did admit a Copy-holder in Remainder for life That the same was a good admittance according to the Custome And that he was a sufficient Dominus pro tempore as to this purpose Although it was objected by Walmesley That the Gardian is but Servus and not Dominus But because it was agreed that he had a lawfull Interest the admittance was good and so it was adjudged 33. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 178 SHIPWITH and SHEFFIELD'S Case THe Custome of a Copy-hold Manor was That a feme Covert might give Lands to her Husband And if it were a good Custome or not was the Question Fleetwood The Custom is good and vouched 12. E 3. That in York there is such a custome That the Husband might give the Land of his own purchase to his wife during the Coverture and it is a good Custome That an Infant at the age of fifteen years may make a Feoffment 29. E. 3. and the same is good at the Common Law and yet the same all began by custome But the Court was of opinion That the Custome is unreasonable because it cannot have a lawfull Commencement And Anderson Chiefe Justice said That a Custome that an Infant at the age of seven years might make a Feoffment is no good custome because he is not of age of discretion And in this case at Barre It shall be intended that the wife being sub potestate viri did it by the Coherison of her Husband The same Law is of a Custome That the wife may lease to her Husband Fleetwood urged That the custome might be good because the wife was to be examined by the Steward of the Court as the manner is upon a Fine to be examined by a Judge To which the Court said nothing 31. Eliz. in the King's Bench 179 AN Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit was brought And the Plaintiff layed his Action That such a one did promise him in respect of his labour in another Realme c. to pay him his contentment And he said That Twenty five Pound is his contentment and that he had required the same of the Defendant Cook moved in arrest of Judgement it being found for the Plaintiffe upon Non Assumpsit pleaded that no place was alledged where the contentment was shewed And the opinion of the Court was against him for Gawdy and Wray were of opinion that he might shew his contentment in any Action and so it is where it is to have so much as he can prove he might prove it in the same Action Cook said That it had been moved in stay of Judgement in this Court upon an Assumpsit because the request was not certain And that case was agreed by the Justices because the request is parcell of the Assumpsit and the entire Assumpsit together in such case is the cause of the Action but in this case that he should content him is not the cause of the Assumpsit but only a circumstance of the matter and it was resembled to the Case of 39. H. 6. where a Writ of Annuity was brought for Arrerages against an Abbot pro consilio c. And the Plaintiffe declared that the Councel was ad proficuum Domus and was not alledged in certain and it was holden that the same was not materiall although it were uncertain because it was but an induction and necessary circumstance to the Action And so the Plaintiffe recovered and had Judgement Mich. 29 Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 180 THE Statute of 23. Eliz. cap. 25. is Quod non licuit alicui to engrosse Barley c. and in the Statute there is a Proviso That he may so do so as he convert it into Malt. The question was If in an Information upon that Statute That the Defendant had converted it to Malt he might plead the generall Issue Not guilty and give in Evidence the speciall matter or whether he ought to plead the speciall matter Clench Justice He may plead Not guilty c. for the Proviso is parcel and within the body of the Statute as 27. H. 8. 2. where upon an Information upon the Statute of Farmors it is holden by Fitzherbert That the Vicar may plead Non habuit seu tenuit ad firmam contra formam Statuti c. and yet the Statute in the premises of it restrains every Spirituall Person to take in Farme any Lands c. and afterwards by a Proviso gives him liberty to take Lands for the maintenance of his house c. As upon the Statute of R. 2. If he do plead That he did not enter contra formam Statuti he may give in Evidence that he entred by Title as that his father was seised and died and the same is not like unto the condition of a Bond for that is a severall thing But the Proviso and the Statute is but one Act. Mich. 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 181 NOte It was said by Master Kemp Secondary of the King's Bench That there is a Court within the Tower of London but he said That it was but a Court Baron and said That he can shew a Judgement That no Writ of Error lieth of a Judgement given there And it was a question Whether Process might be awarded to the Lieutenant of the Tower for Execution upon a Judgment given in the Kings Bench because the Defendant was removed and dwelt within the Liberty of the Tower And it was said It could not but the Writ ought to be awarded to the Sheriffs of London and if they returne the Liberties of the Tower then a Non omittas shall be awarded But some Counsellors said That although a Non omittas be awarded yet the Sheriffs durst not go unto the Liberties of the Tower to serve the Process 2 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 182 The Lady STOWELL'S Case IT was adjudged in this Case That the wife who is divorced causa adulterii shall have her Dower 3. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 183 WARNER'S Cafe LEssee for twenty years doth surrender rendring rent during the term It was adjudged a good rent for so many years as the term might have continued 3. Jacobi in the King 's Bench. 184 WHITLOCK and HARTWELL'S Case TWO Joint-Tenants for life the one demised and granted the moyty unto his companion for certain years to begin after his death Adjudged void because it is but a possibility And so is it of a Covenant to stand seised to the use c. as it was adjudged in Barton and Harvey's Case 37. Eliz. 3. Jacobi In the Kings Bench. 185 PINDER'S Case A. devised lands in Fee to his son and many other lands in tail And afterwards he said I will that if my son die without issue within age that the lands in Fee shall go to such a one Item I will that the other lands in tail shall go to others and doth not say in the second Item if the son dieth without issue within age It was adjudged That the second Item should be without
it is not known whether he be guilty or not and in Cuddingtons Case it was a general Pardon and that was the cause that the Action did lie for that it is not known whether he committed the Felony or not But they conceived that if it had been a particular Pardon that then in that case the Action would not have been maintainable For the procuring of a special Pardon doth presuppose and it is a strong presumption that the party is guilty of the offence Note it did not appear in the Case of Fines the principal Case whether the Pardon by which Dr. Spicer was pardoned were a general Pardon or whether it were a particular and special Pardon Pasch 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 415. DAVER's Case IN Davers Case who was arraigned for the death of William Dutton Ley Chief Justice delivered it for Law That if two men voluntarily fight together and the one killeth the other if it be upon a sudden quarrel that the same is but Man-slaughter And if two men fight together and the one flieth as far as he can and he which flieth killeth him who doth pursue him the same is Se defendendo Also if one man assaulteth another upon the High-way and he who is assaulted killeth the other he shall forfeit neither life nor lands nor goods if he that killed the other fled so far as he could Quod nota Pasch 21 Jacobi â—n the Court of Wards 416. Sir EDWARD COKE's Case THis Case being of great consequence and concernment The Master of the Court of Wards was assisted by four of the Judges in the hearing and debating of it and after many Arguments at the Barr the said four Judges argued the same in Court viz. Dodderidge one of the Justices of the Kings Bench Tanfield Lord chief Baron of the Exchequer Hobart Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and Ley Lord Chief Justice of his Majesties Court of Kings Bench The Case in effect was this Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents did grant to Sir Christopher Hatton the Office of Remembrancer and Collector of the first Fruits for his life Habendum to him after the death or surrender of one Godfrey who held the said Office then in possession Sir Christopher Hatton being thus estated in the said Office in Reversion and being seised in Fee-simple of diverse Mannors Lands and Tenements did Covenant to stand seised of his said lands c. unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of J. Hatton his son in tail and so to his other sons intail with the Remainder to the right heirs of J. Hatton in Fee with Proviso of Revocation at his pleasure during his life Godfrey the Officer in possession died and Sir Christopher Hatton became Officer and was possessed of the Office and afterwards he became indebted to the Queen by reason of his said Office And the Question in this great Case was Whether the Mannors and Lands which were so conveyed and setled by Sir Christopher Hatton might be extended for the said Debt due to the Queen by reason of the Proviso and Revocation in the said Conveyance of Assurance of the said Mannors and Lands the debt due to the Queen was assign'd over and the Lands extended and the Extent came to Sir Edward Coke and the heir of John Hatton sued in the Court of Wards to make void the Extent And it was agreed by the said four Justices and so it was afterwards decreed by Cranfield Master of the Court of Wards and the whole Court That the said Mannors and Lands were liable to the said Extent And Dodderidge Justice who argued first said that the Kings Majestie had sundry prerogatives for the Recovery of Debts and other Duties owing unto him First he had this prerogative ab origine legis That he might have the Lands the Goods and the Body of the Person his Debtor in Execution for his Debt But at the Common Law a common person a common person could not have taken the body of his debtor in execution for his debt but the same priviledg was given unto him by the Statute of 25. E. 3. cap. 17. At the Common Law he said that a common person Debtee might have had a Levari facias for the Recovery of his Debt by which Writ the Sheriffe was commanded Quod de terris Catallis ipsius the Debtor c. Levari faciat c. but in such Case the Debtee did not meddle with the Land but the Sheriffe did collect the Debt and pay the same over to the Debtor But by the Statute of West 2. cap 20. The Debtee might have an Elegit and so have the moyetie of the Lands of his Debtor in Execution for his Debt as it appeareth in C. 3. part 12. in Sir William Harberts Case Secondly He said That the King had another prerogative and that was to have his Debt paid before the Debt of any Subject as it appeareth 41. E. 3. Execution 38. and Pasc 3. Elizabeth Dyer 197. in the Lord Dacres and Lassels Case and in M. 3. E. 6. Dyer 67 Stringfellows Case For there the Sheriffe was amerced because the King ought to have his Debt first paid and ought to be preferred before a Subject vid. 328 Dyer There the words of the Writ of Priviledg shew that the King is to be preferred before other Creditors By the Statute of 33. H. 8. cap. 39. The Execution of the Subject shall be first served if his Judgment be before any Processe be awarded for the Kings debt In the Statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 19. I find that by the Common Law the King might grant a Protection to his Debtor that no other might sue him before that the King was satisfied his debt See the Writ of Protection Register â— 81. B. the words of which are Et quia nolumus solutionem debitorum nostrorum caeteris omnibus prout ratione Perogativae nostrae totis temporibus retroactis usitatae c. But that grew such a Grievance to the Subject that the Statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 19. was made And now by that Statute a common person may lawfully sue to Judgment but he cannot proceed to Execution and so the Kings Prerogative is saved unless the Plaintiffe who sueth will give security to pay first the Kings Debt For otherwise if the Paty doth take forth Execution upon his Judgment and doth levy the money the same money may be seized upon to satisfie the Kings Debt as appeareth in 45. E. 3. title Decies tantum 13. The third Prerogative which the King hath is That the King shall have the Debt of the Debtor to the Kings Debtor paid unto him v. 21 H. 7. 12. The Abbot of Ramseys Case The Prior of Ramsey was indebted to the King and another Prior was indebted to the Prior of Ramsey and then it was pleaded in Barr that he had paid the same Debt to the King and the Plea holden for a good Plea
in tail may have a Formedon against the Bishop But in our Case it is otherwise Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment and takes back an estate unto himself in tail the remainder in Fee to his right heirs The Bishop in such case shall not have the land forfeited for Treason because that the Bishop cannot have the estate tail but in such case the King shall have the Land by the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. And the Bishop in such case shall not have the Fee because it is one estate and the King shall not wait upon the Subject viz the Bishop The Right waits upon the possession For 11 H. 7. 12. If the son and a stranger disseiseth the father and the father dyeth this right infuseth it self into the possession and changeth the possession And it is a Release in fact by the father to the son 9 H. 7. 25. Br ' Droit 57. A Disseisor dyeth seised and his heir enters and is disseised by A. The first Disseisee doth release unto A. all his right All the right is now in the second Disseisor viz. A. because the right and the possession meet together in A. 40 E. 3. 18. b. Tenant in tail makes a Lease for life with warranty If Tenant for life be impleaded by the heir to whom the warranty doth discend he shall rebut the right in tail being annexed with the possession for that is in case of a saving of the land by that right But where one demands land there all the Right ought to be shewed 11 H. 4 37. If a man be to bring an Action to recover then he ought to make a good title by his best right if he hath many rights But if a man be in possession and an Action be brought against him then he may defend himself by any of his rights or by all his rights 11 H. 7. 21. Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment to his use upon Condition and afterwards upon his Recognisance the land is extended and afterwards the Condition is performed yet the interest of the Conusee shall not be avoided For although the Extent come upon the Fee and not upon the Tail yet when the Extent was it was extracted out of all the rights C. 7. part 41. A Tenant in tail makes a Lease for life now he hath gained a new Fee by wrong and afterwards he makes a Lease for years and Tenant for life dyeth He shall not avoid his Lease for years although he be in of another estate because he had a defeicible title and an ancient right the which if they were in several hands shall be good as the Lease of the one and the Confirmation of the other And being in one hand it shall be as much in Law as a saving of the Right In our Case the Right and Possession both were in Francis Bigot And Ratcliffe is entitled to the old estate tail and to the new also There is a difference betwixt him who claims the land so forfeited to the King and the heir of the body of the person attainted Littâ—719 Land is given to A and the issue males of his body the remainder to the heirs females of his body If the Father commit Treason both heir male and female are barred for they both claim by the Father but if the heir male after the death of his Father be attainted of Treason the King shall have the lands as long as he hath issue male of his body and then the heir female shall have the lands for she shall not forfeit them because she claimeth not by the brother but by the father Com. in Manxels case A man hath three several rights of estate tails and comes in as Vouchee If the Recovery pass it shall bar all his Rights for one Recompence and they shall be all bound by one possession There is a difference where the Kings title is by Conveyance of the party and where for forfeiture for Treason by this Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. v. the Abbot of Colchesters Case The Abbot seised in the right of his house did commit Treason and made a Lease for years and then surrendred his house to the King after the Statute of 26 H. 8. The question was whether the King should avoid the Lease It was adjudged That the King was in by the surrender and should not avoid the Lease and not by the Statute of 26 H. 8. But if the King had had it by force of the Statute then the King should have avoided the Lease Com. 560. Tenant in tail the reversion to the King Tenant in tail maketh a Lease for years and is attainted of Treason The King shall avoid the Lease upon the construction of the Statute of 26 H. 8. which gives the lands unto the King for ever The third point is upon the Remitter This point had been argued by way of Admittance For as I have argued The ancient right is given away unto the King and then there is no ancient right and so no Remitter There is a difference where the issue in tail is forced to make a Title and where not In point of defence he is not so precisely forced to make his Title as he is in case of demand Whereas the Defendant demands the lands from the King the Discent will not help him because the Attaindor of the Ancestor of Ratcliffe hinders him in point of title to make a demand Dyer 332 b. In this case he ought to make himself heir of the body of Francis Bigot and Katharine C. 8. part 72. C. 9. part 139 140. There Cook couples the Case of Fine levied and the Case of Attaindor together C. 8. part 72. Land is given to husband and wife and to the heirs of their two bodies The husband alone levies a Fine with proclamations Or is attainted of Treason and dyeth The wife before Entry dyeth The issue is barred and the Conusee or King hath right unto the land because the issue cannot claim as heir to them both viz. father and mother for by the father he is barred 5 H. 7. 32 33. C. 9. part 140. Husband and wife Tenants in tail If one of them be attainted of Treason as it was in our Case the lands shall not discend to the issue because he cannot make title And there Cook puts the Case That if lands be given to an Alien and his wife they have a good estate tail and yet it is not discendable to the issue The Consequence then of all this is That if Ratcliffe cannot take advantage of the discent by reason of the disability by Attaindor à fortiori he shall not be remitted And yet I confess that in some Cases one may be remitted against the King Com. 488 489 553. But that is where the King is in by matter of Law by Conveyance but in this Case the King is in by an Act of Parliament and there shall be no Remitter against a matter of Record Another reason is because that
of the Justices was That the Fee was executed for a moitie Manwood If the Land be to one for life the Remainder for yeers the Remainder to the first Tenant for life in Fee there the Fee is executed so as if he lose by default he shall have a Writ of Right and not Quod ei deforceat for the term shall be no impediment that the Fee shall not be executed As a man may make a lease to begin after his death it is good and the Lessor hath Fee in possession and his wife shall be endowed after the Lease And I conceive in the principall case That the term shall not be extinct for that it is not a term but interesse termini which cannot be granted nor surrendred Mounson If he had had the term in his own right then by the purchase of the Fee the Term should be extinct But here he hath it in the right of another as Administrator Dyer If an Executor hath a term and purchaseth the Fee the term is determined So if a woman hath a term and takes an husband who purchaseth the Fee the term is extinct Manwood The Law may be so in such case because the Husband hath done an act which destroyes the term viz. the purchase But if the woman had entermarried with him in the Reversion there the term should not be extinguished for the Husband hath not done any act to destroy the term But the marriage is the act of Law Dyer That difference hath some colour But I conceive in the first case That they are Tenants in common of the Fee Manwood The Case is a good point in law But I conceive the opinion of Manwood was That if a Lease for yeares were to begin after the death surrender forfeiture or determination of the first lease for yeares that it shall not begin in that part for then perhaps the term in that part shall be ended before the other should begin Pasc 20. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 3. A Man seised of Copyhold land descendable to the youngest Son by Custome and of other Lands descendable to the eldest Son by the common Law leaseth both for yeers The Lessee covenanteth That if the Lessor his wife and his heirs will have back the land That then upon a yeers warning given by the Lessor his wife or his heirs that the Lease shall be void The Lessor dieth the Reversion of the customary Land descends to the younger son and the other to the eldest who granteth it to the younger and he gives a yeers warning according to the Covenant Fenner The interest of the term is not determined because a speciall heir as the youngest son is is not comprehended under the word Heir but the heir at common Law is the person who is to give the warning to avoid the estate by the meaning of the Covenant But Manwood and Mounson Justices were cleer of opinion That the interest of the term for a moity is avoyded for the Condition although it be an entire thing by the Descent which is the act of Law is divided and apportioned and the warning of any of them shall defeat the estate for a moity because to him the moity of the Condition doth belong But for the other moity he shall not take advantage by the warning because that the warning is by the words of the Condition appointed to be done by the Lessor his wife or his heirs And in that clause of the Deed the Assignee is not contained And they agreed That if a Feoffment of lands in Borough-English be made upon condition That the heir at common Law shall take advantage of it And Manwood said that hee would put another question Whether the younger son should enter upon him or not But all Actions in right of the Land the younger son should have as a Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment Attaint and the like quod nota Pasc 22. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 4 IT was holden by Meade and Windham Justices of the Common Pleas That a Parsonage may be a Mannor As if before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum the Parson with the Patron and Ordinary grant parcel of the Glebe to divers persons to hold of the Parson by divers Services the same makes the Parsonage a Manor Also they held That a Rent-Charge by prescription might be parcel of a Manor and shall passe without the words cum pertinentiis As if two Coparceners be of a Manor and other Lands and they make partition by which the eldest sister hath the Manor and the other hath the other Lands and she who hath the Lands grants a Rent-charge to her sister who hath the Manor for equality of partition Anderson and Fenner Srjeants were against it Hill 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5. THis Case was moved by Serjeant Periam That if a Parson hath Common appendant to his Parsonage out of the lands of an Abby and afterwards the Abbot hath the Parsonage appropriated to him and his Successors Whether the Common be extinct Dyer That it is Because he hath as high an estate in the Common as he hath in the Land As in the case of 2 H. 4. 19. where it is holden That if a Prior hath an Annuity out of a Parsonage and afterwards purchaseth the Advowson and then obtains an Appropriation thereof that the Annuity is extinct But Windham and Meade Justices conceived That the Abbot hath not as perdurable estate in the one as in the other for the Parsonage may be disappropriated and then the Parson shall have the Common again As if a man hath a Seignorie in fee and afterwards Lands descend to him on the part of the Mother in that case the Seignory is not extinguished but suspended For if the Lord to whom the Land descends dies without issue the Seignorie shall go to the heir on the part of the Father and the Tenancy to the heir on the part of the Mother And yet the Father had as high an estate in the Tenancy as in the Seignory And in 21 E. 3. 2. Where an Assize of Nusance was brought for straightning of a way which the plaintif ought to have to his Mill The defendant did alledg unity of possession of the Land and of the Mill in W. and demanded Judgment if c. The plaintif said that after that W. had two daughters and died seised and the Mill was allotted to one of them in partition and the Land to the other and the way was reserved to her who had the Mill And the Assize was awarded And so by the partition the way was revived and appendant as it was before and yet W. the Father had as high an estate in the Land as he had in the Way Hill 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 6. A Man makes a Feoffment in Fee of a Manor to the use of himself and his Wife and his heirs In which Manor there are Underwoods usually to be cut every one and twenty yeers and
