiff ought to entitle himself to the mariage for the losse whereof he would recover damages for the Heir it may be is not Heir apparent to him and then is no mariage due to him and here is a special Declaration for the losse of the mariage Roll chief Iustice answered Writs Declaration the writs are good both wayes and so may the Declaration be either with those words or without them and he makes not the ground of his Action to be that the mariage belonged to him Common right but of Common right it doth belong to him and the words are used to be alleged only to increase the Damages and the ground of the Declaration is only quare filium suum haeredem rapuit and for this the Plaintiff ought to have his Iudgement Ierman Iustice differed and said the Plaintiff doth not shew he had any damage by the mariage it may be that he had been maryed before or was of full age so no cause of Action Nicholas Iustice as Roll and said that by the Law the mariage belongs to the Father and it may prove a dishonour to the family to have his son taken away and maryed without the Fathers consent Ask Iustice to the â—ams effect and so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi Antea Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to mitigate fines Motion to mitigate fines for riots that were to be set upon rioters that were found guilty upon an information exhibited against them for the riotous cutting down of wood But Wild on the other side prayed there might be good fines set
Court Twisden on the other side confessed the Books were so but here the Battery is not apparent and the wound is internal and not to be viewed by the Court. Roll chief Iustice said 3 things are considerable 1. whether the Court can increase the damages 2ly Whether the wound be apparent and 3ly Whether the damages given be too small The Court upon view of the party and examination of Chirurgions and Witnesses on both sides upon Oath did conclude that they might increase the damages and that the wound was apparent and that the damages were too small and therefore they increased them to 400 l. and said they would not encrease them more because they could not inquire into all the circumstances of the fact as the jury might but they thought fitting to encrease them in some proportion because the offence was great and such outragious Acts are not to be slightly punished VVallis against Bucknal Hill 1651. Banc. sup VPon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae the case sell out to be this Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmse A Copyholder of inheritance made a Letter of Attorney to two joyntly and severally to surrender his Copyhold lands in Fee to certain uses after his death according to the Custom of the Manor The question made by Ellis of Councel with the Plaintif was whether the Custom was good or not he argued that it was not a good Custom In Sir Iohn Davis Reports it is said a Custom must be reasonable and a Custom may be reasonable when it is but against a particular Law and not a general Law but the Custom here thus to convey land is against a general Law Particular Customs may be against publique interest pro bono public but if they be not as in our case they are not they are not good Pro bono publico Next an authority given ought to be Countermandable and to determine at the death of the party but this is not so and therefore it is no good authority 19 E. 3. f. 5. 2ly None can give an authority to another to do a thing which he could not do himself but here it is otherwise and therefore it is not a good authority 3ly By the death of the Copyholder the lands are setled in the heir and this authority given shall not devest them and this is not like the surrendring of lands into the hands of the Lord for a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority is revokable Next the Verdict doth not find that the 2 Attorneys are Customary tenants but only by way of recital which is not good nor doth it appear they were customary tenants at the time of the admittance and here is not found any possession or title in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is guilty neither is it found that the customary Tenant had see-simple in the land And if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a letter of Attorney Also the authority given is not warranted by the Custom set forth Wilmot of Councel with the Defendant said That this authority here is supported with a special direction which may survive the party that gives it 1 H. 7.8 And an authority may survive the party that gives it else how can an Executor sell lands by the authority given unto him 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31. E. 1. Fitzherb 45. and as for the heir he hath neglected his advantage it he had any and cannot now take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with circumstances of time and person and here is also a Custom to support it and this Custom is a reasonable Custom for it is but to enable a man to dispose of his own lands and there are far more unreasonable Customs than this allowed in our law as the Custom of Kent for one of the age of 15 years to be enabled to sell his lands and this Custom is not against any positive rule of Law for the custom is to create the authority to begin after his death and so it is not to determine by his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and it is extended but within a small compass of land and so cannot be very prejudicial to the publique And Bambridge and Whaddons case 17 Car. in this Court cited on the other side doth differ from this case for tâ—ere was no Custom to support it And it doth appear here by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission here is found to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii And one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so here can be no primer seisin intended and it is found the Copyholder is seised Roll chief Iustice said It will be hard to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the party was seiâ—â—d in see of the Copyhold lands But 2ly it is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land then the custom doth not reach it Neither is it found that the 2 Attorneys were Copyhold Tenants and the primer possession here will make a disseisin by the Defendant if the Custom be not well found and then it is for the Plaintif and I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law for a man cannot devise a Copyhold and here the case is worse Devise but he may surrender to the use of his last Will and Testament At another day Wilmot to the Exception taken