the case which implyed their opinions to be for the Universitie And 21. H. 7. was vouched That the Patronage was only matter of favour and was not a thing valuable And in this case Cook chief Justice said That Apertus haereticus melius est quam fictus Catholicus Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 310 BOND and GREEN's Case AN Action of Debt was brought against an Administrator the Defendant shewed how that there were divers Judgments had against him in 〈◊〉 Aâ—d â—â—so that there was another Debt due by the Testator which was assigned over unto the Kings Majesty and so pleaded That he had fully Administred Barker Serjeant took Exception to the pleading because it was not therein shewed that the King did assent to the Assignment and also because it was not shewed that the Assignment was enrolled The Court said nothing to the Exceptions But whereas he Defendant as Administrator did alledge a Retayner in his own hands for a debt due to himselfe The opinion of the whole Court was that the same was good and that an Administrator might retayne to satisfie a debt due to himselfe But it was agreed by the Court That an Excecutor of his own wrong should not Retayne to satisfie his own debt See to this purpose C. 5. part Coulters Case Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 311 STROWBRIDG and ARCHERS Case IN An Action of debt upon a Bond the Defendant was Outlawed And the Writ of Exigent was viz. Ita quod habeas corpus ejus hîc c. whereas it ought to be coram Justiciariis nostris apud Westminster And for that defect the utlagary was reversed and it was said that it was as much as if no Exigent had been awarded at all And upon the Reversall of the utlagary a Supersedeas was awarded and the party restored to his goods which were taken in Execution upon the Capias utlagatum It was also resolved in this Case That if the Sheriffe upon a Writ of Execution served doth deliver the mony or goods which are taken in Execution to the Plaintiffs Atturney it is as well as if he had delivered the same to the Plaintiff himself for the Receipt by his Atturney is in Law his own Receipt But if the Sheriff taketh goods in Execution if he keep them and do not deliver them to the paâ—â— at whose suit they are taken in Execution the party may have a new Execution as it was in the principal Case because the other was not an Execution with Satisfaction Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 312 CHAVVNER and BOVVES Case BOwes sold three Licences to sell Wine unto Chawner who Covenanted to give him ten pounds for them and Bowes Covenanted that the other should enjoy the Licences It was moved in this Case whether the one might have an Action of Covenant against the other in such Case And the opinion of Warburton and Nichols Justices was That if a Man Covenant to pay ten pound at a day certain That an action of Debt lyeth for the money and not an action of Covenant Barker Serjeant said he might have the one or the other But in the principall Case the said Justices delivered no opinion 313 Note That this Day Cooke Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was removed to the Kings Bench and made Lord Chief Justice of England And Sir Henry Hobart who was the Kings Aturney generall was the day following made Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Sir Francis Bakon Knight who before was the Kings Solicitor was made Atturney Generall And Mr Henry Yelverton of Grays-Inn was made the Kings Solicitor and this was in October Term. Mich. 11 Jacobi 1613. Mich. 11. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 314 THis Case was put by Mountague the Kings Serjeant unto the Lord Chief Justice Hobart when he took his place of Lord Chief Justice in the Common Pleas viz. Tenant in tail the Remainder in taile the Remainder in Fee Tenant in tail is attainted of Treason Offence is found The King by his Letters Patents granteth the lands to A who bargaineth and selleth the land by Deed unto B. B. suffers a common Recovery in which the Tenant in tail is vouched and afterwards thâ— Deed is enrolled And the question was Whether it was a good Bar of the Remainder And the Lord Chief Justice Hobart was of opinion That it was no barre of the Remainder because before enrollment nothing passed but only by way of conclusion And the Bargainee was no Lawfull Tenant to the Precipe Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 315 WHEELER's Case IT was moved for a Prohibition upon the Statute of 5. E. 6. for working upon Holy days and the Case was That a man was presented in the spirituall Court for working viz. carriage of Hay upon the feast day of Saint John the Baptist when the Minister preached and read divine service and it was holden by the whole Court of Common Pleas That the same was out of the Statute by the words of the Act it self because it was for necessity And the Book of 19 H. 6. was vouched That the Church hath authority to appoint Holy days and therefore if such days be broken in not keeping of them Holy that the Church may punish the breakers therof But yet the Court said That this day viz. the Feast day of Sr John the Baptist was a Holy day by Act of Parliament and therefore it doth belong unto the Judges of the Law whether the same be broken by doing of such work upon that day or not And a Prohibition was awarded Mich. 11 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 316 REARSBY and CUFFER's Case IT was moved for a Prohibition to the Court of Requests because that a man sued there by English Bill for money which he had layd out for an Enfant within age for his Meat drink necessary apparel and set forth by his Bill that the Enfant being within age did promise him to pay the same And a Prohibition was awarded because as it was said he might have an action of Debt at the common Law upon the contract for the same because they were things for his necessary livelihood and maintenance And it was agreed by the Court That if an Infant be bounden in an Obligation for things necessary within age the same is not good but voidable Quaere for a difference is commonly taken When the Assumpsit is made within age and when he comes to full age For if he make a promise when he cometh of full age or enters into an Obligation for necessaries which he had when he was within age the Law is now taken to be that the same shall binde him But see 44. Eliz. Randals Case adjudged That an Obligation with a penaltie for money borrowed within age is absolutely void Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 317 SMITH's Case SMith one of the Officers of the Court of Admiralty was committed by the Court of Common Pleas to the prison of
And it was further said by the Court That if there were but thirty Tythe-sheafs in all that the Owner should not have them for then the Custom should be unreasonable And Day was given to the other side to shew Cause why the Prohibition should not be awarded Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 325. GANDEN and SYMMON's Case NOte That where a Juror is not challenged by one party who had sufficient cause of challenge and afterwards is challenged by the other side and afterwards the party doth release his challenge in that case the first party cannot challenge the same Juror again because he did foreslow his time of challenge and he had admitted the party for to be indifferent at the first Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 326. The Bishop of CHICHESTER and STRODWICK's Case IN an Action of Trespass for taking away of Timber and the Boughs of Trees felled The Defendant as to the Timber pleaded Not guilty And as to the Boughs he made a special Justification That there is a Custom within the Mannor of Ashenhurst in the County of Sussex That when the Lord fels or sels Timber-trees that the Lord is to have only the Timber and that the poor Tenants in Coscagio parte Manerii time out of mind have used to have the Branches of the Trees for necessary Estovers to be burnt in necessario focali in terris tenementis And the Opinion of the Court was That the Custom was not well expressed to have Estovers to burn in terris tenementis for that Estovers cannot be appertaining to Lands but to Houses only And therefore whereas the Defendant in the Case did entitle himself to a house and lands and gave in Evidence that the Custom did extend to Lands it was holden that the Evidence did not maintain the Issue And the Custom was alleadged to be That the Lord should have Quicquid valeret ad maremium and that the Freeholders should have ramillos Which as Hobart Chief Justice said is to be meant all the Arms and Boughs for whatsoever is not maremium is ramillum 2. It was holden in this Case That the Non-use or Negligence in not taking of the Boughs did not extinguish nor take away the Custom as it hath been oftentimes resolved in the like case And note that in this Case to confirm the said Custom the Book-case was cited which is in 14. E. 3. Fitz. t' Bar. 277. and the same was given in and avowed for good Evidence where the Case was That the Bishop of C. which shall be intended the Bishop of Chichester brought an Action of Trespass for felling of Trees and carrying them away where the Defendant pleaded That he held a Messuage and a Verge of Land of the Bishop and that all the Tenants of the Bishop within the Manor of A. ought to have all the Windfals of Trees and all the Boughs and Branches c. Which Case as Harris Serjeant conceived was the Case of the very Mannor now in question and the Tenant there as in this Case made a special Justification and there it was holden that it was good and adjudged for the Defendant Also in that Case it was adjudged That the Lord should have Maremium and that the Tenants should have Residuum which shall be intended the Boughs and Branches And the Custom in the Case was adjudged good But because the Defendant alleadged the Custom to be to have the same as Estovers to be burned in terris and gave Evidence only to the Messuage it was found against the Defendant for that the Evidence did not maintain the Issue Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 327. VAUGHAN's Case IN a Formedon in the Discender the Tenant had been essoined upon the Summons and also upon the View And after was pleaded Ne dona pas the general issue and thereupon issue was joyned And if he might be essoined again after issue joyned was the Question And the Court was of opinion That in a real action the Tenant may be essioned after Issue joyned but not in a personal action by the Statute of Marlebridge And Hobart Chief Justice said That the Statute of Marlebridge gave not any Essoin but only did restrain Essoins and therefore in real Actions the same is left as it was at the Common Law and by the Common Law the Tenant might be Essoined after Issue joyned And note per totam Curiam That if an Essoin be not taken the first day it shall never after be taken Mich. 11. Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 328. CLAY and BARNETS Case IN an Ejectione Firme the Case was this Sir Godfrey Foliamb had issue James his son who had issue Francis And Sir Godfrey Foliamb was seized in Fee of divers Lands as well by purchase as by discent in sundry Towns viz. Chesterfield Brampton c. in the Tenures of A. B. C. c. and dyed James Foliamb his son 7 E. 6. made a Conveyance of divers Lands to Francis Foliamb being his younger son in haec verba viz. Omnia mea Mesuagia terras tentam in Chesterfield Brampton c. modo in tenuri of the said A. B. C. quae pater meus Galfrid Foliamb perquesivit from divers men whom he named in certain And also convey a House called the Hart to the same Francis which came to him by discent by the same Conveyance which was in the occupation of one Celie and not in the Tenures of the said A. B. C. And the great Question upon the whole Conveyance was Whether all the Lands which he had by Discent in the said Towns and in the Occupations and Tenures of the said A. B. C. did pass or only the purchased Lands And it was resolved by the whole Court That the Conveyance did pass only the Lands which he had by purchase except only the said House which was precisely named and conveyed and did not pass the Lands which he had by Discent For if all the Lands which he had by Discent should pass by the general words then the special words which passed the House which he had by Discent should be idle and frivolous and that was one reason ex visceribus causae that only the purchased Lands did pass 2. It was said by Justice Warburton That if a man giveth all his Lands in D. in the Tenures of A. B. and he hath Lands in D. but not in their Tenures that in that case all his Lands in D. passeth So if a man give all his Lands in D. which he had by Discent from his son there all his Lands whatsoever shall pass Hobart acc ' and said That if a man gives all his Lands in the County of Kent if he have Lands within the County they do pass And he said that in a Conveyance every restriction hath his proper operation and in the Conveyance in the principal case there were three restrictions 1. All his â—ands in such Towns viz. Chesterfield Brampton c. 2. All his lands in the
the time of King Henry the 8. said That if the King should arrest him of High-Treason that he would stab him with his dagger and it was adjudged a present Treason So was it also adjudged in the Lord Stanley's Case in the time of King Henry the 7. who seeing a Young-man said That if he knew him to be one of the Sons of E. 4. that he would aid him against the King In the like manner a woman in the time of Hen. 8. said That if Henry the 8. would not take again his wife Queen Katherine that he should not live a year but should die like a dog So if discontented persons with Inclosures say That they will petition unto the King about them and if he will not redress the same that then they will assemble together in such a place and rebell In these Cases it is a present Treason and he said That in point of Allegiance none must serve the King with Ifs and Ands. Further Cook Chief Justice said That Faux the Gunpowder Traitor being brought before King James the King said to him Wherefore would you have killed me Faux answered him viz. Because you are excommunicated by the Pope How said the King He answered Every Maunday-Thursday the Pope doth excommunicate all Herâ—tiques who are not of the Faith of the Church of Rome and you are within the same Excommunication And afterwards Owen was found guilty and Judgment of Treason was given against him Mich. 13 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 364. SIMPSON'S Case RIchard Simpson a Copy-holder in Fee jacens in extremis made a Surrender of his Copyhold habendum to an Enfant in ventrefamier and his heirs and if such Enfant die before his full age or marriage then to John Simpson his brother and his heirs The Enfant is born and dieth within two moneths Upon which John was admitted and a Woman as Heir-general to the Devisor and to the Enfant is also admitted and entreth into the Land against whom John Simpson brought an Action of Trespasse and it was adjudged against the Plaintiffe And two points were resolved in this Case 1. That a Surrender cannot begin at a day to come no more then a Livery as it was adjudged 23 Eliz in this Court in Clarks Case 2. That the Remaindor to John Simpson cannot be good because it was to commence upon a Condition precedent which was never performed And therefore the Surrender into the hands of the Lord was void for the Lord doth not take but as an Instrument to convey the same to another And it was therefore said That if a Copy-holder in Fee doth surrender unto the use of himself and his heirs because that the Limitation of the use is void to him who had it before the Surrender to the Lord is void Trin. 13 Jacobi in the Chancery 365. The Lord GERARD'S Case IT was holden in the Chancery in the Lord Gerards Case against his Copyholds of Aâ—dley in the County of Stafford That where by antient Rolls of Court it appeareth that the Fines of the Copyholds had been uncertain from the time of King Hen. the 3 to the 19 of H. the 6. and from thence to this day had been certain Except twenty or thirty That these few antient Rolls did destroy the Custome for certainty of Fine But if from 19 H. 6. all are certain except a few and so incertain Rolls before the few shall be intended to have escaped and should not destroy the Custome for certain Fines Hill 13 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 366. BAGNAL and HARVEY'S Case IN a Writ of Partition it was found for the Plaintiffe And a Writ was awarded to the Sheriffe that he should make the partition And the Sheriffe did thereupon allot part of the Lands in severalty and for other part of the Lands the Jurors would not assist him to make the partition All which appeared upon the Retorn of the Sheriffe And an Attachment was prayed against the Jurors who refused to make the Partition and a new Writ was prayed unto the Sheriffe And the Court doubted what to do in the Case whether to grant an Attachment or not and whether a new Writ to the Sheriffe might be awarded And took time to advise upon it and to see Presidents in the Case Hill 13 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 367. BLANFORD'S Case A Man seised of Lands in Fee devised them unto his Wife for life and afterwards to his two Sons if they had not issue males for their lives and if they had issue males then to their issue males and if they had not issue males then if any of them had issue male to the said issue male The wife died the sons entred into the lands and then the eldest son had issue male who afterwards entred and the younger son entred upon the issue and did trespasse and the issue brought an Action of Trespasse And it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Action was maintainable because by the birth of the issue male the lands were devised out of the two sons and vested in the issue male of the eldest Crook Justice was against the three other Justices Hill 13 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 368. BROOK and GREGORY'S Case IN a Replevin the Defendant did avow the taking of the Cattle damage feasants And upon issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiffe in the Court at Winsor being a Three-weeks Court And the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That the Entry of the Plaint in the said Court was the 7. day of May and the Plaintiffe afterwards did Declare there of a taking of the Cattel the 25. day of May. And whether the same was Error being in a Three-weeks Court was the Question and 21 E. 4. 66. was alleadged by Harris that it was no Error But the Court held the same to be Error because no Plaint can be entred but at a Court and this Entry of the Plaint was mesne betwixt the Court dayes and so the Declaration is not warranted no â—ustome being alleadged to maintain such an Entry 2. It was holden by the Court in this Case That 〈…〉 est erratum is pleaded the Defendant cannot alleadge Dimâ—â—â—tion because there is a perfect issue before 3. It was holden That a 〈◊〉 cannot alleadge Diminution of any thing which appeareth in the Râ—â—â—d to be 〈◊〉 And because the Defendant â—id alleadge Diminution 〈◊〉 Case of the Record and by the Record it was certified that the 〈◊〉 was entred the 25 day of May the same was not good after issue joyned and after Judgment is given upon the â—â—â— Record upon the first Dâ—â—â—aration and Pleading in the said Court of Winsor And therefore the Judgment was reversed by the opinion of all the Justices Hill 13 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 369. BISSE and TYLER'S Case IN an Action of Trover and Conversion of goods the Defendant said That J. S. was possessed of the said goods and sold them unto him in open market
then the Court is to abate the Petition but after Judgment to find such a fault he must have a Scire facias and not a new Petition and in our Case there was none who gave in such matter for the King Now I come to the Statute of 31. H. 8. The particular Act for the Attainder of Francis Bigot and that he should forfeit all such Lands c. Conditions Rights c. in Fee and Fee tail saving c. and as the lands of Francis Bigott stood stated at the time of the making of this Act of 3. H. 8. the Statute did not extend to him to make him forfeit any thing In the Statute of 33. H. 8. Cap. 20. there were as many words as in this Statute of 31. H. 8. and many Cases upon the Statute of 33. H. 8. are adjudged upon the words shall lose and forfeit There is a difference betwixt an Act of Assurance and an Act of Forfeiture If the words be That the King shall enjoy and have it is then an Act of Assurance and the lands are given to the King without Office but by an Act of Forfeiture the Lands are not in the King without Office found Exceptio firmat regulam but our Case is out of the Rule Savings in Acts of Parliaments were but of late days 1. E. 4. there was a private Act A Petition was preferred against divers in Parliament for sundry misdemeanours and it was Enacted that they should forfeit unto the King and his heirs c. in that Act there was no exception of saving for it was but a forfeiture of their Rights and Savings were but of late times Trin. 8. H. 8. Rot. 4. A Petition of Right in the Chancery upon that was a plea which was after the Attainder of the Duke of Suffolk That the Duke did disseise him it was shewed that the Attainder was by Parliament and he shewed no saving to be in the Statute in the Petition and yet it was well enough Com. 552. Wyat Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King made a Feoffment and by Act of Parliament 2 Mariae was attainted of Treason by which he was to forfeit c. as in our Case I answer That within two years after that Judgment upon solemn argument it was adjudged contrarie Com. 562. It was objected that in that Case a Writ of Error was brought Com. 562. and that the Judgement was affirmed in the Case of Walsingham I answer that the same was by reason of the Plea in Barr And Com 565. there Plowden confesseth that the Judges were not agreed of the matter in Law and the Lands in question in Walsingams Case do remain with Moulton and at this day are enjoy'd contrary to the Judgment given in Walsinghams Case It was objected That although this Act of 31. H. 8. was made after the Attainder yet that it should relate to all the Lands which Francis Bigot had at the time of the Treason committed I answer That this Act of 31. H. 8 is but a description what Lands he shall forfeit viz. all the Lands which he had at the time of the Treason committed The second Point is upon the Remitter of Roger Ratcliff before the Inquisition for there was a discent to Roger Ratcliff When Tenant in Tail is attainted of Treason his blood is not corrupted C. 9. part 10. Lumleys Case And the Statute of 33. H. 8. is the first Statute which vests Lands forfeit for Treason in the King without Office found So as according to the Lord Lumley's Case C. 3. part 10. before this Statute of 33 H. 8. the Land did discend to the issue in tail The Rule of Nullum tempus occurrit Regi is to be meant for the preserving of the Kings Right but not to make the King to do wrong Com. 488. there the Remitter is preferred before the King 49. E. 3. 16. there the Devise of a Common person was preferred before the Right of the King 3. H. 7. 2. the Lord Greistock's Case The Dean of York did recover against him and before Execution the Lord died his heir within age the Dean shall have his Execution notwithstanding that the King hath right to have the Ward A fortiori a Remitter shall be preferred before the Kings Title C. 7. part 28. The Rule Nullum tempus occurrit Regi is to be intended when the King hath an Estate or Interest certain and permanent and not when his Interest is specially limited when and how he shall take it and not otherwise The third Point was Whether Ratcliff hath brought his proper Action The words of the Act of 2 E. 6. cap. 8. which giveth the Monstrans de Droit are to be considered A Remitter is within the words of the Act. Divers Errors were assigned by the other side for matter of Form 1. Because the Venire facias want these words tam milites quam alios Sheffield being a Noble man and a Peer of the Realm It appeareth by the Register 7. that the same was the ancient Form in every common persons Case but of late that Form was left 2. Admit that it were a good Exception then it ought to have been taken by way of Challenge as it appeareth 13. E. 3. Challenge 115. Dyer 107. 208. 3. The Statute of 35. H. 8. Cap. 6. makes a new Law and prescribes a Form Precipimus c. quod Venire facias coram c. 12 Liberos Legales homines c. and then if it ought to be by the Register tam milites quam alios yet here is a new Statute against it And by the Statute of 2. E. 6. Cap. 32. this Statute of 35 H. 8. is made perpetual And by the Statute of 27. Eliz. Cap. 6. the Statute of 35. H. 8. is altered in parvo and augmented in the worth of the Jurors and by the Statute of 18. Eliz. Cap. 14. It is Enacted That after Verdict c. the Judgment thereupon shall not be stayed or reversed by reason of any default in Form or lack of Form or variance from the Register The second Error assigned was because that there are two Venire facias and two Distringas after that Issue was joyned The Lord Sheffield sueth unto the King to have the first Venire facias and first Distringas quashed and it was quashed with Ratcliff's consent Secondly admit there were two Venire facias yet it ought to be intended that the proceedings was but upon one of them and that the best M. 17. Jacobi in the Common Pleas Bowen and Jones's Case In Error upon a Recovery in Debt there were two Originals certified and there the one was good and the other naught the Judges did take it that the Judgment and proceedings were upon the good Original and the Judgment was affirmed in the Kings Bench M. 15 H. 8. Rott 20. the same Case Two Originals one bearing date after the Judgment the other before the Judgment and upon a Writ of Error brought the
Judgement was affirmed for by intendment the Judgment was given upon the first Original which bore date before the Iudgment Another Error was assigned because the Plea was That such a one was seised of the Castle and Mannor of Mulgrave predictis in the plural number I answer that there is not any colour for that Error for the word predictis doth shew that the Mannor and Castle are not one and the same thing So upon the whole matter I pray that the Iudgment given in the Court of Pleas may be affirmed Sir Henry Yelverton argued for the Lord Sheffield that the Iudgment might be reversed There are three things considerable in the Case First If any right of the ancient estate tail was in Francis Bigot who was attainted at the time of his Attainder Secondly admit that there was an ancient right if it might be forfeited being a right coupled with a Possession and not a right in gross Thirdly Whether such a Possession discend to Francis Bigot that he shall be remitted and if this Remitter be not overreached by the Office First If by the Feoffment of Francis Bigot 21. H. 8. when he was Cestuy que use and by the Livery the right of the ancient entail be destroyed And I conceive it is not but that the same continues and is not gone by the Livery and Seisin made There is a difference when Cestuy que use makes a Feoffment before the Statute of 1 R 3. and when Cestuy que use makes a Feoffment after the said statute of 1 R 3 For before the statute hee gives away all Com 352. but after the statute of R. 3. Cestuy que use by his Feoffment gives away no Right In 3 H. 7 13. is our very case almost For there the Tenant in Tail made a Feoffment unto the use of his Will so in our Case and thereby did declare that it should be for the payment of his debts and afterwards to the use of himself and the heirs of his body and died the heir entred before the debts paid but in our Case he entred after the debts paid there it is said that the Feoffment is made as by Cestuy que use at the Common Law for his entrie was not lawfull before the debts paid But when Francis Bigot made a Feoffment 21 H. 8. he was Cestuy que use in Fee and then is the Right of the Estate tail saved by the Statute of 1. R. 3. And by the Statute of 1. R. 3. he gives the Land as Servant and not as Owner of the Land and so gives nothing but a possession and no Right 5 H. 7. 5. Cestuy que use since the Statute of 1 R. 3. is but as a Servant or as an Executor to make a Feoffment And if an Executor maketh a Feoffment by force of the Will of the Testator he passeth nothing of his own Right but only as an Executor or Servant 9 H. 7. 26. proves that Cestuy que use since the Statute of 1 R. 3 hath but only an Authority to make a Feoffment For Cestuy que use cannot make a Letter of Attorney to make Livery for him for he hath but a bare Authority which cannot be transferred to another Cestuy que use hath a Rent out of Land and by force of the Statute of 1 R. 3. he maketh a Feoffment of the Land yet the Rent doth remain to him for he giveth but a bare possession So in our Case the right of the Estate Tail doth remain in Francis Bigot notwithstanding his Feoffment as Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3. If Cestuy que use by force of the Statute of 1 R. 3. maketh a Feoffment without Warranty the Vouchee shall not Vouch by force of that Warranty For as Fitzherbert saith Cestuy que use had no possession before the Statute of 27. H. 8. Cap. 10. 27 H. 8. 23. If Feoffees to Use make a Letter of Attorney to Cestuy que use to make a Feoffment he giveth nothing but as a Servant The Consequent of this Point is That the right of the old Estate Tail was in Francis Bigot at the time of his Attainder and was not gone by the Feoffment made 21 H. 8. The second Point is Whether a right mixt with a possession of Francis Bigot might be forfeited by the Statutes of 26. H. 8. and the private Act of 31. H. 8. The Statute of 31. H. 8. doth not save this Right no more then the Statute of 26. H. 8. For they are all one in words I say that he hath such a right as may be lost and forfeited by the words of the Statute of 26. H. 8. Cap. 13. For that Statute giveth three things First It gives the Forfeiture of Lands and not of Estates Secondly How long doth that Statute give the lands to the King For ever viz. to the King his Heirs and Successors Thirdly It gives the lands of any Estate of Inheritance in Use or Possession by any Right Title or means This Estate Tail is an Estate of Inheritance which he hath by the Right by the Title and by the means of coming to the Right it is forfeited These two Statutes were made for the punishment of the Child For the Common Law was strict enough against the Father viz. he who committed the Treason And shall the same Law which was made to punish the Child be undermined to help the Child The ancient Right shall be displaced from the Land rather then it shall be taken from the Crown which is to remain to the Crown for ever And this Statute of 26 H. 8. was made pro bonoâ— publico and it was the best Law that ever was to preserve the King and his Successors from Treason for it is as it were a hedg about the King For before this Statute Tenant in Tail had no regard to commit Treason For he forfeited his Lands but during his own life and then the Lands went to the issue in Tail But this Statute doth punish the Child for the Fathers offence and so maketh men more careful not to offend least their posterity may beg I take two grounds which are frequent in our Law First That the King is favoured in the Exposition of any Statute Com. 239 240. The second That upon the construction of any Statute nothing shall be taken by equity against the King Com. 233 234. Here in this Case although the Right were not in possession yet it was mixed with the possession from Anno 13. E. 1. untill 26. H. 8. Tenant in Tail feared not to commit Treason For the Statute of West 2. did preserve the Estate Tail so as the Father could not prejudice his issue per factum suum And therefore the Commonwealth considering that a wicked man did not care what became of himself so as his issue might be safe provided this Statute of 26. H. 8. Cap. 13. although the Statute of 16. R. 2. Cap. 5. which giveth the Premunire doth Enact that all Lands and
the Kings Bench by the opinion of the whole Court the Judgment was reversed Trin. 21 Jacobi Intratur Hill 20 Jac. Rot. 137. in the Kings Bench. 444. KITE and SMITH's Case ONe Recovered by Erronious Judgment and the Defendant did promise unto the Plaintiffe That if he would forbear to take forth Execution that at such a day certain he would pay him the debt and damages And Action upon the Case was brought upon that Promise And now it was moved by the Defendants Councel That there was not any Consideration upon which the Promise could be made because the Judgment was an Erronious Judgment It was adjourned But I conceive that because it doth not appear to the Court but that the Judgment is a good Judgment that it is a good Consideration Otherwise if the Judgment had been reversed by a Writ of Error before the Action upon the Case brought upon the Promise for there it doth appear judicially to the Court that the Judgment was Erronious Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 445. TOTNAM and HOPKIN's Case AN Action upon the Case was brought upon an Assumpsit And the Plaintiff did declare That in Consideration of c. the Defendant 1 Martii did promise to pay and deliver to the Plaintiffe 20 Quarters of Barley the next Seed-time Upon Non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiffe It was moved for the Defendant That the Plaintiffe ought to have shewed in his Declaration when the Seed-time was which he hath not done But it was answered That he needeth not so to do because he brings his Action half a year after the Promise for not payment of the same at Seed-time which was betwixt the Promise and the Assumpsit Dodderidge Justice If I promise to pay you so much Corn at Harvest next If it appeareth that the Harvest is ended before the Action brought it is good without shewing the time of the Harvest for it is apparent to the Court that the Harvest is past And here the Action being brought at Michaelmas it sufficiently appears that the Harvest is past And Judgment was given for the â—laintiffe Trin. 21 Iacobi Iatratur Hill 1â— Iacobi Rot. 652. inter Hard Foy in the Kings Bench. 446. KELLAWAY's Case IN an Ejectione Firme brought for the Mannor of Lillington upon a Lease made by Kellaway to Fey It was found by a special Verdict That M. Kellaway seised of the Mannor of Lillington in Fee holden in Soccage did devise the same by his Will in writing in these words viz. For the good will I bear unto the name of the Kellawayes I give all my Lands to John Kellaway in tail the Remainder to my right Heirs so long as they keep the true intent and meaning of this my Will To have to the said John Kellaway and the heirs of his body untill John Kellaway or any of his issues go about to alter and change the intent and meaning of this my Will Then and in such case it shall be lawfull to and for H. Kellaway to enter and have the Land in tail with the like limitation And so the Lands was put in Remainder to five several persons the Remainder to the right heirs of the Devisor M. Kellaway dyed without issue John Kellaway is heir and entred and demised the same to R. K. for 500 years and afterwards granted all his estate to Hard. Afterwards John Kellaway did agree by Deed indented with W. K. to levy a Fine of the Reversion to W. and his heirs H. Kellaway entred according to the words of the Proviso in the Will and made the Lease to Foy who brought an Ejectione Firme against Hard. And whether H. Kellaway might lawfully enter or no was the Question It was objected That in the Case there is not any Forfeiture because the Fine was without proclamations and so it was a Discontinuance only The first Question is If the Remainder doth continue The second is If it be a Perpetuity or a Limitation John Kellaway is Tenant in tail by Devise untill such time as John Kellaway or any of his issues agree or go about to alter or change the estate tail mentioned in the Will with Proviso to make Leases for 21 years 3 lives or to make Jointures Then his Will is That it shall be lawfull for H. K. to enter and to have the Land with the same limitations If it be a Perpetuity then it is for the Plaintiffe but if it be but a Limitation then it is for the Defendant The Fine was levied without proclamations and H. K. entreth for the Forfeiture Damport It is no Perpetuity but a Limitation which is not restrained by the Law as Perpetuities are Untill such time as c. shall discontinue c. The Jury find an Agreement by Indenture The act which is alleadged to be the breach is Conclusivit agreavit not to levy a Fine with proclamations but to levy a Fine without proclamations which is but a Discontinuance Yelverton If the Fine had been with proclamations then without doubt he in the Remainder during the life of him who levied it had been barred The Devise was To have to them and to the heirs of their bodies so long as they and every of their issues do observe perform fulfill and keep the true meaning of this my Will touching the entailed Lands in form following and no otherwise And therfore I M. Kellaway do devise unto John Kellaway the issue of his body the Remainder c. â—o have to the said John Kellaway and the issue of his body untill he or any of his issue shall go about to conclude do or make any act or acts to alien discontinue or change the true meaning of this my Will That then my Will is and I do give and bequeath to H K in tail And that it shall be lawfull for him the said H. K. or his issue to enter immediately upon such assent conclusion or going about to conclude c. And that H. K. and his issue shall leave it untill he or any of them go about c. C. 9 part Sundayes Case 128. where it was resolved That no Condition or Limitation be it by act executed or by limitation of an Use or by a Devise can bar Tenant in tail to alien by a common Recovery v. C. 3. part acc The Case was not resolved but it was adjourned to another day to be argued and then the Court to deliver their opinions in it Trin. 21. Intratur Trin. 20 Jacobi Rot. 811. in the Kings Bench. 447. KNIGHT's Case IN this Case George Crook said That Land could not belong to Land yet in a Will such Land which had been enjoyed with other might pass by the words cum pertinaciis As where A. hath two houses adjoyning viz. the Swan and the Red-Lyon and A. hath the Swan in his own possession and occupieth a Parlour or Hall which belongs in truth to the Red-Lyon with the Swan-house and then leaseth the Red-lyon
reasonable Herbage Here the Grant is not De omnibus grossis arboribus bonis catellis Felonum and of the Goods of Felons themselves and in the former Patent these were granted and so the Grant is for the Kings benefit and to the prejudice of the Patentee Also this Patent is ad proficuum Domini Regis For here is a Rent reserved and here is a Proviso for the committing of Waste in the premisses which were not in the first Letters Patents and in these Letters Patents there are divers Covenants which were not in the former Patents and so it is in forma sequente And so the Lease of Philip and Mary is good The King seised of a Manor to which he hath a Park doth grant the Stewardship of the Manor and the Custodie of the said Park with reasonable Herbage Afterwards in the same Letters Patents hee grants the said Manor of O. and all the Lands in O. excepting grosse trees in the Park If this Grant be not good for the Manor it is not good for the Park that was the Objection It is good for the Manor and also for the Park It was objected That the King grants the custody of the Park and so not the Park it selfe for how can the King grant the custody of the Park if he grant the Park it selfe it is dangerous that upon an implication in one part of a Patent the expresse words which follow should be made void the subsequent words in this Case are The King grants the Manor and all the Lands to the same belonging now the Park doth belong to it and the King excepts only the Deer C. 10 part 64. The King at this day grants a Manor unto a man as entirely as such a one held the same before it came into his hands c. the Advowson doth passe without words of grant of the Advowson for the Kings meaning is That the Advowson shall passe The meaning of the King is manifest in our Case C. 3. Part 31 32. Carr's Case There the Rent was extinct betwixt the Parties yet for the benefit of the King for his tenure it hath continuance for a thing may be extinct as to one purpose and in esse as to another purpose 38. Ass 16. a Rent extinct yet Mortmain Dyer 58 59. The Exception ought to be of the thing demised In our Case the Park doth passe but the King shall have the liberties in it and so here the Park shall passe and the Exception is of the liberties Com. 370. the Exception ought to be of that which is contained in the former words in the former Patents the Offices were first granted and in the same Letters Patents the Manor was afterwards granted But now King James grants the Manor first and then the Offices Construction of Statutes ought to be secuncundùm intentionem of the makers of them and construction of Patents secundùm intentionem Domini Regis C. 8. part 58. You ought to make such a construction as to uphold the Letters Patents C. 8. part 56. Auditor Kings Case There the Letters Patents were construed secundùm intentionem Domini Regis and adjudged good But to make void the Patent they shall not be construed secundùm intentionem but to make a Patent good they shall be construed secundùm intentionem Domini Regis The Case was adjourned till Michaelmas Terme next Note I have heard Sir Henry Yelverton say That it was the opinion of the Judges in this Case That he had but the custody of the Park and not the interest of the Park for that by the acceptance of the custody of the Park when he had a Lease of the Park before it was a surrender of his Lease Trinit 21. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 492 SHORTRIDGE and HILL's Case SHortridge brought an Action upon the Case against Hill for ravishing of his Ward and the Writ was contra pacem without the words Vi armis Lib. Dent. 366. where three Presidents are of Actions upon the Case without Vi armis An Action upon the case for doing of any thing against a Statute must be contra pacem Ley Chief Justice Recovery in this Action may be pleaded in Barre in a Writ of Ravishment of Ward brought Dodderidge Justice The Action of Trespasse at the common Law is only for the taking away of the Ward and here he hath elected his Action at the common Law and then he shall not have an Action upon the Statute viz. a Ravishment of Ward but here the Action upon the Case is brought for the taking and detaining of the Ward so as he cannot preferr him in marriage and upon this speciall matter the Action upon the Case lieth without the words Vi armis A Writ of Ravishment of Ward ought to be brought in the Common Pleas but yet you may bring a Writ of Ravishment of Ward in this Court if the Defendant be in the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsey for in such special Case it shall be brought in this Court if there be an extraordinary matter besides the Trespass then an Action upon the Case lieth as when A. contracts with B. to make an estate unto B. of Bl. Acre at Michaelmas if C. enter into Bl. Acre A. may have an Action upon the Case against C. for the speciall damage which may happen to him by reason that he is not able to perform that contract by reason of the entry of C. and he shall declare contra pacem but not Vi armis Trinit 21. Jacobi in the King 's Bench. 493 BAKER and BLAKAMORE's Case IN Trespass the Defendant pleaded That J. S. being seised in Fee gave the Lands unto Baker and the Heirs of his body and conveyed the Lands by descent to four Daughters and Blakamore the Defendant as servant to one of the Daughters did justifie The Plaintiff did reply That the said J. S. was seised in Fee and gave the same to Baker and the Heirs Males of his Body and conveyed the Land by descent to himself as Heir Male absque hoc that J. S. was seised in Fee Henden Serjeant did demur in Law upon the Replication and took Exception to the Traverse for that here he traverseth the Seisin of J. S. whereas he ought to have traversed the gift in tail made by J. S. for the being seised is but an inducement not traverseable and therefore he ought to have traversed the gift in taile for then he had traversed the seisin for he could not give the Lands in tail if that he were not seised thereof in Fee L. 5. E. 4 9. there in Formedon the Tenant would have traversed the Seisin of the Donor but the book is ruled that the Traverse ought to be of the gift in tail and that includes the Seisin Bridgment for the Plaintiffe and said That the Serjeant is of opinion contrary to the Books when he saith positively that you ought to traverse the gift in tail and not the seisin of the Donor