That it is not found that the two Attorneys were Tenants of the Manor said there is so much found as shall make them be presumed to be Tenants of the Manor for it is found that the party is admitted secundum consuetudinem Manerii which cannot be a good admittance if they were not Tenants Roll chief Iustice answered to be admitted secundum consuetudinem goes â—o the Admittance not to the Letter of Attorney But we will advise At another day Twisden prayed judgement for the Plaintif and insisted upon the Exception that the two Attorneys were not found customary Tenants for one of them is not mentioned at all and the other is found so only by way of recital and so they have not entitled themselves to the Custom and then the Defendant hath no title The Court ruled to shew cause Saturday following why the Plaintif should not have judgement Antea Custodes against Tawny and Norwood Hill 1651. Banc. sup TAwny and Norwood were jointly endicted for blasphemous words severally spoken by them Endictment for speaking blasphemous words upon the late Statute made against blasphemy and were convicted the parties being removed hither by Habeas Corpus It was urged that the Endictment was not good because it was joynt whereas the words being
his guardian and therefore let the Iudgement be reversed nisi Fortune against Johnson Hill 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for an attachment against Iohnson upon an affidavit For an attachment for putting one out of possession that he had ejected one out of possession that was put in by a habere facias possessionem and that in a very riotous manner and had imprisoned the party so put out of possession and others Windham on the other side by way of answer said that the party came into the land by virtue of an eign Iudgement and an extent upon it Roll chief Iustice answered here is title against title therefore take your course in law for we will make no rule in it Crosthwayt and the Hundred of Lowdon Hill 1651. Banc. sup CRosthwayt brought an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of robberyes Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Statute of Winchester for robbery against the Hundred of Lowdon for being robbed of 160 l. and had a verdict against the Hundred It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Action upon the Statute did not lye for the party that brought it for it appears that he was not robbed but that the mony was taken out of a portmantle which was carryed by the postboy and that only the Plaintiffs hand was upon one end of the portmantle so that the post-boy was robbed and not the Plaintiff But Roll chief Iustice answered Robbery Possession there is no question but that this was a robbery of the Plaintiff and it is all one as where my Servant is robbed in my presence and there the goods shall be said to be in my possession and so is it here and therefore let Iudgement be entred nisi Tayler and Web. Hill 1651 Banc. sup THis case formerly argued at the Bar and broken on the Bench Special Verdict upon the words of a will and some opinion delivered in it was again moved by Maynard and argued by him And he said that by the Will no land passeth because lands are not mentioned in it neither is there any necessary implication that the Testator intended to devise his lands for the making one his Heir and enjoyning him to pay an annuity doth not convey the lands to him and the Will doth not say that he makes him his Heir of his lands but generally his Heir which by the civill Law may be of goods and for the enjoyning him to pay the annuity this may be out of other lands in consideration of the personal estate given unto him In Danyel and Vblies case a gift made by a Feme coparcener of her purparty of land did not convey the lands in Fée In Marshes case the Father gave his lands to his two Sons to be equally divided it was adjudged there that only an Estate for life passed and here is nothing at all expresly given In Gilbert and Withers case Mich. 20 Iac. It was adjudged that there ought not to be made such a construction of a Will as is not agreable to Law And this is only a logical Will by way of argument and not a grammatical Construction or Interpretation and positive Will Roll chief Iustice answered to make a construction of a Will where the intent of the Testator cannot be known is intentio caeca sicca but here although the words of the Will be not proper yet we may collect the Testators meaning to be by making of the party his Heir that he should have his lands and it is all one as if he had said Heir of his lands and here he not only makes him his Heir but his Executor also Will. and therefore if he shall not have his lands the word Heir is meerly nugatory and to no purpose for by being Executor only he shall have the goods and as it hath been observed he is in this case haeres factus though not natus Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that the word Heir implyes two things 1. That he shall have the lands 2ly That he shall have them in Fee simple Nicholas and Ask Iustices concurred and so it was ruled that Iudgement should be given for Sir Iohn Bridges the Devisee nisi Lockoe against Palfriman Hill 1651 Banc. sup Hill 1651 rot 1002. VPon a special verdict found in an ejectione firmae Special verdict in an ejectione firmae the case fell out to be this Tenant for life the remainder to Baron and Feme and their Heirs Baron and Feme suffer a recovery The question was whether the Heirs of the Feme were bound by this recovery because the Feme being covert it was conceived she was not Tenant to the praecipe because it appears not she was examined and so nothing was recovered from her It was argued that this recovery did bind the Feme 1. because if a precipe be brought against one who hath nothing in the land the writ only is abatable Fitz. Tit. Droyt 29. Next an Estople with recompence excludes not only parties and privies but also strangers as it is in Shellyes case and 3 Iac. C. B. in Duke and Smiths case 15 E. 4 f. 28 In 43 Ed. 3. f. â—8 was the first mention of examination of a Feme upon a Recovery and she shall be intended to be examined here if it be requisite for it is not found she was not examined and in Br. Abridg. recovery in value 27 23 H. 8. It is held that a Feme Covert is barred by a Common recovery and this hath been the continual practice since that time and whereas it is objected that a colourable recovery doth not bind a Feme Covert it is answered that this is not a colourable recovery but a judicial matter of Record and is brought upon an original and there is an intended recompence to the Feme and to