The Case shortly is A. being seised in Fee makes a gift in tail to B. and that descends to four daughters c. And the Plaintiff replies That A. was seised in Fee and gave the Lands to B. and to his Heirs Males and the Plaintiffe claimes the entail as Heir Male and the Defendants under the generall tail absque hoc that A. was seised in Fee 27. H. 8. 4. by Englefield If in Trespass the Defendant plead the Feoffment of a stranger and the Plaintiff saith That he was seised in Fee and made a Lease for years to the said stranger who enfeoffed the Defendant he need not to traverse absque hoc that he was seised in Fee C. 6. part 24. The seisin in Fee is traversable Br. Travers 372. acc Dodderidge Justice The seisin in this Case is traverseable Ley Chief Justice Take away the Seisin and then no gift and therefore the Seisin here is Traverseable Haughton and Chamberlain Justices agreed The Court resolved That either the Seisin in Fee or the gift in tail is traverseable Dodderidge Justice If you both convey from one and the same person then you must traverse the conveyance It is a rule C. 6. part 24. there the Books are cited which warrants the traverse of either Quod nota It was adjudged for the Plaintiff Trinit 21. Jacobi In the Kings Bench. 494 Sir EDWARD FISHER and WARNER's Case THE Testator being indebted unto Fisher made Warner his Executor and Warner in consideration that Fisher would forbear suing of him upon the Assumpsit of the Testator did promise to pay him Fifty Pounds and in an Action upon the Case upon this promise Warner pleaded Non Assumpsit in the Common Pleas and it was found for the Plaintiff And a Writ of Error was brought in this Court because it was not shewed for what consideration the Testator did promise 2. Because it was not shewed That Warner the Executor had Assets in his hands It was said by the Councel of Sir Edward Fisher That they need not shew that he hath Assets because the Defendant Warner was sued upon his own promise C. 9. part 94. The Testator made a promise to pay to Fisher fifty pound and died The Executor in consideration of the forbearance of a Suit upon that promise of the Testator doth assume to pay c. The Jury find for the Plaintiff The Error is that no time is limited nor no place where the promise was made and also it is not shewed when the Testator died and so it is not shewed whether the promise were made in the life time of the Testator or not for if it were in the life time of the Testator then the promise was void Nor is the time of the forbearance shewed and so no good consideration Hill 5. Jacobi a consideration to forbear paululum tempus is no good consideration by Cook And the like case was adjudged 36. Eliz. Rot. 448. Sackbdos case We do alledge de facto that we have forborn our Suit and that the Defendant hath not paid us the money Dodderidge Justice It is alledged that the Plaintiff paid money to the Testator upon which he promised And the Action now brought is upon the promise of the Executor Part of the promise is That he paid the fifty pound to the Testator and that ought to be proved in evidence to the Jury C. 6. part Gregories case if it be not specially named how he shall prove it Haughton to forbear to sue him is for all his life time and not paululum tempus Dodderidge Justice Exception was taken that he doth not shew that the Testator was dead at the time of the promise by the Executor It was shewed That after the death of the Testator that he took upon him the Execution of the Will and then promised and that of necessity must be after the death of the Testator Trinit 21. Jacobi in the King 's Bench. 495 WILLIAM's and FLOYD's Case IN an Ejectione firme The Array was challenged because it was made at the Nomination of the Plaintiffe And by consent of the parties two Atturneys of the Court did try the Array The question was Whether the Triall of the Array was good It was said by the Councel which argued for the Defendant That it was not good If one of the four Knights be challenged the three other Knights shall try that challenge and if he be found favourable he shall be drawn and if another of the Knights be challenged hee shall be tried by the other two and if one of the two be challenged then a new Writ shall issue forth to cause three Knights to appear 9. E. 4. 46. The two which quash the Array ought to try the Array of the Tales for that they are strangers to them The assent of the parties in this case is to no purpose for the consent of the parties cannot alter the Law neither can the King alter the Law but an Act of Parliament may alter the Law 29. Ass 4 19. H. 6. 9. by Newton 27. H. 8. 13. Where a triall cannot be out of the County by the assent of the parties and if it be it is errour By the Councel of the other side contrary This triall of the Array is much in the discretion of the Judges for sometimes it is tried by the Coroners and they are strangers to the Array 21. Ass 26. 20. Ass 10. there the Judges at their discretion appointed one of the Array and the Coroners to try it 27. Ass 28. there upon such a challenge it was tried by the Coroners and Shard said That the triall by any of them was sufficient and by Forriners de Circumstantibus 31. Ass 10. so as it rests much in the discretion of the Judges 29. Ass 3. there it was denied But note That that was in Oyer and Terminer and there it did not appear that the Array was made at the Nomination of one of the parties but in other challenges it may be tried by one of the Panell But in our case they were all challenged was the objection 9. E. 4. 20. Billing For if one of the parties will nominate all of the Jurours to the Sheriffe it is presumed that they are all partiall and 〈◊〉 â—his case the whole Array is challenged but in other cases he may challenge one or two of the Array and yet the others may be indifferent But admit it had been errour yet being by the assent of the parties it is no errour Baynams case in Dyer A Venire facias by assent of the parties was awarded to one of the Coroners and good Dyer 367. 43. E. 3. Office of Court 12. One of the twelve doth depart If the Justices do appoint one of the panell to supply his place it is erroneus but yet if it be with the assent of the parties it is good So in our case 21. E. 4. 59. Brian saith That he hath not seen more then two to try the Array yet by assent of the
certain Farme Lands called Estons and that a Fine was levied of Lands in Eslington Eston and Chilford whereas Eston lay in another Parish appell D. Calthrope argued That the Land in Eston did passe by the Fine although the Parish was not named for that the Writ of Covenant is a personall Action and will lie of Lands in a Hamlet or lieu conus 8. E. 4 6. Vide 4. E. 3. 15. 17. Ass 30. 18. E. 3. 36. 47. E. 3. 6. 19. E. 3. Brev. 767. 2. He said That it was good for that the Plea went only to the Writ in abatement but when a Concord is upon it which admits it good it shall not be avoided afterwards 3. He said That a Fine being a common assurance and made by assent of the parties will passe the Lands well enough 7 E. 4. 25. 38. E. 3. 19. And he vouched Pasch 17. Jacobi in the Kings Bench Rot. 140. Monk and Butlers Case Where it was adjudged that a Fine being but an arbitrary assurance would passe Lands in a Lieu conus and so he said it would do in a common recovery And Richardson said That if a Scire facias be brought to execute such a recovery Nul tiel ville ou Hamlet is no plea and the Fine or recovery stands good Vide 44. E. 3. 21. 21 E. 3. 14 Stone And the opinion of the Court was That the Lands did well passe by the Fine Mich. 8. Caroli in the Kings Bench 509 CAWDRY aud TETLEY's Case CAwdry being a Doctor of Physick the Defendant Praemissorum non ignorans to discredit the plaintiff with his Patients as appeared by the Evidence spake these words to the plaintiffe viz. Thou art a drunken Fool and an Asse Thou wert never a Scholer nor ever able to speak like a Scholer The opinions of Jones and Crook Justices were that the words were actionable because they did discredit him in his Profession and hee hath particular losse when by reason of those words others do not come to him And Palmers Case was vouched Where one said of a Lawyer Thou hast no more Law then a Jackanapes that an Action did lie for the words Contrary if he had said No more Wit And William Waldrons Case was also vouched where one said I am a true Subject thy Master is none that the words were actionable Mich. 4. Caroli in the Kings Bench. 510 The King and BAXTER SIMMON's Case THE Case was this Tenant in tail the Remainder in taile the Remainder in Fee to Tenant in tail in possession Tenant in tail in Remainder by Deed enrolled reciting that he had an estate tail in Remainder Granted his Remainder and all his estate and right unto the King and his Heirs Proviso that if he pay ten shillings at the Receipt of the Exchequer that then the Grant shall be void Tenant in tail in possession suffers a common Recovery and afterwards deviseth the Lands to I. S. and dieth without Issue 18. Jacobi Afterwards 21. Jac. he in the Remainder in tail dieth without issue but no seisure is made nor Offence found that the lands were in the Kings hands Noy who argued for the King The first Point is When Tenant in taile recites his estate and grants all his estate and right to the King and his Heirs what estate the King hath And if by the death of Tenant in tail without issue the estate of the King be so absolutly determined that the Kings possession needs not to be removed by Amoveas manum And he argued That when the Lands are once in the King that they cannot be out of him again but by matter of Record 8. E. 3. 12. Com. 558. And a bare entry upon the King doth not put the King out of possession of that which was once in him And so was it adjudged 34. Eliz. in the Lord Paget's Case as Walter chief Baron said And Noy took this difference 8. H. 5. Traverse 47. and 8. E. 2. Traverse 48. If a particular estate doth determine before that the King seise there the King cannot afterwards seise the Lands But if the King hath once the Lands in his hands or possession there they cannot be devested out of him but by matter of Record So F. Nat. Br. 254. If a man be seised of Lands in the right of his Wife and be outlawed for Felonie for which the Lands come into the Kings hands and afterwards hee who is outlawed dieth there a Writ of Diem clausit extremum shall issue forth which proveth That by the death of the Husband the Lands are not immediately out of the King and setled in the Wife againe 22. E. 4. Fitz. Petition 9. Tenant in taile is attainted of Treason and the Lands seised into the Kings hands and afterwards Tenant in taile dieth without Issue he in the Remainder is put to his Petition which proveth that the Lands are not presently after the death of Tenant in taile without issue out of the King But he agreed the Cases If Tenant in taile acknowledgeth a Statute or granteth a Rent charge and dieth that the Rent is gone and determined by his death as it is agreed in 14. Assisarum The second point argued by Noy was That although that there was not any seizure or Offence found which entituled the King Yet the Deed enrolled in the Chancery which is returned in this Court did make sufficient title for the King as 8. E. 3. p. 3. is The Judges of Courts ought to Judge upon the Records of the same Courts In 8. H. 7. 11. a Bayliff shewed That a Lease was made to T. his Master for life the Remainder to the King in Fee and prayed in Ayd of the King And the Plaintiff in Chancery prayed a Procedendo And it was ruled That a Procedendo should not be granted without examination of the Kings title Thirdly he said That in this case he who will have the Lands out of the possession of the King ought to shew forth his title and in the principall case it doth not appear that the Defendant had any title Vide 10. H. 7. 13. Athowe Serjeant argued for the Defendant he said That in this case the King had an estate but for the life of Tenant in tail And therefore he said That If Tenant in tail grant totum statum suum that an estate but for his own life passeth as Litt. is 145. and 13. H. 7. 10. acc So If Tenant for life the remainder in taile bee and he in the Remainder releaseth to Tenant for life in possession nothing passeth but for the life of Tenant in tail 19. H. 6. 60. If Tenant in tail be attainted of Treason or Felonie and Offence is found and the King seiseth the lands he hath an estate but for the life of Tenant in tail And he cited 35. Eliz. C. 2 part 52. Blithmans case Where Tenant in tail Covenanted to stand seized to the use of himself for his own life and after his death to the use
afterward the Husband suffers the wood to grow five and twenty yeers and afterwards hee dieth The question was Whether the Wife being Tenant for life might cut that Underwood And it was moved What shall be said seasonable Underwood that a Termor or Tenant for life might cut Dyer Chief Justice and all the other Justices held That a Termor or Tenant for life might cut all Underwood which had been usually cut within twenty yeers In 11. H. 6. 1. Issue was taken If they were of the age of twenty yeers or no. But in the Wood-Countries they may fell seasonable wood which is called Sylva caedua at six and twenty eight and twenty thirty years by the custome of the Country And so the Usage makes the Law in severall Countries And so it is holden in the books of 11. H. 6. and 4. E. 6. But they agreed That the cutting of Oakes of the age of eight yeers or ten years is Waste But by Meade Justice the cutting of Hornbeams Hasels Willows or Sallows of the age of forty yeares is no Waste because at no time they will be Timber Another question which was moved was That at the time of the Feoffment it was seasonable Wood and but of the growth of fourteen or fifteen yeers If this suffering of the Husband of it to grow to 25 years during the Coverture should bind the Wife so as she cannot cut the Woods Gaudy Serjeant said That it should not bind the Wife For if a Warranty descend upon a Feme Covert it shall not bind her So if a man seized of Land in the Right of his Wife be disseised and a Descent be cast during the Coverture it shall not bind the Wife but that she may enter after the death of the Husband But by Dyer Chief Justice and all the other Justices This Permission of the Husband shall bind the Wife notwithstanding the Coverture for that the time is limited by the Law which cannot be altered if it be not the custome of the Country As in the case of 17. E. 3. Where a man makes a Lease for years and grants that the Lessee shall have as great commoditie of the Land as hee might have Notwithstanding these words he cannot dig the land for a Mine of Cole or Stone because that the Law forbids him to dig the land So in the principall Case The Wife cannot fell the Wood notwithstanding that at the time of her estate she might and afterwards by the permission of the Husband during the coverture the time is incurred so as she cannot fell it because the Law doth appoint a time which if it be not felled before such time that it shall not be felled by a Termor or a Tenant for life but it shall be Waste Hill 23. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 7. A Man makes a Lease of a Garden containing three Roodes of Land and the Lessee is ousted and he brings an Ejectione firme and declares that he was ejected of three Roods of Land Rodes Serjeant moved That by this Declaration it shall be intended that he was ejected of the Garden of which the Lease was made and so the Ejectione firme would lie And it was holden by the Lord Chief Justice Dyer That a Garden is a thing which ought to be demanded by the same name in all Precipes as the Register and Fitz. N. Brevium is And this Action is greater then an Action of Trespasse because by Recovery in this Action he shall be put into Possession But Meade and Windham Justices contrary And they agreed that in all reall Actions a Garden shall be demanded by the name Gardinum otherwise not But this Action of Ejectione firme is in the nature of Trespasse and it is in the Election of the Party to declare as here he doth or for to declare of the Ejectment of a Garden for a Garden may be used at one time for a Garden and at another time be ploughed and sowed with Corn. But they conceived that the better order of pleading had been if he had declared that he was ejected of a Garden containing three Roodes of Land as in the Lease it is specified Hill 23. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 8. SErgeant Fenner moved this case That Land is given to the Wife in tail for her Joynture according to the Statute of 11. H. 7. The Husband dieth the Wife accepts a fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. of a Stranger And by the same fine grants and renders the Land to him for an Hundred years whether this acceptance of a Fine and Render by the Wife were a forfeiture of her estate so as he in the Reversion or Remainder might enter by the Statute Mead and Dyer Justices it is a forfeiture and Mead resembled it to the Case in 1 H. 7. 12. where it is holden That if Tenant for life do accept of a Fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. that it is a forfeiture and the Lessor may enter But Fenner asked their opinions what they thought of the principall case But haesitavernut because they said it was a dangerous case and is done to defraud the Statute of 11. H. 7. Pasch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 9. A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to two to the use of himself and his wife for the term of their lives without impeachment of waste during the life of the Husband the remainder after their decease to the use of I. his son for the term of his life And further by the same Deed Vult concedit that after their three lives viz. of the Husband Wife and Son that I. S. and I. D. two other Feoffees shall be seized of the same Land to them and their heirs to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Son begotten It was moved That by this deed the two later Feoffees should be seized to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Son begotten after the death of the Husband Wife and the Son But it was holden by all the Justices That the second Feoffees had not the Fee because by the first part of the Deed the Fee-Simple was given to the first Feoffees and one Fee-Simple cannot depend upon another Fee-Simple Notwithstanding that after the determination of the former uses for life the Fee-Simple should be vested again in the Heires of the Feoffer and that the words That the second Feoffees should be seized should be void But Dyer Chief Justice and the other Justices were against that because there wanted apt words to raise the later use As if a man bargain and sell his Reversion of Tenant for Life by words of Bargain and Sale only and the Deed is not Enrolled within the six months but afterwards the Tenant for Life doth attorne yet notwithstanding that the Reversion shall not passe because Bargain and Sell are not apt words to make a Grant And that Case was so adjudged in the Common Pleas as the
24. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 19. IN an Action upon the Case upon a Promise The consideration was Where I. S. had granted a Term to I. D. That afterwards upon the request of I. S. I. D. did make to W. an Estate for four years upon which W. brought his Action And after Verdict it was moved in stay of Judgement that there was no good consideration and a difference taken where the Promise was upon the Grant and where afterwards If it were before then the Condition was good but if it were afterwards it was not good And it was adjudged That the Plaintiffe Nihil capiat per billam Pasch 24. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 20. AN Action upon the Case upon a Promise was The Consideration was That in consideration that the Plaintiffe Daret diâ—m solutionis the Defendant Super se assumpsit and because he doth not say in facto that he had given day It was adjudged that no sufficient Consideration was alledged But if the Consideration were Quod cum indebitatus c. the same had been a good Consideration without any more for that implies a Consideration in it self Pasch 24. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 21. IT was said by Cooke That the Chancellor or any Judge of any of the Courts of Record at Westminster may bring a Record one to another without a Writ of Certiorare because one Judge is sufficiently known one to the other as 5. H. 7. 31. where a Certificate was by the Chancellor alone and to this purpose is 11. H. 4. But that other Judges of base Courts cannot do nor Justices of the Peace as 3. H. 6. where the certificate by Suitors was held void Pasch 25. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 22. SKIPWITH'S Case IT was found upon a speciall verdict in an Action of Trespass that the place where c. was Copy-hold land And that the Custome is That quaelibet foemina viro cooperta poterit devise lands whereof she is seised in Fee according to the custome of the Manor to her Husband and surrender it in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons And that I. S. was seised of the land where c. and had issue two Daughters and died and that they married husbands and that one of them devised her part to her husband by Will in writing in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons and afterwards at another day shee surrendred to the Husband and he was admitted and she died and her Husband continued the possession And the Husband of the other Daughter brought an Action of Trespasse Rodes Serjeant The Custome is not good neither for the Surrender nor for the Will for two causes One for the uncertainty of what estate shee might make a Devise and because it is against reason that the Wife should surrender to the Husband Where the Custome shall not be good if it be uncertain he vouched 13. E. 3. Fitz. Dum fuit infra aetatem 3. The Tenant saith that the lands are in Dorset where the Custome is that an Enfant may make a Grant or Feoffment when he can number twelve pence And it was holden that because it is uncertain when he can so do the Custome is not good 19. E. 2. in a Ravishment of Ward the defendant pleaded that the custome is that when the Enfant can measure an ell of cloth or tell twelve pence as before that he should be out of Ward and it is holden no good custom for the cause aforesaid 22. H. 6. 51. a. there a man prescribed That the Lord of D. had used to have Common for him and all his Tenants And because it is not shewed what Lord whether the Lord mediate or immediate it is adjudged no good custome And as to the Surrender it is against reason that the Wife should give to the Husband for a Wife hath not any Will but the Will of her Husband For if the Husband seised in the right of his Wife make a Feoffment in Fee and the Wife being upon the land doth disagree unto it saying that shee will never depart with it during her life yet the Feoffment is good and shall binde during the life of the Husband as it is holden in 21. E. 3. And therefore it is holden in 3. E. 3. Tit. Devise Br. 43. That a Feme covert cannot devise to her Husband for that should be the Act of the Husband to convey the land to himself And in the old Natura Brevium in the Additions of Ex gravi quaerela it is holden so accordingly And the Case in 29. E. 3. differs much from this Case For there a woman seised of lands devisable took an Husband and had issue and devised the lands to the Husband for his life and died and a Writ of Waste was brought against him as Tenant by the Courtesie and it was holden that it did lie and that he is not in by the Devise for the reason there is because he was in before by the Courtesie But as I conceive that Case will disprove the Surrender for in as much as he had it in the Right of his wife he could not take it in his own Right Also he took another Exception in the principal Case because that the wife was not examined upon the Surrender but none of the Justices spake to that Exception but when the Record was viewed it appeared that it was so pleaded Further He said That the devise was void by the Statute of 34. H. 8. Cap. 5. where it is said It is enacted That Wills and Testaments made of any Lands Tenements c. by women Coverts or c. shall not be taken to be good or effectual in Law And he said That this Statute doth extend to customary Lands And as to that all the Justices did agree That it is not within the Statute And as to the Statute of Limitations Andâ—rson chief Justice said That if a Lease for years which perhaps will not indure sixty years shall be taken strong this shall Anderson moved That if the Lord Lease Copyhold land by Word Whether the Lessee might maintain an Ejectione firme and he conceived not for in an Ejectione firmâ— there ought to be a Right in Fact And although it be by conclusion it is not sufficient for that the Jury or Judge are not estopped or concluded And he conceived That if Tenant at Will make a Lease for years that it is no good lease betwixt him and the Lessor but that he may well plead that he had nothing in the land Meade contrary but they both agreed That the Book of 14. E. 4. which saith That if Tenant at Will make a lease for years that he shall be a Disseisor is not Law Anderson said That the prescription in the principal Case was not good for it is Quod quaelibet foemina viro cooperta poterit c. and it ought to be that feme Coverts possunt and by the Custome have used to devise to the
husband and therefore the prescription is not good that Potest ponere retes upon the land of another upon the Custome of the Sea for prescription must be in a thing done also by him the devise is not good according to the Custome for that is that she may devise and surrender and that ought to be all at one time and that in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons as well as the Surrenderer and the words of a Custome shall be so far performed as they may be Meade contrary And that these Witnesses shall be referred to the surrender onely for a devise may be without Witnesses And he said that sometimes the latter clause shall not refer to all the precedent matter but unto the latter onely as 7. H. 7. is Where a Praecipe was brought of lands in A. B. and C. in Insula de Ely the Clause in Insula de Ely is referred onely to C. And it was said That if in the principal Case the Will were good that then the husbands are Tenants in common and then the Action of Trespass is not maintainable Pasch 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 23. THis Case was moved by Serjant Gawdy Thomas Heigham had an hundred Acres of lands called Jacks usually occupied with a house and he leased the house and forty Acres parcel of the said hundred Acres to I. S. for life and reserved the other to himself and made his Will by which he doth devise the house and all his lands called Jacks now in the occupation of I. S. to his wife for life and that after her decease the remainder of that and all his other lands pertaining to Jacks to R. who was his second son Whether the wife shall have that of which her husband died seised for her life or whether the eldest son should have it and what estate he shall have in it Meade The wife shall not have it for because that he hath expressed his Will that the wife shall have part it shall not be taken by implication that she shall have the whole or the other part for then he would have devised the same to her And therefore it hath been adjudged in this Court betwixt Glover and Tracy That if Lands be devised to one and his heirs males and if he die without heirs of his body that then the land shall remain over that he had no greater estate then to him and his special heirs viz. heirs Males and the reason was because the Will took effect by the first words Anderson Chief Justice It was holden in the time of Brown That if lands were devised to one after the death of his wife that the wife should have for life but if a man seised of two Acres deviseth one unto his wife and that I. S. shall have the other after the death of the wife she takes nothing in that Acre for the Cause aforesaid For the second matter If the Reversion shall pass after the death of the wife to the second son we are to consider what shall be said land usually occupied with the other and that is the land leased with it But this land is not now leased with it and therefore it cannot pass Windham The second son shall have the Reversion for although it doth not pass by these words Usualy Occupied as Anderson held yet because the devise cannot take other effect and it appeareth that his intent was to pass the land the yonger son shall have it Anderson Jacks is the intire name of the house and lands And that word when it hath reference unto an intire thing called Jacks and is known by the name of Jacks shall pass to the second son for words are as we shall construe them And therefore If a man hath land called Mannor of Dale and he deviseth his Mannor of Dale to one the land shall pass although it be not a Mannor And if I be known by the name of Edward Williamson where my name is Edward Anderson and lands are given unto me by the name of Edward Williamson the same is a good name of purchase And the opinion of the Court was that the Reversion of the land should pass to the second son Pasc 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 24. The Lord MOUNTJOY and the Earle of HUNTINGTON'S Case NOte by Anderson Chief Justice and Periam Justice If a man seised of any entrie Franchises as to have goods of Felons within such a Hundred or Mannor or goods of Outlaws Waifes Strares c. which are causual There are not Inheritances deviseable by the Statute of 32. H. 8. for they are not of any yearly value and peradventure no profit shall be to the Lord for three or four years or perhaps for a longer time And such a thing which is deviseable ought to be of annual value as appeareth by the words of the Statute And also they agreed that the said Franchises could not be divided and therefore if they descend to two coparceners no partition can be made of them And the words of the Statute of 32. H. 8. are That it shall be lawful c. to divise two parts c. and then a thing which canot be divided is not diviseable And they said That if a man had three Manors and in each of the three such Liberties and every Manor is of equal value that yet he cannot devise one Mannor and the Liberties which he hath to it Causá quâ supra but by them an Advowson is deviseable because it may be of annual value But the Lord Chancellor smiling said That the Case of the three Manors may be doubted And there also it was agreed by the said two Justices upon Conference had with the other Justices That where the Lord Mountjoy by deed Indented and Inrolled did bargaine and sell the Manor of â—amford to Brown in Fee and in the Indenture this Clause is contained Provided alwayes And the said Brown Covenants and Grants to and with the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns that the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns may digg for Ore within the land in Camford which was a great Waste and also to digg Turffe there to make Allome and Coperess without any contradiction of the said Brown his Heirs and Assigns They agreed That the Lord Mountjoy could not devide the said Interest viz. to grant to one to digg within a parcel of the said Waste And they also agreed That notwithstanding that Grant That Brown his Heirs and Assigns owners of the Soile might digg there also like to the Case of Common Sans number The Case went further That the Lord Mountjoy had devised this Interest to one Laicott for one and twenty years and that Laicott assigned the same over to two other men And whether this Assignment were good or not was the Question forasmuch that if the Assignement might be good to them it might be to twenty and that might be a surcharge to the Tenant of the soile And as to that
the Justices did agree that the assignement was good but that the two assignees could not work severally but together with one stock or such workmen as belonged to them both And Cook who reported the opinions of the Justices was of Counsel with the Lord Mountjoy And note in that case it was said That Proviso being coupled with other words of covenant and grant doth not create a Condition but shall be of the same nature as the other words with which it is coupled Pasch 25. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 25. WEBBE and POTTER'S Case In an Ejectione firme the Case was this JOhn Harris gave Land in Frankmarriage to one White And the words of the Deed were Dedi concessi I. W. in liberum maritagium Joannae filiae suae Habendum eidem J. W. haeredibus suis in perpetuum tenendum de Capitalibus Dominis fâ—odi c. with warranty to the Husband and his heirs Periam Justice although the usuall words of gift in Frankmarriage are not observed yet the Frankmarriage shall not be destroyed for the usuall words are In liberum maritagium cum Joanna filia mea in the ablative case And it was holden by all the Justices that notwithstanding that the Frankmarriage was good Also a gift in Frankmarriage after the espousals is good as it was holden by all the Justices And see Fitz. Tit. Taile 4. E. 3. and 2. H. 3. Dower 199. And he said That a gift in Frankmarriage before the Stat. of Donis c. was a Feesimple but now it is but a special tail and if it should not be in law a gift in Frankmarriage then the Husband and Wife have an estate but for their lives for they cannot have an estate taile for that there are not words of limitation of such estate in the gift And hee cited 4. E. 3. and 45. E. 3. 20. to prove his opinion and hee much relyed upon the intent of the Donor which ought to be observed in construction of such Gifts according to the Statute And because the Habendum is repugnant to the premisses and would destroy the Frank-marriage it is void and the premisses shall stand good and to prove that he cited 9. E. 3. 13. E. 1. 32. E. 1. Tit. Taile 25. 3. H. 4. by Hill And he took this difference Where a Remainder is limited upon a Gift in Frankmarriage to a stranger and where it is limited to one of the Donees for in the first case the Remainder is good for the benefit of the stranger but in the second case it is void And he said that if a Rent be reserved upon such a Gift that it should be void during the four degrees but afterwards the Reservation should be good And if the Donor grant the Reversion over and the Donee in Frank-marriage attourn now he shall pay rent to the Grantee for by Littleton he hath lost the Priviledg of Frankmarriage viz. the Aquitall and no privitie is betwixt the Grantee and the Donees 10. Ass 26. 4. H. 6. That it is not any taile if it be not Frankmarriage Windham Justice Although it be no estate in Frankmarriage yet is it an estate taile and he cited 8. E. 3. although there want the word Heirs Also if a man give lands to another semini suo it is good 45. E. 3 Statham taile If it be not Frankmarriage yet it is a good estate in taile 19. Ass Land was given to Husband and Wife in Frank-marriage infra annos nubiles and afterwards they are divorced the Wife hath an estate in taile Meade Justice did agree with Windham and said That although there be not any Tenure nor any Aquitall yet it may be a good Frankmarriage as if a Rent Common or Reversion be given in Frankmarriage it is good and yet there is not any Tenure nor aquitall Dyer Chief Justice conceived That it is not Frankmarriage because that the usuall words in such Gifts are not observed for he said that the gift ought to be in liberum Maritagium and not Joannae filiae suae for that is not the usuall form of the words And he said That if the word Liberum be omitted that it is not Frankmarriage for that he said is as it were a Maxime and therefore the usuall words ought to be observed And by the same reason such a Gift cannot be with a man but ought to be with a woman also such a Gift ought to be with one of the blood of the Donor who by possibilitie might be his Heir Also there ought to be a Tenure betwixt the Donor and Donee and also an Aquitall And if these grounds and ceremonies be not observed it is not Frankmarriage Also if it once take effect as a Frankmarriage and afterwards the Donor granteth the Reversion over or if the Reversion doth descend to the Donees yet it shall not be utterly destroyed but shall remaine as an estate taile and not as an estate for life because it once took effect in the Donees and their issues as a Frankmarriage 31. E. 1. taile 116. If a man give lands in Frankmarriage the remainder to the Donees and the heirs of their bodies yet it is a good Frankmarriage And if a man give Lands in Frankmarriage the Remainder to another in taile it shall not destroy the Frankmarriage because that the Donor hath the Reversion in Fee in himself and the Donees shall hold of him and not of him in the Remainder in taile but if the Remainder had been limited to another in Fee simple then it had been otherwise Also if the Donor grant the Services of the Donees in Frankmarriage reserving the Reversion to himself it is no good Grant although that the Donees attourne for that the Services are incident to the Reversion but if he grant the Reversion then they do passe And he concluded That the Husband had the whole and that the Wife had nothing for she was no purchaser of the premisses because that the Gift did not take effect as a gift in Frankmariage And he said that he doth not construe it so by the intent of the Gift for here is an expresse limitation of the Fee to the Husband and his heirs which shall not be contradicted by any intendment for an Intendment ought to give way to an expresse Limitation as a consideration implyed ought to give place to a consideration expressed And afterwards this yeer it was adjudged that it was not a Frankmarriage nor a Gift in taile but that it was a Fee simple And the Justices said that although the old books are That where it takes not effect as a Frankmarriage that yet it shall take effect as an estate taile those Books are against Law But they agreed That where once the Gift doth take effect as a Frankmarriage that by matter ex post facto it might be turned to an estate in taile Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 26. MEade and Windham the other Justices being absent were of opinion That a
King And as to the second Point they held the Law to be cleer That after that he hath retained as many as by the Law he may retaine and they are sub Signo and Sigillo testified to bee his Chaplains and by reason thereof have qualification to have two Benefices and have two Benefices by vertue thereof although that afterwards they are removed for displeasure or otherwise out of service yet during their lives their Master cannot take other Chaplains which may by this Statute be qualified for so every Baron might have infinite of Chaplains which might be qualified which was not the meaning of the Statute and of that opinion is the Lord Dyer in his Reports And as to the third Point they held That although he were removed from the Domesticall Service of the Family yet hee did remaine Chaplain at large and so a Chaplain within the Statute And further the Opinion of the Court was in this Case That if the party qualified to die the Queen or other Master mentioned in the Statute might qualifie another againe Quod nota The Case was entred Pasch 28. Eliz. Rot. 1130. Scot. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 48. ONE made a Deed in this forme Noverinit c. that I have demised and to Farme letten all my Lands in D. to I. S. and his Wife and to the Heirs of their two Bodies for thirteen years And it was moved That it was an Estate in taile and 5. E. 3. and 4. H. 4. were vouched But Clenche Justice who was only present in Court was of Opinion That it is but a Lease for years although it was put that Livery was made secundùm formam chartae and his said That if one make a Lease for forty years to another and his Heirs and makes Livery that it is but a Lease for years and he said It is no Livery but rather a giving of Possession But he would have it moved again when the other Justices came Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 49 AN Action upon the Case was brought against an Inn-keeper upon the Custome of England for the safe keeping of the things and Goods of their Guests and he brought his Action in another County then where the Inn was and it was said by Clench Justice That if it be an Action upon the Case upon a Contract or for words and the like transitory things that it may be brought in any County but in this Case he said It ought to be brought where the Inn is Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 50. ONE charged two men as Receivers The Question was Whether one of them might plead Ne unque son Receiver and it was moved That he could not but ought to say Nâ— unque son Receiver absque hoc that he and his Companion were Receivers Clenchè and Suit Justices held That it was well without Traverse and Vide 10. E. 4. 8. Where an Account was brought against one supposing the receipt of Two hundred Marks by the hands of I. P. and R. C. The Defendant as to One hundred Marks pleaded That he received it by the hands of I. P. tantùm without that that he received it by the hands of I. P. and R. C. And as to the other One hundred Marks he received them from the hands of R. C. only without that that he received I. P. and R. C. And there it was doubted Whether it be good or not But in the end of the Case by Fitz. Accompt 14. If an Account be brought against two and one saith He was sole his Receiver and hath accounted before such an Auditor if the Plaintiffe answer unto his Bar he shall abate his Writ because the Receipt is supposed to be a joint Receipt And it is not like unto a Praecipe quod reddat against two Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 51. AN Action upon the Case was brought against one for that he said to another I will give thee Ten Pound to kill such a one and the Question was Whether the Action would lie It was said by Sir Thomas Coâ—kaine that such a Lady had given poyson to such a one to kill her Child within her that the words were not Actionable Also one said That another had put Gun-Powder in the Window of a house to fire such a house and the house was not fired adjudged that the words were not Actionable The Case was betwixt Ramsey of Buckinghamshire and another who said That he lay in wait to have killed him it was found for the Plaintiffe and he had Forty Pound Damages given him But of the Principall Case the Court would advise Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 52 IT was holden by the Court That the Habeas corpus shall be alwayes directed to him who hath the custody of the Body Therefore whereas in the case of one Wickham it was directed to the Maior Bailiffs and Burgesses Exception was taken unto it because the pleas were holden before the Maior Bailiff and Steward but the Exception was dissallowed But otherwise it is in a Writ of Error for that shall be directed to those before whom the Judgment was given In London the Habeas corpus shall be directed Majori Vicecomit London because they have the custodie and not to the whole Corporation But I conceive that the course is that the Writ is directed Majori Aldermannis Vicecomitibus c. Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 53 MARSH and PALFORD's Case OWen moved this Case That one had an upper chamber in Fee and another had the neather or lower part of the same house in Fee and he who had the upper chamber pulled it down and he which had the lower room would not suffer him to build it up again But the opinion of the Justices was that he might build it up again if he did it within convenient time And there it was said that it had been a Question Whether a man might have a Free-hold in an upper chamber Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 54. A Question was moved to the Court Whether Tithe should be paid of Heath Turf and Broom And the opinion of Suit Justice was That if they have paid tithe Wool Milk Calves c. for their cattell which have gone upon the Land that they should not pay tithe of them But some doubted of it and conceived That they ought to say that they have used to pay those Tithes for all other Tithes otherwise they should pay tithe for Heath Turf Broom c. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 55. TWo Parsons were of two severall Parishes and the one claimed certain Tithes within the Parish of the other and said That he and all his Predecessors Parsons of such a Church scil of D. had used to have the Tithes of such Lands within the Parish of S. and that was pleaded in the Spiritual Court and the Court was moved for to grant