urge that there is no Tenant to the praecipe is an objection which reaches to the common practice of assurances and therefore not to be admitted and in time they might have counterpleaded the voucher but now they cannot avert this matter against the Record 19 E. 3. estople 9. and though the Feme be not examined yet she shall be bound by this recovery though in a fine it is otherwise where there is no recompence in value as here there is and in a fine the Iudge ex officio is bound to examine the Feme but not in a recovery nor is there any practice of it in Law 13 Ed. 3 Iudgement 29. A partition made by writ shall bind a Feme Covert because she hath a recompence so is it upon a partition made upon Record in Chancery And by the Barons surviving the Feme here the recompence both not survive to the Baron but shall go to the Heirs of the Feme Br. recovery in value 27 2 Iac. C. B. here is a reall Estate in the Baron and Feme Hales on the other side made the question to be whether by a recovery
be undestood eight hangings Roll chief Iustice A pair is properly when one of the things so called cannot be properly used without the other but yet the words may be also understood so many couple and here you cannot intend the words to mean so many suits of hangings and you might have expressed your meaning by so many pieces of hangings and therefore it seems doubtfull Ierman Iustice Here the words do not expresse the number of the things as they do when you say a pair of Oxen or the like Nicholas as Ierman Ask Iustice A pair is incertain for that word may be meant more than two in number as when you say a pair of cards and a pair of hangings in some places is meant a suit of hangings Roll chief Iustice If it be so then it is more incertain the word hangings may be good enough but how can the number be known Curia advisare vult Afterwards the Court moved the Defendant to suffer the Plaintiff to amend his Declaration and to plead anew and to consent to a new tryall Askwiths Case Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an order of Sessions made at Durham against Askwith Motion to quash an order of Sessions for not serving the office of a Constable or finding an other able person to serve the place for him being elected according to the custom of the place where he was elected to serve The Exception taken was that it is not shewed that he was elected at a Court Leet and the Sessions have no power to elect a Constable Roll chief Iustice He is a Constable elected by a by-Law By Law it is not necessary there should be any other election then according to the custom and he must serve in his turn or contribute to the charge for another to serve for him Custom and this is a good custom used in many places and I do find one my self in my turn in one place and make no use of my privilege to avoid it Another exception was taken that the complaint made of the party was that he would neither serve the office nor contribute for another to serve it and the order is only that he refused to contribute and so is not warranted by the custom by which he hath an election to serve or contribute Quashed nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup A Prisoner was brought into Court by a habeas corpus out of the Fleet to the intent to turn him over to the Marshalsea to charge him with an Action here Creditor examined upon oath it his debt were reall whereupon the creditor was examined upon his oath whether the debt was real for which he surmised he would bring his Action and upon making oath thereof the Prisoner was turned over accordingly Nota. Smith against Holyman Hill 1652. Banc. sup IT was moved in arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case upon an Assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in Assumpsit False English and Exceptions taken 1. That the Defendants Christian name was mistaken And 2ly That the jurata was erroneous for it says in a plea of dept instead of a plea of debt and the Iudgement was arrested for dept written with a P. is no word though it sound like debt written with a B. Custodes and Howell Gwin Hill 1652. Banc. sup HOwell Gwin was brought to the Bar being convicted for forgeing of a deed Iudgement against one convicted of forgery and was demanded what he could say why Iudgement should not be given against him Boynton of Councel with the Prisoner moved the Court that in regard there was an information of perjury depending here against the witnesses upon whose Testimony the Prisoner was convicted of the perjury and that the Prisoner doth endeavour to proceed with all the speed that is possible against them in this information that the Iudgement may be stayed in the mean time against him Roll chief Iustice answered if they be found guilty of the perjury they shall be punished but we will give Iudgement against your Clyent in the mean time which was done accordingly in these words following Iudgement for forgery viz. you are convicted of forgeing a deed by putting a dead mans hand unto it therefore the Court gives this Iudgement against you that you are fined at a hundred pound and shall stand on the pillory two hours before the Hall dore with a paper on your head shewing the nature of your offence Memorandum the party cut off a dead mans hand and put a pen and a seal in it and so signed and sealed and delivered the deed with the dead hand and swore that he saw the deed sealed and delivered Mich. 1652 Banc. sup MRs. Lucy Fotherby was brought into Court to be turned over into the Marshalsea out of the Fleet with an intent to charge her with an Action of debt Against this it was urged that she was a Prisoner in the Fleet A Prisoner turned over committed thither by an order of the Court of Chancery Prisoner But Roll chief Iustice answered this order is nothing to hinder her turning over if the debt be reall and so upon proof that the debt was reall she was turned over Locky and Dumiloe Hill 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1462. VPon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae the case fell out to be this Special verdict in an ejectione firmae I. S. seised of lands in Fée makes a lease of it to I. D. at Will A. B. puts the Tenant at Will out of possession and after the Tenant at Will enters and takes a lease at Will of him that put him out of possession the question was whether he should hold the land by virtue of his first lease or by virtue of his second agreement To this Roll chief Iustice said if one make a lease at Will to one and he be ousted Will. Determination and then enter again and take a new estate the Will is determined but a stranger cannot determine his Estate without his consent but here he hath determined his first Estate by his new contract with the disseisor of his Lessor And he said if Livery and Seisin be made upon one Acre of land in the name of two Acres it is good for both the Acres for it is not necessary that the party that gives the livery should go to all the land mentioned in the deed of Feoffment Livery and Seisin And he also said that if Tenant at Will cuts down a tree upon the land which he holds at Will by this Act he hath determined his Will Drake and Drake Hill 1652. Banc. sup DRake brought an Action against Drake for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words viz. Thou hast preached lyes in the Pulpit the Plaintiff being a master of Arts and incumbent of a living Wadham VVindham held the words actionable because they were spoken of the Plaintiff in relation to his