a Prohibition And Suit and Clenche Justices He shall have a Prohibition for he claims onely a portion of Tithes and that by prescription and not meerly as Parson or by reason of the Parsonage but by a collaterall cause viz. by Prescription which is a Temporall cause and thing And it is not materiall whether it be betwixt two Parsons Vide 20. H. 6. 17. Br. Jurisdiction 80. and 11. H. 4. and 35. H. 6. 39. Br. Jurisdiction 3. Where in Trespasse for taking of Tithes the Defendant claimed them as Parson and within his Parish and the Plaintiffe prescribed That he and his predecessors Vicars there had had the Tithes of that place time out of minde c. And the opinion of the Court was that the right of Tithes came in debate betwixt the Vicar and the Parson who were Spirituall persons who might try the right of Tithes And therfore there the Temporall Court should not have the Jurisdiction Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 56 IN an Indictment upon the Statute of 8. H. 6. of Forcible Entry the Case was this One was Lessee for yeers and the Reversion did belong unto the Company of Goldsmiths And one was indicted for a forcible Entry and the words of the Indictment were That expulit disseisivit the Company of Goldsmiths quendam I. S. tenentem expulit Cooke took exception to the Indictment and said that a disseisin might be to one although not in possession as to a Reversioner upon a term for yeers or upon a Wardship but he could not be expulsed if he were not in possession for privatiâ— praesupponit habitum And after it saith that the Tenant was expulsed and two cannot be expulsed where one onely was in possession therefore it ought to have said that the Tenant of the Free-hold was disseised and the Termor expelled and it applyes the word expulit to both And Fuller took another Exception that the Cart is set before the horse For he who had the Free-hold could not be disseised if his Termor were not first ousted and the Indictment is That the Tenant of the Free-hold was expulsed and disseised and then the Termor was expelled But Sui Justice as to that said that the later clause scil et quendam I. S. tenentem c. is but surplusage For if one enter with force and expell the Tenant of the Free-hold it is within the Statute of 8. H. 6. Then Fuller moved that the Indictment doth not shew the place where he expelled him But Cleâ—ch Justice said that that was not material for he could not expell him at another place then upon the Land As a man cannot make a Feoffment by livery and seisin at another place but upon the Land unless a Feoffment with Livery within the view And as to the Objection of Cook that the Indictment is that he disseised and expelled the Tenant of the Free-hold out of the possession of the Free-hold To that he answered that the possession of the Termor is the possession of him in the Reversion Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 57 A Man seised of a Copy-hold in Fee made his Will and thereby he devised the same unto his Wife for her life and that after her death his Wife or her Executors should sell the Land He surrendred to the use of his Wife which was entred in hac forma viz. to the use of his Wife for life Secundùm formam ultimae voluntatis The Woman sold the Land during her life The question was Whether she might sell or not Suit Justice said That the intent doth appear that she might sell during her life for when it saith That she or her Executors should sell after her death it is meant the Estate which is to come after her death for the Wife after her death could not sell The second Point was When the surrender is to the Wife for life secundùm formam ultimae voluntatis Whether here she have the Land for life and the Fee also to sell Clenche If she had not the Fee to sell then the words Secundùm formam ultimae voluntatis should be void for the Surrender to the use of the wife for life gives her an Estate for life without any other words Suit If it were ad usum ultimae voluntatis without speaking what Estate the Wife should have no doubt but shee should have for her own use for life and that afterwards she might sell the Land but he said As the Case is put it is a pretty Case And it was adjourned Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 58 THis Case was moved in Court A Copy-holder committed Waste by which a forfeiture accrued to the Lord who afterwards did accept of the Rent The question was Whether by this acceptance he were concluded of his Entrie for the Forfeiture Cook said He was not for it is not as the Case 45 E. 3. where a Lease is made upon Condition that the Lessee shall not do Waste and he commits Waste and then the Lessor accepts the Rent there he cannot enter But otherwise is it of a Copy-hold for there is a condition in Law and here in Fait and a condition in Fait may save the Land by an Acceptance but a condition in Law cannot for by the condition in Law broken the Estate of the Copyholder is meerly void And the Court agreed That when such a Forfeiture is presented it is not to Entitle the Lord but to give him notice for the Copy-hold is in him by the Forfeiture presently without any Presentment A man made a Lease for years upon condition that he should not assign over his Lease and it was reserving Rent and after he did assign it and then the Lessor accepted the rent there he shall not enter for the condition broken Lessee for years upon condition that he should not do Waste and the Lessor accepts of the Rent for the quarter in which the Waste was done yet he may enter but if he do accept of a second payment of the Rent then it is otherwise but if it were upon condition That if he do waste that his Estate shall cease There no acceptance of the Rent by the Lessor can make the Lease good It was adjourned Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 59 THE Lord Admirall did grant the Office of Clark or Register of the Admirall Court to one Parker and Herold for their lives eorum diuâ—ius viventi And Herold bound himself in a Bond of Five Hundred Pound to Parker that the said Parker should enjoy the Office cum omnibus proficuis during his life And afterwards Herold did interrupt the said Parker in his Office upon which he brought an Action of Debt upon the Bond. The Defendant pleaded That such is the custome That the Admirall might grant the same Office for the life of the Admirall only and that he is dead and so the Office void and that he did interrupt him as it was lawfull
not have an Action without cause and if he were convicted then there is no cause of Action and he hath not shewed whether he was convicted or acquitted And he said that there was no difference betwixt an Action on the Case and a Conspiracie in such case but onely this That a Conspiracy ought to be by two at the least and an Action upon the Case may lie against one and he said that in both he ought to shew that he was legitimo modo acquietatus See 11. H. 7. 25. An Action of Conspiracy founded upon the Statute of 8. H 6. Cap. 10. where it is grounded upon a Writ of Trespasse brought against one onely But such a Conspiracy which is grounded upon an Indictment of Felony must be against two at the least for the same is an Action founded upon the Common Law Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 92. BONEFANT against Sir RIC. GREINFIELD BOnefant brought an Action of Trespasse against Sir Richard Greinfield The Case was this A man made his Will and made A. E. I. O. his Executors and devised his Lands to A. E. I. and O. by their speciall names and to their heirs and further willed that his Devisees should sell the Land to I. D. if he would give for the same before such a day an hundred pound and if not that then they should sell to any other to the performance of his Will scil the payment of his debts I. D. would not give the hundred pound One of the Devisees refused to entermeddle and the other three sold the Land and if the Sale were good or not was the question Cooke The Sale is not good 1. Let us see what the Common Law is At the Common Law it is a plain case that the Sale is not good because it is a speciall trust and a joynt trust and shall never survive for perhaps the Devisor who is dead reposed more confidence in him who refused then in the others Vide 2 Eliz. the Case of the Lord Bray who covenanted That if his son marry with the consent of four whom he especially named viz. A. B. C. and D. that then he would stand seised to the use of his son and his wife and to the heirs of their two bodies begotten One of the four was attainted and executed The other did consent that he should marry such a one he married her yet no estate passed because the fourth did not consent and it was a joynt trust 38. H. 8. Br. Devises 31. A man willeth that his Lands deviseable shall be sold by his Executors and makes four Executors all of them ought to sell for the trust which is put upon them is a joynt Trust But Brook conceiveth that if one of them dieth that the others may sell the Lands The Case betwixt Vincent and Lee was this A man devised That if such a one dieth without issue of his body that then his Sons in law should sell such Lands and there were five sons in law when the Testatour died and when the other man died without issue there were but three sons in law and they sold the Lands and it was holden that the Sale was good because the Land was not presently to be sold Also he said that in the principall Case here they have an Interest in the Lands and each of them hath a part therefore the one cannot sell without the other But if the devise were that four should sell they have not an Interest but onely an Authority As to the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 4. he said that that left our Case to the Common Law For that Statute as it appeareth by the preamble speaks onely of such Devises by which the Land is devised to be sold by the Executors and not devised to the Executors to sell And goes further and saith Any such Testament c. of any such person c. therefore it is meant of such a devise made unto the Executors and then no Interest passeth but onely an Authority or a bare Trust But in our Case they have an Interest for he who refused had a fourth part Then when the other sell the whole the same is a disseisin to him of his part If a Feoffment be made to four upon condition that they make a Feoffment over and two of them make the Feoffment it is not good Also the words of the Will prove that they have an Interest for it is that his Devisees shall sell c. Laiton contrary And he said That although the Devise be to them by their proper names and not by the name Executors yet the intent appeareth that they were to sell as Executors because it was to the performance of his last Will and that may be performed as well by the three although that the other doth refuse and the Sale of the Land doth referre to the performance of his Will in which there are divers Debts and Legacies appointed to be paid 2. H. 4. and 3. H. 6. A man devised his Lands to be sold for the payment of his debts and doth not name who shall sell the same the Lands shall be sold by his Executors 39. Ass A Devise is of Lands unto Executors to sell for the performance of his Will the profits of the Lands before the Sale shall be assets in the Executors hands 15. H. 7. 12. is That if a man devise that his Lands shall be sold they shall be sold by his Executors Also if I devise that my Executors shall sell my Lands and they sell it is an Administration and afterwards they cannot plead that they never were Executors nor never administred as Executors And although there are divers Authorities to be executed yet it is but one Trust 39. Ass 17. is our very Case A man seised of Lands deviseable devised them to his Executors to sell and died having two Executors and one of them died and the other entred and sold the Land and the Sale was good 49. E. 3. 15. Isabell Goodcheapes Case Where a man devised that after an Estate in taile determined that his Executors should sell the Lands and made three Executors and one died and another refused the third after the taile determined sold the Land and the Sale was holden good and that it should not escheate to the Lord for the Land was bound with a Devise as with a Condition as to the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 4. the preamble of the Statute is as it hath been recited and although for exmaple the Lands in use are only put yet the Statute is not tied only to that As in the Statute of Collusion of Malbridge Examples are put only of Feoffments and Leases for years yet there is no doubt but that a Lease for life or a gift in taile to defraud the Lord is within the Statute So the Statute of Donis Conditionalibus puts onely three manner of estate tailes But Littleton saith That there are many other estate tailes which are
not recited in the Statute So here our Case is within the Mischiefe of the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 4. although it be not within the Example So the Statute of West 1. is That if the Gardien or Lessee for years maketh a Feoffment in Fee Tam Feofator quam feofatus habeantur pro disseisoribus yet 22. Ass is That if Tenant by Elegit make a Feoffment it is within the Statute Also it may be a doubt Whether Land devisable onely by custome bee intended in the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 4. And whether Land devisable by the Statute of 32. H. 8. be within it or not viz. If a Statute of a puâ—sne time shall be taken by Equity within a more Ancient Statute and I conceive it may as 12. H. 7. the Statue of 4. H. 7. which sayes that the heire of Cestuy que use shall be in Ward shall extend to the Statute of Praerogativa Regis for if he be in Ward to the King he shall have Prerogative in the Lands to have other Lands by reason thereof Gaudy Justice did rely very much upon the word Devisees viz. that they have an Interest and that the Sale was not good Suit Justice They are both Executors and Devisees of the Lands Devisees of the Lands and Executors to performe the Will Cook he who refused to sell cannot waive the Freehold which is in him by a refusall in pars as 7. H. 2. and 7. E. 4. but ought to waive it in a Court of Record therefore he hath an Interest remaining in him Clenche Justice What if he had devised the Lands to four and made one of them his Executors and willed that he should sell could not he sell All the Court agreed that he might Cook When a man deviseth that his Executors shall sell the Fee descends to the heir yet they may sell that which is in another but the same is not like to our Case It was adjourned Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 93. A Judgement was given upon a Bond for four thousand pound And the Scire facias was sued for three thousand pound and he did not acknowledge satisfaction of the other thousand pound Haughton moved That the Scire facias should abate As if a man brings Debt upon a Bond of twenty pound and shews a Bond for forty pound and doth not acknowledge satisfaction for 20l l it is not good The Justices would advise of it And at another day it was moved againe Whether the Scire facias was good because it doth recite Quod cum nuper such a one recuperasset four thousand pound and doth not shew in what Action or at what day the Judgment was given or the Recovery had Piggot That is not material for such is the Form in an Audita querela or Redisseisin As to the other That he doth not acknowledge satisfaction as in the Case before cited by Haughton which Case is in 1. H. 5. That is not like to an Execution for an Execution is joint or severall at the will of him who sues it forth as in 19. R. 2. Execution 163. hee may have part of his Execution against one in his life time and if he dieth other part against his Heir or Executor Note the Execution was of the whole but because the Defendant had not so much he had but part against him who had no more and therefore of the residue he had Execution against the Heir Gawdy Justice I conceive that he cannot have an Execution unlesse he acknowledge Satisfaction There is no difference as to that betwixt the Action of Debt upon a Bond and a Scire facias and the intendment viz. that it shall be intended that he was paid because he sued but for Three thousand Pound will not help him Piggot as to that vouched a Case out of 4 5. Mary in Dyer which I cannot find Suit Justice said That if the Defendant in the Scire facias say nothing by such a day that Judgement should be entred for the Plaintiffe Quod executio fiet Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 94 JUdgement was given against an Infant by default in a reall Action of Land And a Writ of Error was thereupon brought and it was argued That it is not error for in many cases an Infant shall be bound by a Judicious act as 3. E. 3. Infant 14. Where an Infant and a Feme Covert bring a Formedon and the woman was summoned and severed And it was pleaded That where the Writ doth suppose the woman was Sole she was Covert and Judgment was demanded of the Writ and that the Infant could not gainsay it but confessed it this Confession of the Plea which abated his Writ was taken And 3. H. 6. 10. Br. Saver Default 51. An Infant shall not save his default for he shall not wage his Law See there that the Default shall not be taken against him therefore that book seems rather against it then for it Vide 6. H. 8. Br. Saver Default 50. That Error lieth upon a Recovery by default against an Infant otherwise if it be upon an Action tried so is 2 Mar. Br. Judgment 147. It was said That a generall Act of Parliament shall bind an Infant if he be not excepted The Justices did seem to incline That if Judgement be given by default that it shall bind an Infant but there was no rule given in the Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 95 A Clark of the King's Bench sued an Officer of the Common Pleas and he of the Common Pleas claimed his Priviledge and could not have it granted to him for it is a generall rule That where each of the persons is a person able to have Priviledge he who first claimes it viz. the Plaintiffe shall have it and not the Defendant As if an Atturney of the Common Pleas sueth one of the Clarks of the Kings Bench yet he of the Kings Bench shall not have Priviledge although the Kings Bench be a more high Court because the other is Plaintiffe and first claimeth it Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 96 AM Action upon the Case upon a Promise was brought but the Case was so long that I could not take it But in that Case Tanfield who argued for the Defendant said That it is not lawfull for any man to meddle in the cause of another if he have not an Interest in the thing for otherwise it will be Maintenance But if a Custome be in question betwixt the Lord of the Manor and Copy-holder all the other Copy-holders of the Manor may expend their money in maintenance of the other and the Custome and the Master may expend the money of the servant in maintenance of the servant So he in the Remainder may maintain him who hath the particular Estate Maintenance is an odious thing in the Law for it doth encrease troubles and Suites He argued also How that Bonds Obligations and Specialties might be
licence be to A. and B. or C. some conceived that A. or B. might alien but not C. Et èâ—converso Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 105 IT was agreed by the whole Court That a Partition made by word betwixt Joyntenants is not good See Dyer 29. Pl. 134. and 350. Pl 20. doth agree and see there the reason of it Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 105 IT was holden by the whole Court That if the Father do devise Lands unto his Son and Heir apparant and to a stranger that it is a good Devise and that they are Joyntenants for the benefit of the Stranger Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 106 FULLER'S Case A. Promises unto the eldest son that if he will give his consent that his Father shall make an Assurance unto him of his Lands that he will give him ten pounds If he give his assent although no assurance be made yet he shall maintain an Action upon the promise But at another day Periam Justice said that in that case the son ought to promise to give his assent or otherwise A. had nothing if his son would not give his consent And so where each hath remedy against the other it is a good Consideration In Hillary Term after Fenner spake in arrest of Judgment upon the speciall Verdict That because that the Assumpsit is but of one part and the other is at liberty whether he will give his consent or not that therefore although that hee do consent that hee shall not recover the ten pounds Also he said That the promise was that if hee would give consent that his Father should make assurance to him and here the assurance is made to A. to the use of the Defendant and his Wife in taile so as it varies from the first Communication and also it is in tail Shuttleworth contrary in as much as he hath performed it by the giving of consent then when he hath performed It is not to the purpose that he was not tyed by a crosse Assumpsit to do it but if he had not given his consent he should have nothing At length Judgment was given for the Plaintiff And Periam Justice said in this Case That if a covenant be to make an Estate to A. and it is made to B. to the use of A. that he doubted whether that were good or not Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intratur Hill 28. Eliz. Rot. 1742. 107 WISEMAN and WALLINGER'S Case A Man seised of two Closes called Bl. Acre makes a Lease of them rendring Ten Shillings rent The Lessee grants all his Estate in one of them to A. and in the other to B. The Lessor doth devise all his Land called Bl. Acre in the tenure of A. and dieth The Devisee brings an Action of Debt for the whole Rent against the first Lessee And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Action would not lie because they conceived That but the Reversion of one Close passed and also that the rent should not be apportioned in that Case because a terme is out of the Statute and a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years shall not be apportioned by the act of the Lessor as where he takes a Surrender of part of it But otherwise by Act in Law as where the Tenant maketh a Feoffment in Fee of part of the Land and the Lessor entreth And at another day Anderson Chief Justice said That if the Lessor of two Acres granteth the Reversion of one Acre that the whole Rent is extinct Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas 108 A Lease for years is made of Land by Deed rendring Rent the Lessee binds himselfe in a Bond of Ten Pound to perform all Covenants and Agreements contained in the Deed the Rent is behind and the Lessor brings an Action of Debt upon the Bond for not payment of the Rent the Obligor pleads performance of all Covenants and Agreements the Lessor saie That the Rent is behind it was holden That it is no Plea for the Obligor to say That the Rent was never demanded But in this Bar he ought to have pleaded That he had performed all Covenants and Agreements except the payment of the Rents And as to that That he was alwayes ready to have paid it if any had come to demand it but as the first Plea is it was held not to be good And as to the demand of the Rent the Court was of opinion That it was to be demanded for the payment of the Rent is contained in the word Agreements and not in the word Covenants and then if he be not to performe the Agreements in other manner then is contained in the Deed of that agreement the Law saith That there shall be a demand of the Rent But if the Lessee be particularly expressed by covenant to pay the Rent there he is bound to do it without any Demand Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 109 HOLLENSHEAD against KING THomas Hollenshead brought Debt against Ralph King upon a Recovery in a Scire fâ—cias in London upon a Recognizance taken in the Inner or Ouster Chamber of London and doth not shew That it is a Court of Record and that they have used to take Recognisances and Exception was taken unto the Declaration and a Demurrer upon it and divers Cases put That although that the Judgement be void that yet the Execution shall be awarded by Scire facias and the party shall not plead the same in a Writ of Error But Periam Justice took this difference Where Execution is sued upon such a Judgement and where Debt is brought upon it for in Debt it behoves the Party that he have a good Warrant and ground for his Action otherwise he shall not recover but upon a voidable Judgement he shall recover before it be reversed Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intratur Trinit 28. Eliz. Rot. 507. 110 COSTARD and WINGFIELD'S Case IN a Replevin the Defendant did avow for Damage Feasans by the commandment of his Master the Lord Cromwell The Plaintiffe by way of Replication did justifie the putting in of his Cattell into the Land in which c. by reason that the Towne of N. is an ancient Town and that there hath been a usage time out of mind That every Inhabitant of the same Towne had had common for all his cattel Levant and Couchant in the same Town and so justified the putting in of his cattell The Defendant said That the house in which the Plaintiffe did inhabite in the same Towne and by reason of Residency in which house he claimed common was a new house built within 30 years and within that time there had not been any house there and upon that Plea the Plaintiffe did demurr in Law Shuttleworth Serdeant for the Plaintiffe That he shall have common for cause of Resiance in that new house and the Resiancy is the cause and not the Land nor
the Person and to that purpose he cited 15 E. 4. 29. And he agreed the Case That if the Lord improve part of the Common that he shall not have common for the Residue because of the same Land newly improved for he cannot prescribe for that which is improved by 5. Ass 2. But here he doth prescribe not in the person or in or for a new thing but that the usage of the Towne hath been That the Inhabitants shall have common and that common is not appendent nor appertinent nor in grosse by Needham 37 H. 6. 34. b. Besides he said That if the house of a Freeholder who hath used to have such common fall down and he build it up again in another place of the Land that he shall have common as before And he put a difference betwixt the case of Estovers and this Case where a new Chimney is set up for that makes a new matter of charge and he much stood upon the manner of the Prescription Gaudy Serjeant contrary and he took Exception to the Prescription for he saith that it is antiqua villa and doth not say time out of mind and such is the Prescription in 15. E. 4. 29. a. and if it be not a Town time out of mind c. he cannot prescribe that he hath used time out of mind c. And he said That if it should be Law that every one who builds a new house should have common it should be prejudiciall to the Ancient Tenants or impaire the common And so one who hath but a little land might build 20 houses and so an infinite number and every house should have common which were not reason Anderson chief Justice He who builds a new house cannot prescribe in common for then a prescription might begin at this day which cannot be and he insisted upon the generall loss to the ancient Tenants Pâ—riam Justice If it should be Law that he should have common then the benefit of improvement which the Statute giveth to the Lord shall be taken away by this means by such new buildings which is not reason So as all the Justices were of opinion That he should not have common but Judgement was respited untill they had copies of the Record And Hillary Term following the Case was moved again and Anderson and Periam were of Opinion as they were before and for the same reasons But Windham Justice did incline to the contrary But they did all allow That he who new bulids an old Chimney shall have Estovers so a house common So if a house fall down and the Tenant build it up again in another place Periam If a man hath a Mill and a Watercourse time out of mind which he hath used to cleanse if the Mill fall down and he set up a new Mill he shall have the liberty to cleanse the Watercourse as he had before And that Terme Judgement was given for the Defendant to which Windham agreed Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 111 IN a Replevin the parties were at Issue upon the Property and it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages intire were assessed and not for the taking by it self and for the value of the Cattell by themselves for the Judgement upon that is absolute and not conditionall and also if the Plaintiffe had the Cattell the Defendant might have given the same in Evidence to the Jury and then they would have assessed Damages accordingly viz. but for the taking Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 112 A. bargaines with B. for twenty Loads of Wood and B. promises to deliver them at D. if he fail an Action upon the Case lieth But Periam Justice said That upon a simple contract for wood upon an implicative promise an Action upon the Case doth not lie Rodes Justice If by failer of performance the Plaintiff be damnified to such a sum this Action lieth Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 113 A Lease of Lands is made excepting Timber-Woods and Under-woods And the question was Whether Trees Sparsim growing in Hedge rowes and Pastures did passe And difference was taken betwixt Timber-wood being one Wood and Timber Woods being severall Words although it bee Arbor dum crescit lignum dum crescere nescit yet in common speech that is said Timber which is fit to make Timber Then it was moved Who should have the Lops and Fruits of them and the Soile after the cutting of them downe and also the Soile after the Under Woods and as to that a difference was taken where the words are generally All woods and where they are his woods growing And in speaking of that case another case was moved viz. If a stranger cut down woods in a Forrest and there is no fraud or collusion betwixt him and the owner of the Land Whether the King should have them or the owner of the Soile And it was holden That the owner of the Soile should have them and yet the owner could not cut them downe but is to take them by the Livery of one appointed by the Statute Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 114. A. makes a Lease of Lands to B. for ten years rendring rent And B. covenants to repaire c. Afterwards A. by his Will deviseth that B. shall have the Lands for thirty years after the ten years under the like Covenants as are comprised in the Lease Fenner moved it as a question If by the Devise those which were Covenants in the first Lease should be Conditions in the second for they cannot bee Covenants for want of a Deed And if they should not be Conditions the heir of the Lessor were without remedie if they were not performed A Devise for years paying ten pounds to a stranger is a Condition because the stranger hath no other remedy Gaudy Justice By the Devise to him to do such things as he was to do by the Lease makes it to be a Condition which was in a manner agreed by all the other Justices Yet Periam and Rodes Justices said That the first Lease was not defeisable for not performance of the Covenants nor was it the intent of the Devisor that the second should be so notwithstanding that his meaning was that he should do the same things Periam The Covenant is in the third person viz. Conventum Aggreatum est And see 28. H. 8. Dyer where the words Non licet to the Lessee to assigne make a Condition Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 115. BARBER and TOPESFEILD'S Case A. being Tenant in taile of certain Lands exchanged the same with B. B. entred and being seised in Fee of other Lands devised severall parcels thereof to others and amongst the rest a particular estate unto his heir Proviso That he do not re-enter nor claim any of his other Lands in the destruction of his Will And if he do that then the estate in the Lands devised to him to cease A. dieth his issue entreth into the Lands in
taile and waives the Lands taken in Exchange and before any other entry the heir of B. enters upon the Land which was given in Exchange and the opinion of the whole Court was That it was no breach of the Condition because that was not the Land of the Devifor at the time of the devise therefore it was out of the Condition Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 116. PLYMPTON'S Case AN Action of Debt was brought by one Plympton and his wife Executors of one Dorrington upon a Bond with Condition to perform Covenants of an Indenture of Lease whereof one Covenant was That he should pay forty shillings yearly at the Feast of the Annunciation or within fourteen days after And the breach assigned was for not payment at such a Feast in such a year The Defendant said That hee paid it at the Feast upon which they were at issue And upon evidence given to the Jury it appeared That the same was not paid at the Feast but in eight dayes after it was paid And the opinion of the Court was That by his pleading that hee had paid it at such a day certain and tendring that for a speciall issue That hee had made the day part of the issue and then the Defendant ought to have proved the payment upon the very day But if the Defendant had pleaded That hee paid it within the fourteen dayes viz. the eighth day c. that had not made the day parcell of the issue but then hee might have given evidence that he paid it at another day within the fourteene dayes Then for the Defendant it was moved That the Plaintiffe had not well assigned the breach in saying that he had not paid it at the Feast without saying Nor within the fourteen dayes But the Court said That the Jury was sworn at the Barre and bid the Councell proceed and give in their evidence for the time to take exception was past Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 117. IT was the opinion of Anderson Chiefe Justice and so entred by the Court That if a Copie-holder doth surrender to him who hath a Lease for years of the Mannor to the use of the same Lessee That the Copie-hold estate is extinct For the estate in the Copie-hold is not of right but an estate at will although that custome and prescription had fortified it And Wray said That it had been resolved by good opinion That if a Copie-holder accept a Lease for years of the Mannor that the Copie-hold estate is extinct for ever Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 118. Anderson Chiefe Justice and Periam Justice being absent in a Commission upon the Queen of Scots Shuttleworth moved this case to the Court. If the Queen give Lands in taile to hold in Capite And afterwards granteth the Reversion how the Donee shall hold Windham Justice and Fenner Serjant The tenure in this case is not incident to the Reversion and the Donee shall hold of the Queen as in grosse and so two Tenures in Capite for one and the same Land And thereupon Windham Justice cited 30. H. 8. Dyer 45 46. That the Queen by no way can sever the tenure in chiefe from the Crown And therefore if the Queen do release to her Tenant in Capite to hold by a penny and not in Capite it is a void Release for the same is meerly incident to the Person and Crown of the Queen But Rodes Justice held the contrary viz. That the Tenure in Capite doth not remain But it was said by Windham That if the Queen had reserved a Rent upon the gift in tail the Grantee of the Reversion should have it Also he said That the Queen might have made the Tenure in such manner viz. to hold of the Mannor or of the Honor of D. Shuttleworth If Lands holden of the Mannor of D. come to the King may he give them to be holden of the Mannor of S that should be hard Windham I did not say That Lands holden of one Mannor may be given to be holden of another Mannor perhaps that may not bee but Lands which is parcell of any Mannor may be given Vt supra Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 119 SErjeant Fenner moved Case If Lands be given to the Husband and Wife and to the heirs of their two bodies and the Husband dieth leaving Issue by his Wife and the Wife makes a Lease of the lands according to the Statute of 32. H. 8. If the Lease be good by the Statute Windham and Rodes Justices conceived that it is a good Lease Fenner The Statute saith that such Lease shall be good against the Lessor and his Heirs and the Issue doth not claim as Heir to the Wife onely but it ought to be Heir to them both and he cited the case That the Statute of R. 3. makes Feoffments good against no heirs but those which claim onely as Heirs to the same Feoffors c. So here Rodes Justice There the word only is a word efficacy And Windham agreed cleerly That the Lease should binde the issue by the said Statute of 32. H. 8. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 120 WAlmesley Serjeant moved this Case If a man deviseth Lands in taile with divers Remainders over upon condition that if any of them alien or c. that then he who is next heir to him to whom the land ought to come after his decease if the said alienation had not been made might enter and enjoy the land as if he had been dead But Ady of the Temple said That the words of the Devise are viz. That if any of them alien or c. that then his estate to cease and hee in the next Remainder to enter and retain the land untill the aliener were dead Rodes Justice The Devise is good and an estate may cease in such manner so as it shall not be determined for ever but that his Heir after him shall have it And he put the case of Scholastica Plow Com. 408. where Weston fo 4. 14. was in some doubt that if the Tenant in talle had had Issue if the Issue should be excluded from the land or whether hee should have the land by the intent of the Devisor And therefore if it were necessary to shew that the Tenant in taile had not Tssue But Dyer said that the words of the Will were that such person and his Heirs who alien or c. should be excluded presently so as the estate by expresse words is to be determined for ever But it is otherwise in this Case Windham doubted of the Devise Fenner cited the Case 22. E. 3. 19. Where a Rent was granted and that it should ceâ—se during the Nonage of the Heir of the Grantee and it was good Windham When a thing is newly created he who creates it may limit it in such manner as he pleaseth Fenner 30. E. 3. 7. Det. 10. A Feoffment was made rendring Rent upon
Condition that if the Rent be behinde the Feoffor might enter and retain quousque there the estate shall be determined pro tempore and afterwards revived again Windham There the Feoffor shall have the land as a distress and the Free-hold is not out of the Feoffee Fenner The Book proves the contrary for the Feoffor had an Action of Debt for the Rent Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 121 IN a Formedon the Tenant pleaded a Fine with proclamations The Plaintiff replyed No such Record It was moved that the Record of the Fine which remained with the Chyrographer did warrant the Plea and the Record which did remain with the Custos Brevium did not warrant the Plea and both the Records were shewed in Court and to which the Court should hold was the question Shuttleworth To that which was shewed by the Custos Brevium and he cited the Case of Fish and Brocket where the Proclamations were reversed because that it appeared by the Record which was shewed by the Custos Brevium that the third proclamation was alledged to be made the seventh day of June which seventh day of June was the Sunday and yet hee said It appeared by the Record certified by the Chyrographer that it was well done and yet the Judgment reversed Rodes Justice There is no such matter in the same case And 26. El. by all the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer in such case the Record which remains with the Custos Brevium shall be amended and made according as it is in the Record of the Office of Chyrographer Windham agreed And afterwards the said President was shewed in which all the matter and order of proceedings was shewed and contained and all the names of the Justices who made the Order And by the command of the Justices it was appointed that the said President should be written out and should remain in perpetuam rei memoriam And the reason of the said Order is there given because the Note which remains with the Chyrographer is principale Recordum Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 122. AN Infant was made Executor and Administration was committed unto another durante minore aetate of the Executor and that Administrator brought an Action of Debt for money due to the Testator and recovered and had the Defendant in Execution and now the Executour is come of full age Fenner moved that the Defendant might be discharged out of Execution because the Authority of the Administrator is now determined and he cannot acknowledge satisfaction nor make Acquittances c. Windham Justice Although the Authority of the Plaintiffe bee determined yet the Recovery and the Judgement do remaine in force But perhaps you may have an Audita querela But I conceive That such an Administrator cannot have an Action for he is rather as a Bayliff to the Infant Executor then an Administrator Rodes agreed with him and he said I have seen such a Case before this time viz. Where one was bound to such a one to pay a certaine sum of money to him his Heirs Executors or Assignes And the Obligee made an Infant his Executor and administration was committed during his minority and the Obligor paid the money to that Administrator And it was a doubt whether the same was sufficient and should excuse him or not And whether he ought not to have tendred the money to them both Fenner That is a stronger Case then our Case One who is Executor of his own wrong may pay Legacies and receive Debts but he cannot bring an Action Windham Doth it appear by the Record when the Infant was made Executor and that Administration was committed as before Fenner No truely Windham Then you may have an Audita querela upon it Fenner said So we will Note Hil. 33. Eliz. in the Exchequer Miller and Gores Case An Infant pleaded in a Scire facias upon an Assignement of Bonds to the Queen That Saint-Johns and Eley were Administrators during his minority And it was holden by the Court to be no plea. But he ruled to answer as Executor Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 123 SUggestion was made that a Coroner had not sufficient Lands within the Hundred for which a Writ issued forth to choose another and one was chosen It was moved by Serjeant Snag If theâ—eby the first Coroner did cease to be Coroner presently untill he be discharged by Writ Rodes and Windham Justices He ceases presently for otherwise there should be two Officers of one Coronership which cannot be Also the Writ is Quod loco I. S. eligi facias c. unum Coronatorem and he cannot be in place of the first if the first do not cease to be Coroner So if any be made Commissioners and afterwards others are made Commissioners in the same cause the first Commission is determined Snagg said That in the Chancery they are of the same Opinion but Fitz. Nat. Brevium 163. N. is That hee ought to be discharged by Writ Mich. 28 29 Eliz in the Common Pleas. 124 IN an Action of Debt brought against Lessee for years for rent he pleaded That the Plaintiff had granted to him the reversion in Fee which was found against him Walmesley Serjeant moved Whether by that Plea he had forfeited his terme or not Rodes and Windham Justices He shall not forfeit his Term and Rodes cited 33. E. 3. Judgement 255. Where in a Writ of Waste the Tenant claimed Fee and it was found against him that he had but an Estate for life and yet it was no Forfeiture Fenner and Windham It is a strong Case for there the Land it selfe is in demand but not so in our Case Rodes The Tenant shall not forfeit his Estate in any Action by claiming of the Fee-Simple but in a Quid juris clamat Walmesley and Fennèr Where he claimes in Fee generally and it is found against him there perhaps hee shall forfeit his Estate but where he shewes a speciall conveyance which rests doubtfull in Law it is no reason that his Estate thereby should bee forfeited although it be found against him Rodes 6. R. 2. Quid juris clamat 20. The Tenant claimed by speciall conveyance and yet it was a forfeiture But in the principall Case at Bar he and Windham did agree cleerly That it was no forfeiture Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 125 AN Action upon the Case was brought because that the Defendant had spoken these words viz. That the Plaintiffe hath said many a Masse to J. S. c. Anderson Chief Justice Primâ facie did seem to incline That no Action would lie for the words although that a Penalty is given by the Statute against such Masse-Mongers For he said That no Action lieth for saying That one hath transgressed against a Penall Law Periam Justice contrary Anderson If I say to one That he is a disobedient Subject no Action lieth for the words Windham Justice That is by reason of the generality Puckering
10. Jacobi Râ—t 2504. The Plaintiff counted that the Defendant Cepit avena of the Plaintiff apud Occould and doth not say In quodam loco c. upon which the Defendant did demurre in Law Hutton Serjeant argued for the Plaintiffe and said That notwithstanding the many presidents which had been shewed that yet the Declaration was well enough For he said That the presidents did not prove that it was necessary that it should be therein shewed in quodam loco vocat ' because the Defendant upon the matter is the Actor and therefore he best knows the place where he took the Cattel And in 9. E. 4. In a Homine replegiando the Towne onely was named and it is not there debated whether the same were good without mentioning in quodam loco 49. E. 3. 14. and 24. 9. H. 6. and 3. H. 6. There the traverse was of the taking at Dale sans ceo c. that the same was at Sale and in quodam loco is not expressed Cook Chief Justice said That there is no book which taketh this Exception and said That notwithstanding the Presidents cited that it was well enough For hee said There is a difference betwixt Presidents which are the Inventions of Clarks and of judiciall Presidents And the effect of the Suit in this case is not the shewing of the place but the having of the Cattel and it is on the part of the Defendant to shew where hee took the Cattel for perhaps the Plaintiffe doth not know where he took them and if he did know the place where they were taken yet perhaps hee hath not witnesses to prove the same and so by this means the Plaintiffe should be at a great mischiefe and delayed in his Suit Whereas a Replevin is festinum remedium to have his Cattel again which perhaps are his plough Cattel Warburton Justice said That there is a difference betwixt Actions brought in the King's Bench and in this Court For there in an Action of Trespasse the same may be abutted because it is no Originall Writ as it is here and hee said That there although the place bee not certainly abutted yet it may be good And he compared the Case at barre to the pleading of a Joynt-tenancy for he said In case it bee pleaded of the part of the Tenant himselfe hee is to shew how the Joynt-tenancy came because it lyeth in his knowledge but contrary if it were on the Plaintiffs part And in this Case he who best knowes when the taking was ought to shew it and that is the Avowant for it is no reason that the Plaintiffe for missing of the place not being the substance should be triced Cook If one in the night drive my Cattel into his Land and afterwards doth distrein them it is no lawfull distresse At another day Cook said That in the Book Nov. Narration ' it is said That the Town place and collour of the beasts ought to bee shewed by the Plaintiffe in the Replevin and he said If the Colour had been left out he would have given credit to the Book but because it is clear that the Colour is not needfull to be shewed therefore he did not approve of the Authority for the place And he cited 4. E. 3. 13. where the Defendant said it was in the Hamlet And 18. E. 3. 10. E. 3. and 49 E. 3. 14. where the Towns only are mentioned And it was said That in an Ejectione firme brought in the Kings's Bench the usuall course is to abutt the Land yet he said It might be omitted in Trespasse although the same be the usuall forme of that Court and it may be generall but if a place be alledged then the same is materiall and the Plaintiffe doth thereby give an advantage unto his Adversary At another day Haughton Serjeant argued for the Defendant That the expressing of the place where the taking was is materiall in the Declaration and he said That as the Register is the rule for Originall Writs from which forme a man may not vary so he said The Book of Entries and Presidents of the Courts were rules for pleadings from which there ought to be no variance and therefore he cited 33. H. 6. 14. Where in a Writ of Entry in the nature of an Assize the Demandant counted How that A. gave Lands unto J. S. his Cosen whose Heir he is in tail and shewed the descent And Exception was taken unto the Count because it was not the forme of the Pleading in that Court wherefore it was awarded That he should count that ipse fuit seisitus ut de libero tenemento which is not repugnant although that he had an Estate in tail because the same was the Ancient form used in the Court So he said in the principall Case the ancient used forme of the Court ought to bee observed which was to expresse in the Count the place in which the taking was and hee cited 35. H. 6. 40. Where Exception was taken by the Defendant because the Plaintiff in the Replevin did not alledge the place where the taking was and therefore per curiam the Plaintiffe took nothing by his Writ and he denyed the opinion of 9. E. 4. 41. and said That in reason the place ought to be shewed because if the Defendant would plead any matter to the Jurisdiction of the Court the place must be shewed and he said That those Records which were shewed on the other side were but of later times and the Point in question in none of those Cases came in debate judicially wherefore he concluded for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant argued again and said That the Formes of Originall Writs are certain from which a man is not to vary but he said That Counts and Declarations are to be according to the matter And in the principall Case he conceived That it was not necessary that the place where the taking was be shewed and hee cited 4. Ed. 3. 13. in a Replevin the Plaintiff declared of the taking of his Cattel in Holme without saying In quodam loco vocat ' c. and it was holden good because the Towne or Hamlet is sufficient certain and 21. H. 7. 22. a. in a Replevin the Plaintiffe declared of a taking at D. the Defendant said That he took them at S. and not at D. and avowed and no Exception was taken thereunto for want of expressing the place in quo c. And he said That in 9. Ed. 4. 41. and 25. it is said That in a Replevin the use is to declare in a certain place but if the place be omitted yet it is good enough and that Book is after 33. H. 6. 40. and hee said That the cause of the Judgement in 33. H. 6. might be because there were Blanks left for the place and the Plaintiff had begun to alledge the certain place for the Record is In quodam loco vocat ' without expressing the place but Blank which he could not affirme and therefore it