this Case upon the construction of a Will which must be favourably taken and the variation here betwixt Mills and Mill is small and inconsiderable to defeat an Estate for it is only in the termination of the word and is as little as the difference between Baxter and Backster or Hasting and Hastings 9 E. 4.42 44 Eliz. Molyn and Molyns or Pitt and Pitts which differ but in one letter and is not a material difference 2ly It appears by the Verdict that he was commonly called Mill and Mills and common reputation we know doth give names to things 3ly It is found that he was known by one name as well as the other and this will satisfie the Testators intent well enough to carry the Estate 4ly The party himself was known to the Testator at the time of the making of the Will by the name of Mills as appears in eight several places of the Will And if one devise Lands and Goods and excepts one Lease if there be other Leases they are devised 5ly It appears by the Will and the Verdict that the mariage was intended by the Father with this very person that is called Mills and a settlement of Lands made upon it and it shall not be intended that the Testator thought that this mariage would be dissolved and another mariage be had And the devise in the body of the Will doth not make the Proviso in the end of the Will repugnant but if it did the last repugnancy shall stand for here is no dependancy of the last Proviso upon the other part of the Will but it is a substantine clause which revokes not the other Doctor Buts Case 10 Rep. and this shall be counted his last Will and it is the more strong because it appears by the very words that it is a plain substantive clause made to declare the new intent of the Testator and it shall not be intended that this Proviso shall be applyed to another person although there be a particular title given to him by the Will and the Estate altered by the Proviso and the former devise is derogated by it Hob. 2d Case Harding Case and the strength of the Proviso to have one of the true name of Mills is not to be intended for it appears that the intent of the Testator was to have one of his name in reputation and this appears by the former limitation in the Will and the provision made in the last Proviso to preserve his name is no more than that he had done before and the former limitation is as well for the Testators advantage as the latter Proviso and more and his intent was not to sell the Lands but to preserve them and it is no more to say of my own Sirname than to say of my Sirname nor is the videlicet any thing to the purpose Roll chief Iustice if the question were only upon the Proviso there would be no difficulty but that Mill and Mills should be all one and it would be good in a Conveyance also as I suppose and if it were apparent that he intended one and the same person Proviso then the last Proviso would be good to revoke the former part of the Will but the doubt is whether he intend the same person or not because he makes such an alteration of the Estate by the Proviso and puts these words mine own name in it by which it séems he intended to advance his own name and he seems exact in it by the great alteration of the Estate made by the Proviso in the settlement of the Estate At another day the Case was again moved and argued by Wadham Windham that Mills Mill are both one name and differ but in sound as Abacock Habacock and the Verdict finds that both the names are his true Sirname though it could not be so in Christian names 6 Rep. 66. Sirnames are altered by time and Custom of places and being so altred do become true names as the name of Cromwell is now become a true name though antiently the name was Williams but I agree that Christian names cannot be altered by time no more than things can be altered from one thing to another 3ly By the construction of the Will and by the finding of the Verdict the names are made one name although by the Testator he was known by no other name than the name of Mills for he is so called and this answers the Proviso in the Will that he should be of his own Sirname with whom his Daughter was to mary 4ly Here is a particular devise made to her in the body of the Will of the Lands if they should not be devised here 8 Rep. Clausa generalia non extendunt ad ea quae sunt specialiter recitata and there is a difference between a Will and a Deed for all the words in a Deed are spoken together but it is not so in a Will which is ambulatory and may have several constructions and one clause may controll another Instit 11 2. and the Proviso here in the last part of the Will controlls the former part of the Will as a Codicil might have done if there had been any and the very words express the parties meaning 1 Rep. Porters Case Dyer 255. If in a Will a clause may receive a doubtfull construction then a verbis non est recedendum nor shall there be a particular supplyment of words added to expound it except to prevent an absurdity which must not be admitted though in a Will Maynard on the other side made two questions 1. Whether Mills and Mill should be intended to be one and the same Sirname and so to be the Testators Sirname 2ly Whether Elizabeth take the Lands by the first clause in the Will or by the Proviso or latter clause For the first he held that Mills and Mill is not one and the same Sirname because the Testator had a particular eye to his own true Sirname and the Cases put of names that differ yet sound alike do not come to our Case because there was no such special eye or regard as here is 2ly Suppose that his true name be Mills and that he is provided for particularly by the Testator in his Will then the Proviso cannot extend to him for this would be senselesse and it is as much as to make the Testator in one breath to speak contradictories and it would be hard to make such constructions of such words that would argue the party to be irrational that spake them and the words in the Proviso are in nature of an exception in construction of Law 12 Ed. 1. Fitzh Grants 87. and Carter and Ringsteeds Case is not yet answered by the other side Bolton and the Lady Staffords case 8 Iac. C. B. 1. rep Mildmayes Case The words in a Proviso in a Will or Deed may be supplyed with other words rather than to interpret it so that it shall contradict the former part of the Will or Deed
Owner may devise and the Custom is that every Owner in fee-simple may devise and the Custom shall go to Land and holds to reversions as well as to lands in possession At another day it was argued that the devise was not good for the word Owners cannot extend to all sorts of Owners for it extends not to an Infant Owner of such Houses for he cannot devise therefore the words must receive a limited construction and therefore I conceive the word Owner extends only to an absolute Tenant in fee-simple and not to a reversioner in fee for a Custom must as hath been said be taken strictly 12 E. 4. f. 3.21 E. 4. f. 24. 2ly In true construction this Owner in fee in remainder shall not be said Owner but the Tenant in tayl is Owner and so here is not Owner ex vi termini 3ly Here is but a possibility of fee-simple in him which is not grantable or devisable 2 Ed. 4.1 and the Statute of Westm 2d helps not to the Custom for that Statute is within memory of man 26 H. 8. f. 4.22 Ass Pl. 78. And upon the very finding of the verdict it cannot be good for by the Verdict no title is found for the Defendant Latch on the other side held that here is a good devise warranted by the Custom for here is an Estate within the very letter of the Custom for he is true Owner of the House in fee-simple although it be not in present possession for he hath fee-simple in it and hath it to his own benefit in such an Estate as it is and the word Owner is a general word and comprehendeth all manner of Ownerships 2ly It is within the reason of the Custom for it intends the same benefit to Owners in reversion as it doth to Owners in possession and is indifferent unto all Estates And although a Custom shall be taken strictly yet it shall also be taken reasonably as having respect to the benefit of the party and there can be no reason alleged to be against this devise 26 H. 8.4 A remainder in fee shall go according to the Custom whether by the Custom Lands in fee shall go the Custom shall go to all things issuing out of the Land and so to all Estates in the Land Dyer 148. and here is more than a possibility devised 4 5 Phil. Mar. Benloes It is ruled that a fee-simple expectant shall go to the youngest Son by the Custom where the Custom was that the youngest Son should have the Lands of which his Ancestor dyed seised and as to the Verdict here is a good title found for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice The verdict is imperfect for the Ejectment is against Baron and Feme and the Feme is found Ejector by the verdict and nothing is found concerning the Baron Venire de novo therefore you must have a Venire de novo if you will not agree to amend the Verdict according to the notes if the notes will warrant it Afterwards a Venire de novo was awarded by consent Pendarvis and Saint Aubin Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 723. IN an Action of Accompt the Defendant pleads ne unques receptor Plea before Auditors upon this an Issue was joyned and an imperfect verdict found and thereupon a Venire de novo was awarded and the Iury found for the Plaintiff and the Defendant adjudged to accompt before Auditors The Defendant pleads before the Anditors that he had delivered over part of the monies To this the Plaintiff demurs and shews for canse that this Plea is contrary to the Verdict for that is that he should accompt for all and here he would accompt but for part only Windham for the Plaintiff argued that this cannot be a good plea before Auditors in discharge of the accompt but it goes in bar of the accompt Dyer 196. 41 E. 3. f. 31.22 H. 6.25 and in Boynton and Cheeks Case lately in this Court such a Plea was adjudged not good And it would be michievous if it should be otherwise in reserving such matter to be tryed again Twisden on the other side said it is a good plea before Auditors to say that he received the monies to deliver over and there are four opinions in the Books how this matter should be pleaded â—o E. 3. Br. Acc. 8â— hold â— that this Plea is pleadable before Auditors and this plea is in discharge of the Accompt and therefore pleadable before Auditors 12 H. 4.18 and in Baynton and Cheeks Case cited the judgement was not given upon this point Roll thief Iustice The Books generally are that this plea is in bar of the Accompt Plea Bar. but here your plea of delivery over hath made it a plea in bar and it would be mischievous to plead it now for this would cause one and the same issue to be twice tryed and then there may be contrary Verdicts which would be inconvenient Therefore let judgement be for the Plaintiff Stavely and Ulithorp Hill 1653. Banc. sup AN Action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes and a Verdict was given for the Plaintiff Arrest of Iudgement in an action for not setting forth of Tâ—hs It was moved in arrest of judgement that the Statute was mis-recited because it was not said the Parliament in which it was made was held by prorogation as in truth it was But Latch answered that it is not mis-recited for it is true that the Parliament was held upon the 9th of November Recital as we have alleged though we have not expressed it to be held by prorogation and we conceive it is not necessary to express it to be so held for the Presidents are contrary as in Cooks Entry tit Prohibition Roll chief Iustice The Parliament is not said to be begun and held but only to be held and therefore it is well enough Iudgement was given for the Plantiff nisi Postea Dorman and Snag Hill 1653. Banc. sup AN Action upon the Case was brought upon two promises Arrest of judgement in an Action upon two promises viz. to pay so much mony upon a certain day and 2ly to save the Plaintiff harmless c. Vpon issue joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of judgement that the Plaintiff did not shew how the Defendant hath not saved the Plaintiff harmless but only sayes generally that he did not save him harmless and so he may bring another Action for the same thing The Court was then of opinion that it was not good to say generally that the Defendant did not save him harmless but he ought to shew in what particular as if I assume and promise to one to give him all the mony in my Purse I must shew how much mony was in it and aver that I gave it him At another day Sergeant Clark moved for judgement whom Latch seconded and said here is a good breach
to the surrender or otherwise the admittance is not good Thurle and Madison Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar between Thurle and Madison Enrolment of a Deed. It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if divers persons do seal a Deed and but one of them acknowledge the Déed and the Déed is thereupon enrolled this is a good enrollment within the Statute and may be given in evidence as a Deed enrolled Evidence at a Tryal It was then also said that if a deed express a consideration of money upon the purchase made by the Deed yet this is no proof upon a tryal Consideration that the monies expressed were paid but it must be proved by witnesses MEorandum Copy proved That upon the same Tryal an Act of Parliament produced in point for the selling of Delinquents estates was sworn to have been examined by the Parliament Roll and that it was a true Copy before it was read in evidence Nota. VVood and Gunston Mich. 1655. VPon a motion for a new tryal between Wood and Gunston Memorandum New tryal for miscarriage of the Iury. upon a supposition of excessive damages given by the Iury in an Action upon the case tryed at the Bar for words viz. Calling the Plaintif Traytor c. 1500 l. being the damages given It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if the Court do believe that the Iury gave their verdict against their direction given unto them the Court may grant a new Tryal And a new Tryal was gronted in this Case after a full debate had by Councell on both sides Culliar and Iermin Mich. 1655. Banc. sup CUlliar brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declared Arrest of judgement upon a promise that the Testator of the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would mary such a Woman did promise that he would leave him half his Estate at his death and thereupon he did mary the party and yet he did not leave him half his estate at his death Vpon a verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of judgement that the Declaration was not good for whereas the promise was that the Defendant should leave him half of all his estate which might be intended both of his real and also of his personal Estate and of any estate in reversion as well as of an estate in possession the Plaintif only says that the Testator died worth 3000 l. in possession and that he did not leave him half of that estate and it may be he left him part of his real estate or estate in reversion to the full value of half his whole estate But Glyn chief Iustice disallowed the exception and gave judgement for the Plaintif Iudgement Lance and Blackmore Mich. 1655. Banc. sup Hill 1654. rot 191. LAnce an Executor brought an Action upon the Case against Blackmore Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the Case upon a pro and declared that in consideration that the Testator would suffer the Defendant to enjoy such a Close of land the Defendant did assume and promise to pay 53 s. a year for the rent thereof for so long time as he should enjoy it and for so much rent due for it for so long time in the Testators life time and for so much rent due since his death he brings the Action Vpon non assumpsit pleaded a verdict was found for the Plaintif and entire dammages given It was moved in arrest of Iudgement That an Action of the Case doth not lie it being for the non-payment of rent which follows the nature of the land and doth sound in the realty for which a personal Action lies not 2ly Here doth not appear by the Daclaration Personal act on Consideration to the any consideration to ground the promise upon for the Declaration is that if the Testator in her life time would permit the Defendant to enjoy the Close then c. and it is not averred Averment that the Testator did in her life time suffer the Defendant to enjoy the Close Glyn chief Iustice If a promise be made to the Testator the Executor may have an Action Executor and it is a good consideration as to him for the executor is representative of the Testator And 2ly An Action upon the Case will not lie for rent upon a promise in law but upon a special promise of the party to pay it Promise in Law Special as our Case is it will lie Ingram and Fawset Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN this Case it was said by Glyn chief Iustice Administratâ—r must shew how Administrator That if an Administrator bring an Action against an Administrator it is not necessary for the Plaintif to shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted unto the Defendant but he must shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted to himself to entitle himself to the Action for if it appear not to the Court that he is Administrator he cannot sue by that name Mich. 1635. Banc. sup IT was said by Wild and agreed by Whitwick one of the Masters of the Vpper Bench office How far special bayl is lyable for the principal that if an Attorny do appear for one in the Vpper Bench special bayl is entred for his Clyent to that Action that that Bayl is not bound to stand Bayl to all other Actions that shall be declared in against the party upon the by but the Attorny for him is bound to appear for him in all such Actions and to put in Common bayl Wagstaff and Tempest Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Glyn chief Iustice upon evidence given in a Tryal at the Bar Dispensation with a forfeiture of an Estate bayl between VVagstaff and Tempest that if tenant for life do levy a Fine of the Lands he is so seised of whereby he should forfeit his estate yet if he in the remainder will joyn with the Tenant for life in declaring the uses this is a dispensation with the forfeiture and Le Gay Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was enformed For a time to accompt before Auditors that in an Action of Accompt brought there was a verdict that the Defendant should accompt before Auditors and that Auditors were assigned and the parties were now before the Auditors and thereupon it was moved on the Defendants part that this Court would grant him time to accompt for the reasons alleged But Wild answered that it was not proper to move here for the Auditors are now Iudges of the matter Auditors Iudges by the Statute and may give time if they see cause To which Glyn chief Iustice agreed and said the Auditors are Iudges by the Statute and therefore move before them and trouble not us with it Sergeant Bradshaw and Procter Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN the Case of Sergeant Bradshaw and Mr. Procter of Grays Inne Challenge to an array no part of
he was taken and imprisoned The Defendant pleaded an award made by Sir John Rivers and Sir Nicholas Miller two Iustices of Peace between the parties in Bar. Twisden of Councel with the Plaintif said that the award doth not bind the Plaintif for the award concerns only the speaking of the words and speaks nothing of the imprisoment And 2ly the Award is not good for there is not satisfaction made by it on both parties Wild of Councel with the Defendant held that the Declaration was not good and that therefore he needs not to justifie the plea for though it should be ill yet the Plaintif can have no judgement and he said the Declaration was naught because it alleged no day when nor place where the Defendant charged the Plaintif with the felony and made him to be imprisoned Twisden answered that there is a place alleged and that though there were none yet it is well enough for part and judgement may be given for that To which Roll chief Iustice agréed Wild replyed then the plea is good But the Court answered it is not and what say you to the Arbitrement Wild answered it was good to which Ierman and Ask Iustices assented Roll chief Iustice answered It is a benefit to the Parish and so to the Overseers of the poor Nicholas Iustice to the same purpose Roll chief Iustice said that the Declaration is ill and the Plea also for the Plea is entire Declaration Plea and yet goes not to all the matter alleged in the Declaration but the plea is only to part of them and therefore if any part of the Declaration be good judgement ought to be given against the Defendant for that part and the plea in Bar is naught so judgement ought to be entirely for the Plaintif But it is to be considered concerning the damages Rosyer against Langdale Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 100. ROsyer an Executor brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit against Langdale a Feme Administratrix Error to reverse a judgement in an Assumpsit by an Executor against an Administratrix and declares that the Defendant in consideration that he would forbear sute until she had taken out Letters of Administration did assume and promise to pay unto him the Plaintif a certain sum of money owing unto him by the Intestate Vpon Issue joyned and a Verdict and a Iudgement for the Plaintif The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse the Iudgement And Baldwin of his Councel took these Exceptions 1. That the Plaintif had set forth no consideration in his Declaration for the Assumpsit for all that is alleged is that the Plaintif should forbear sute till the Defendant had taken out Letters of Administration which is no consideration at all for the Defendant was not lyable to be sued as Administratrix until she had taken out Letters of Administration except there were a cause depending as here is not And he cited Hob. rep Bidwell and Cottons case That if there be a sute commenced though there be no cause for it yet forbearance to sue is a good cause to ground an Assumpsit upon Assumpsit A second Exception was that the Venire facias is not awarded per Curiam nec in Curia Roll chief Iustice held the 1. a good Exception for the Defendant was not chargeable before Letters of Administration taken forth if she do not intermedle with the goods of the Intestate and it doth not appear here that she did neither is the Defendant compellable to take forth Letters of Administration for they may be granted to the next of Kin if the Ordinary pleaseth according as the Statute ordains Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same intent thereupon the rule was reversetur nisi c. But because Day being of Councel on the other side took some Exceptions to the writ of Error and the retorn thereof It was adjourned Staples Hill 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to supersede a scire sacias brought by a prisoner of the Marshalsea For a Supersedeas to a Scire sacias upon the late Act for discharging of poor prisoners because the Certificate of the cause for which he was a prisoner was false and so the procéedings erronious for the party was in execution for Trespass which is not within the Statute made for the prisoners 2ly Because there was no due notice given to the party at whose sute he lay in execution as the Statute doth direct there should The Court ordered to view the Certificate 〈◊〉 Den uneâ— and to file it otherwise there should be no proceedings upon the scire facias and directed the party to demur upon the scire facias if it be not good because the matter alleged cannot be pleaded to it Custodes against Arskot Hill 1650. Banc. sup MAynard moved the Court for one Arskot that was outlawed for murther For time to bring a Writ of Error and had leave to bring his writ of Error that he may have longer time to bring it because the King uses to sign the writ and the Parliament had not ordered who shall do it now and therefore the Attorney General must advise with the Parliament about it which cannot spéedily be done Thereupon time was granted till the Attorney could conveniently do it Newcomin against Leigh Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 16â—0 rot 52. LEigh did assume and promise unto Newcomin Whether a good Assumpsit that if Newcomin would take one Loe for his Debtor in the room of one Cooper and would spare Loe until such a time for the money that then he would pay the money to Newcomin if he did not and upon this Assumpsit Newcomin brought his Action against Leigh The question was whether this were a good Assumpsit And the Court held it was not because it is a collateral thing and he doth not say that he will discharge Cooper and so Newcomin may sue Cooper notwithstanding the Assumpsit For though it may be it was the intention of the parties to discharge Cooper yet it appears not so by the words of the Assumpsit set forth And it was then said by Roll. That if I promise to pay to Iohn a Down a Debt which Iohn a Stile oweth to Iohn a Down Nudum pactum this is nudum pactum Bawsy and Lowdall Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 275. VPon a special verdict in an Action of Trespasse and Ejectment Special Verdict upon the devise of a Copyhold in Fee the case in effect was this A man seised of Copyhold lands in fée devisable by Custom deviseth them in this manner I give and bequeath my lands c. to my son Richard during his natural life and after to the heir of his body for ever Hales of Councel with the Plaintif made these questions 1. whether by the words of the Will a Fee-simple at the Common Law passeth because there is an estate to Richard for life and after
to his heir in the singular number And he argued that the word heir includes heirs because it is Nomen Collectivum Next Whether the devising the land to Richard for his natural life and after to his heir for ever makes any difference in the Case and he held it did not and said that Archers case that is objected by the other side differs much from this for there the words are restrained for it is Proximo Haeredi and not Haeredi generally as it is in our Case and there the words next heir are not words of limitation but of purchase and to decipher the person but not to limit the estate and in our case if there should not be a limitation Richard should only take for life which is not the intent of the Will as may appear by the passages and clauses of it And Thomas and Kemishes case in 5 Car. in this Court makes an end of our Case Neither doth the adding of the word in perpetuum make a difference in the Case for if the words had béen omitted the same estate had passed to the Tenant Richard and his Estate is not enlarged by them 2ly The words in perpetuum relate to all the Estate and not to any particular Estate and so the surrender made by R. Hunt is good Next of all supposing that it be a limited Estate and a contingent remainder the question will then be whether this contingent remainder be destroyed or no and I conceive it is because the particular Copyhold estate which must support this contingent remainder is destroyed and the Law is the same in that point in Copyhold cases as it is in other cases at the Common Law for Copyholds are directed by the rules of the Common Law 13 Iac. Banc. Reg. It is also held that there is the same rule to support a contingent remainder of a Copyhold as there is of Land at the Common Law Next it is to be considered whether the particular Copyhold estate be extinguished or not And it is cléer that it is for the customary Estate is in the Lord who hath the Fée simple which cannot both stand together and so there is no estate to support the contingent remainder Copyhold and consequently all objections are by this answered 1. That the surrender shall not do wrong 2ly That the surrender destroys not the Custom Turner on the other side argued that only an estate passeth to Richard for life and that the word Heir is not a word of limitation to make the Ancestor take a Fée simple neither shall the word Heir be taken Collective here but singulariter and so according to the common sence number and matter ought it to be construed And Nowns Collective in the singular number do not signifie the same thing that they do in the plurall number as may be proved by other examples and there is no proper name to signifie one particular Heir in Law if the word Heir in the singular number shall not do it Shellyes case 1. Rep. f. 101. â—ooks institut f. 8.1 Rep. Archers case And there are two Iudgements in the Common pleas in the very point as I am informed by the Attorney on our side In a Will the word Heir shall not be taken Coliective out in the natural grammaticall sence and not as a word of art but it is otherwise taken perchance in conveyances which are made by men of Art and learned in the Laws whereas wills are made commonly by lay gents and unskilfull in the Law And the rule is that words shall be interpreted to make all the parts of a déed in which they are to stand together and to bear sence and to be in esse and effectual which cannot be here if the word heir shall be taken Collective but may be if it be taken singulariter Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case Next if the word heir should be taken Collective then the Estate for life would merge 30 El. C. B. Hill 3 Iac. C. B. Hiller and Lewis his case 3ly Rich. hath only an Estate for life if it were otherwise the Testator would have otherwise expressed it and he hath well expressed an estate for life and no other Estate in him If one grant 4. parts of his mannor it shall passe 4. parts of 5. and not all For the other poynt the contingent remainder is not here destroyed by the destruction of the Copyhold Estate for Copyhold Estates do not depend one upon another as Estates of the Common Law do and here is one in esse to take the Estate Another question he spoke to viz. whether a Lessee at will being ousted by a stranger can reenter and he held he cannot for he hath but a meer right 38 H. 6. f. 27. Fortescue and Yelverton 3. Iac. Banc. Reg. rot 501. Carpenter and Collins But to this Roll chief Iustice Entry and Nicholas Iustice answered that he may enter notwithstanding it hath been heretofore controverted and the reason is because he hath the primer posseâ—sion Roll chief Iustice enclined that the contingent remainder is not destroyed because it doth not here depend upon the particular Estate but it ought to expect till the remainder happen and he conceived that the word heir and heirs were all one here by the intent of the partyes and the frame of the conveyance Ask Iustice said that it is a good Estate of Fee simple conditionall executed in Richard Ierman Iustice The intent in a Will if it be not contrary to Law ought to be taken and there must be words to make the intent appear and these words must stand together and shall not be made void and he conceived the contingent remainder not destroyed Adjourned till the next Term. Postea Port against Midleton Hill 1650. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of debt upon an obligation Error to reverse a judgment in debt and the Error insisted upon was in the entring of the Iudgement which was quod recuperet Debitum suum and doth not say praedictum Roll chief Iustice answered Delivery Escrow that the debt is confessed by the party and the question is whether the deed was delivered as an escrow or not but it was delivered to the party himself and therefore could not be delivered as an escrow Ierman Iustice said that debitum suum without praedictum is not good for the word praedictum is verbum operativum Ask Iustice as Roll and there is but one debt Implication and the word ideo in the record implyes it to be the same debt Nicholas to the same effect The rule was affirmetur nisi causa die Iunae sequenti Hill 1650. Banc. sup AN administrator had a Iudgement against one to recover a debt due to the Intestate and then the Administrator dyed Intestate For a scire facias to revive a judgement denyed Scire facias and another took out new letters of administration de bonis non