And per Curiam a Prohibition shal be awarded And Cook chief Justice said That there were three Causes in the Bill for which a Prohibition should be granted which he reduced to three Questions 1. If a Copy-holder payeth his rent and the Lord maketh a Feoffment of the Manor Whether the Copy-holder shall be compelled to attorn 2. If a man be seised of Freehold Land and Covenants to stand seised to an use Whether in such case an Attornment be needfull 3. If a Feoffment be made of a Manor by Deed Whether the Feoffee shall compell the Tenants to attorn in a Court of Equity And for all these Questions It was said That the Tenants shall not be compelled to attorn for upon a Bargain and Sale and a Covenant to stand seised there needs no attronement And Cook in this case said That in 21. E. 4. the Justices said That all Causes may be so contrived that there needed to be no Suit in Courts of Equity and it appears by our books That a Prohibition lies to a Court of Equity when the matter hath been once determined by Law And 13. E. 3. Tit. Prohibition and the Book called the Diversity of Courts which was written in the time of King Henry the eighth was vouched to that purpose And the Case was That a man did recover in a Quare Impediâ— by default and the Patron sued in a Court of Equity viz. in the Chancery and a Prohibition was awarded to the Court of Chancery Mich. 11 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 298 Sir JOHN GAGE and SMITH's Case AN Action of Waste was brought and the Plaintiffe did declare that contrary to the Statute the Lessee had committed Waste and Destruction in uncovering of a Barn by which the timber thereof was become rotten and decayed and in the destroying of the stocks of Elmes Ashes Whitethorn and Blackthorn to his damage of three hundred pound And for title shewed That his Father was seised of the Land where c. in Fee and leased the same to the Defendant for one and twenty years and died and that the Land descended to him as his son and heir and shewed that the Waste was done in his time and that the Lease is now expired The Defendant pleaded the generall issue and it was found for the Plaintiffe and damages were assessed by the Jury to fifty pound And in this case it was agreed by the whole Court 1. That if six of the Jury are examined upon a Voyer dire if they have seen the place wasted that it is sufficient and the rest of the Jury need not be examined upon a Voyer dire but onely to the principall 2. It was agreed if the Jury be sworn that they know the place it is sufficient although they be not sworn that they saw it and although that the place wasted be shewed to the Jury by the Plaintiff's servants yet if it be by the commandment of the Sheriffe it is as sufficient as if the same had been shewed unto them by the Sheriff himselfe 4. It was resolved That the eradicating of Whitethorn is waste but not of the Blackthorn according to the Books in 46. E. 3. and 9. H. 6. but if the blackthorn grow in a hedg and the whole hedg be destroyed the same is Waste by Cook chief Justice It was holden also so that it is not Wast to cut Quick-set hedges but it shall be accounted rather good husbandry because they will grow the better 5. It was agreed That if a man hath under-woods of Hasell Willowes Thornes if he useth to cut them and sell them every ten years If the Lessee fell them the same is no wast but if he dig them up by the roots or suffereth the Germinds to be bitten with cattel after they are felled so as they will not grow again the same is a destruction of the Inheritance and an Action of wast will lie for it But if he mow the Stocks with a wood-sythe as he did in the principall Case the same is a malicious Wast and continuall mowing and biting is destruction 6. It was said That in an Action of Wast a man shall not have costs of Suit because the Law doth give the party treble damages And when the generall issue Nul Wast is pleaded and the Plaintiff counted to his damages 100l. the Court doubted whether they could mitigate the damage But 7. It was agreed That in the principal Case although the issue were found for the Plaintiff that he could not have judgment because he declared of Wast done in 8. several closes to his damage of 300l. generally and did not sever the damages And the Jury found That in some of the said Closes there was no Wast committed Wherefore the Court said he could not have judgement through his own default But afterwards at another day Hobart then chief Justice and Warburton Justice said That the verdict was sufficient and good enough and so was also the declaration and that the Plaintiffe might have judgment thereupon But yet the same was adjourned by the Court untill the next Term. Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 299 CLARK's Case NOte It was said by Cook chief Justice and agreed by the whole Court and 41. and 43. E. 3. c That if a man deliver money unto I. S. to my use That I may have an Action of Debt or account against him for the same at my election And it was agreed also That an Action of Trover lieth for money although it be not in bags but not an Action of Detinue Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 300 IRELAND and BARKER's Case IN an Action of Wast brought the Writ was That the Abbot and Covent had made a Lease for years c. And it was holden by the Court that it was good although it had been better if the Writ had been That the Abbot with the assent of the Covent made the Lease for that is the usuall form but in substance the Writ is good because the Covent being dead Sons in Law by no intendment can be said to make a Lease But the Dean and Chapter ought of necessity to joyne in making of a Lease because they are all persons able and if the Dean make a Lease without the Chapter the same is not good per curiam if it be of the Chapter Lands And in Adams and Wâ—oâ—â—stey's Case Harris Serjeant observed That the Lease is said to be made by the Abbot and Covent and it is not pleaded to be made by the Abbot with the assent of the Covent Mich. 11 Iacobi In the Common Pleas. 301 The Dean and Canons of Winsor and WEBB's Case IN this Case it was holden by the Court That if a man give Lands unto Dean and Canons and to their Successors and they be dissolved or unto any other Corporations that the Donor shall have back the Lands again for the same is a condition in Law annexed to the Gift and in such Case no Writ of
And if Rent be due and payable unto me by my Lessee for years the same may be taken for the Kings Debt and the special matter shall be a good barr in an Avowry for the Rent 38. E. 3. 28. A Prior Alien was indebted to the King for his Farm Rent And being sued for the same he shewed That there was a Parson who held a certain portion of Tythes from him which were part of the Possessions of the same Priory which he kept in his hands so as he could not pay the King his Farm-Rent unlesse he might have those Tythes which were in the Parsons hands Wherefore a Writ was awarded against the Parson to appear in the Exchequer and to shew cause why he should not pay the same to the King for the satisfying of the Kings Rent And there Skipwith Justice said That for any thing which toucheth the King and may turn to his advantage to hasten the Kings business that the Exchequer had jurisdiction of it were it a thing Spiritual or Temporal V. 44 E. 3. 43 44. the like Case but there it is of a Pension And the Case of 38 Ass 20. was the Case for Tythes See also 12 E. 3. Swalds Case to the same purpose If two Coparceners be in ward to the King upon a suggestion that one of them is indebted to the King the staying of his Livery shall be for his moytie untill the King be satisfied his debt but the other sister shall have Livery of the other moytie which belongs unto her Fitz. N. 5. 263. a. Mich 19 E. 3. and Hill 20. E. 3. which was one and the same Case The Kings Debtor brought a Quo minus in the Exchequer against his Debtor the Defendant appeared And the Plaintiffe afterwards would have been Nonsuit but the Court would not suffer him so to be And it was there said That a Release by the Kings Debtor unto his Debtor would not discharge the Kings Debtor as to that Debt In a Quo minus in the Exchequer upon a Debt upon a simple Contract the Defendant cannot wage his Law because the King is to have a benefit by the suit although the King be no party to the suit C. 4. par 95. The fourth Prerogative which the King hath is That the King shall have an Accompt against Executors because the Law there maketh a privity it being found by matter of Record that the Testator was indebted to the King which Record cannot be denied But in the Case of a common person an Accompt will not lie against Executors for want of privity The Accompt which the King brings is ad computandum ad Dominum Regem c. without setting forth how the party came liable to accompt But a common person in his accompt brought ought to shew how that the party was Receiver Bailiff c. If a man doth entermeddle with the Kings Treasure the King pretending a title to it he shall be chargeable for the same to the King C. 11. part 89. the Earl of Devonshire's case The Master of the Ordnance pretending that the old broken and unserviceable Ordnance belonged unto him by reason of his Office procured a Privy-seal c. and afterwards disposed of them to his own use and dyed And his Executor was forced to accompt for them Sir Walter Mildmay's Case Mich. 37. 38 Eliz. Rot. 312. in the Exchequer Sir Walter Mildmay was Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggested unto the Lord Treasurer of England That his Office was of great attendance and desired the Lord Treasurer that he would be pleased to allow unto him 100l. for his dyet and 40l. per annum for his attendance which the Lord Treasurer did grant unto him and he enjoyed it accordingly and afterwards dyed and his Executors were forced to accompt for it and to pay back the mony for all the time that their Testator received it C. 11. part 90 91. there is cited That Sir William Cavendish was Treasurer of the Chamber of King H. 8. E. 6. and Queen Mary and that he was indebted to K. E. 6. and to Q. Mary and that being so indebted he purchased divers lands and afterwards aliened them and took back an estate therein to himself and his wife and afterwards dyed without rendring any Accompt the Terre-Tenants of the land were charged to answer to Q. Elizabeth for the monies to which they pleaded the Queens special Pardon and it was in conclusion said That the Pardon was a matter of grace ex gratia but in Law the Terre-Tenants were chargeable to the said Queen for the monies v. Com. 321. 5 Eliz. Dyer 244 245. in the Exchequer Mich. 24. E. 3. Rot. 11. ex parte Rememb Regis Thomas Farel Collector of the Fifteenths and Tenths being seised of lands in Fee and being possessed of divers goods and chattels at the time when he entred into the said Office being then indebted to the King did alien them all and afterwards dyed without heir or Executor And a Writ went out unto the Sheriffe to enquire what lands and tenements goods and chattels he had at the time he entred into the said Office and Processe issued forth against the Terre-Tenants and the Possessors of his goods and chattels ad computand pro collectione predict ad respondendum satisfaciendum inde Domino Regi V. Dyer 160 50 Ass 5. A notable Case to this purpose Mich. 30. E. 3. rot 6. William Porter Mint-Master did covenant with the King by Indenture enrolled That for all the Bullion which should be delivered ad Cambium Regis pro Moneta faciend that mony should be delivered for it within eight dayes which Covenant he had broken and therefore the King paid the Subject for the Bullion And afterwards because John Walweyen and Richard Piccard duxerunt praesentaverant dict William Porter in officium illud tanquam sufficientem and that they offered to be Sureties for him but were not accepted of which they did confesse Ideo consideratum est quod predict Walweyen Piccard onerentur erga Dominum Regem And they afterwards were charged to satisfie the King for all the monies which the King had paid for the said Porter And although that none of the Kings treasure came to their hands nor they had not any benefit as appeared by any matter in the Case yet because they were the means and causers that the King sustained damage and losse they were adjudged to be chargeable to the King C. 11. par 93. this Case is there cited Upon these Cases vouched by me I make divers Observations 1. I observe That from Age to Age what care the Judges had for the Advancing and the recovering of the Kings Debts because Thesaurus Regis est vinculum Pacis Bellorum nervus And it is the slowing fountain of all bounty unto the Subject 2. I observe That the King hath a Prerogative for the Recovery of Debts due unto him 3. I observe That although the Debt due to the King be
puisne or the lesser Debt and although the Debtor be able and sufficient to pay both Debts viz. the Kings Debt and the Debt owing to the Subject yet the Kings Debt is to be first paid Now to apply these cases to the Case in question Here is a Subject who is indebted to the King And I say That the Lands which such a Debtor hath in his power and dispose although he hath not any Estate in the Lands shall be liable to pay the Debt to the King And I say That Sir Christopher Hatton had a Fee in the Mannors and Lands in this case And although he did convey them bona fide yet untill his death by reason of the Proviso of Revocation they were extendable Trin. 24. E. 3. Rot. 4. Walter de Chirton Customer who was indebted to the King for the Customs purchased Lands with the Kings monies and caused the Feoffor of the Lands to enfeoffe certain of his friends with an intent to defraud and deceive the King and notwithstanding he himself took the profits of the Lands to his own use And those Lands upon an Inquisition were found and the values of them and retorned into the Exchequer and there by Judgment given by the Court the Lands were seized into the Kings hands to remain there untill he was satisfied the Debt due unto him And yet the Estate of the Lands was never in him But because he had a power viz. by Subpena in Chancery to compell his Friends to settle the Estate of the Lands upon him therefore they were chargeable to the Debt You will say perhaps there was Covin in that Case But I say that neither Fraud Covin nor Collusion is mentioned in the Report in Dyer 160. C. 11. par 92. And that Case was a harder Case then our Case is For Walter de Chirton in that Case was never seised of the said lands But in our Case Sir Christopher Hatton himself had the lands And when he had the lands he was assured of the Office although he had not the possession of it For he was sure that no other could have it from him and no other could have it but himself And for another cause our Case is a stronger Case then the Case of Walter de Chirton For Chirton had no remedy in Law to have the lands but his remedy was only in a Court of Equity and a remedy in Consc ' onely But in our Case Sir Christopher Hatton had a time in which he might let the land to passe and yet he had a power to pull it back again at his pleasure So as he had the disposition of it but before the alteration of the uses he dyed And if he had been living being indebted to the King the King might have extended the lands because that then he had the possession of them There were two Considerations which moved Sir Christopher Hatton to Convey the Lands the first was honorable viz. For the payment of his Debts the second was natural viz. For the preferment of his Children Although the Conveyance of the Lands for payment of his Debts was but for years yet the same was too short like unto a Plaister which is too short for the sore For the Covenanters were not his Executors and so they were not liable to Debts And although he be now dead and cannot revoke the former uses yet he had the power to revoke the uses during his life And so he was chargeable for the Debt due to the King Tanfield Chief Baron agreed with Justice Dodderidge in all as before And he said That all powerful and speedy courses are given unto the King for the getting in of his Revenues and therefore he said he had the said Prerogatives as have been recited And in 25 E. 3. in libro rubro in the Exchequer there the Foundations of the said Prerogatives do appear If a common person arrest the body in Execution he shall not resort to the lands contr to Blumfields Case C. 5. par The course of the Exchequer makes a Law every where for the King If any Officer be indebted unto the King and dyeth the course of the Exchequer is For to call in his Executors or the Heir or the Terre-Tenants to answer the Debt and if he hath no lands then a Writ issueth out of the Exchequer to know what goods he had and to whose hands they be come All Inquisitions concerning Lands in the like Cases are Habuit vel seisitus and not that he was seised onely The word Habuit is a large word and in it is contained a disposing power But in this Case Sir Christopher Hatton had a power every day to revoke the uses And when he had once revoked them then was he again as before seisitus 7 H. 6. in the Exchequer the Kings Farmor had Feoffees to his use and dyed indebted to the King And upon an Inquisition it was found that Habuit for he had them in his power by compelling his Feoffees by Equity in Chancery and therefore it was adjudged that the King should have the Lands in the Feoffees hands in extent But in this case Sir Christopher Hatton might have had the Lands in him again without compulsion by a Court of Equity for that he had power to revoke the uses in the Conveyance at his pleasure Mich. 30. H. 6. rot in the Exchequer A Clark of the Court was assigned to receive monies for the King who had Feoffees of lands to his use And the lands were found and seised for the Kings monies by force of the word Habuit 32 H. 6. Philip Butler's Case who was Sheriffe of a County being indebted to the King his Feoffees were chargeable to the Kings debt by force of the word Habuit For habuit the lands in his power 6 E. 4. Bowes Case acc ' 34 H. 6. A widow being indebted to the King her Feoffees were chargeable to pay the Kings debt because she had power of the lands It being found by Inquisition that habuit 1 R. 3. the like Case And 24 Eliz. in Morgan's Case it was adjudged That lands purchased in the names of his Friends for his use were extended for a debt due by him to the King Hobart Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas argued to the same purpose and agreed with the other Justices and he said in this case it was not material whether the Inquisition find the Deed to be with power of Revocation For he said that the Land is extended and that the extent remains good untill it be avoided And he said that a revocable Conveyance is sufficient to bind the Parties themselves but not to bind the King but the Lands are lyable into whose hands soever they come When a man is said to forfeit his body it is not to be intended his life but the freedom of his body Imprisonment At the Common Law a Common person could neither take the bodie nor the Lands in Execution But yet at the Common Law
thing and shall he be bound by a Conveyance Anno. 16. H. 6. then in the time of Civil War Uses began and of Lands in use the Lord Chief Baron Tanfield in his Argument hath cited diverse cases where the lands in use were subject and lyable to the debt of Cestuy que use in the Kings Case and so was it untill the Statute of 27. H. 8. of Uses was made Babbington an Officer in the Exchequer had lands in the hands of Feoffees upon Trust and a Writ issued out and the lands were extended for the Debt of Babbington in the hands of his Feoffees Sir Robert Dudley having lands in other mens hands upon Trusts the lands were seized into the Kings hands for a contempt and not for debt or damages to the King And in this Case although that the â—nquisition do find the Conveyance but have not found it to be with power of Revocation yet the Land being extended it is well extended untill the contrary doth appear and untill the extent be avoided by matter of Record viz. by Plea as the Lord Chief Baron hath said before Ley Chief Justice of the Kings Bench argued the same day and his Argument in effect did agree with the other Justices in all things and therefore I have forborne to report the same at length And it was adjudged That the Extent was good and the Land well decreed accordingly Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Exchequer Chamber 417. The Lord SHEFFIELD and RATCLIFF'S Case IN a Writ of Error brought to reverse a Judgment given in a Monstrans de Droit in the Court of Pleas The Case was put by Glanvile who argued for Ratcliffe the Defendant to be this 2 E. 2. Malew being seised of the Mannor of Mulgrave in Fee gave the same to A. Bigot in tail which by divers discents came to Sir Ralph Bigot in tail Who 10 Jannarii 6 H. 8. made a Feoffment unto the use of â—is last Will and thereby after his Debts paid declared the use unto his right heirs in Fee and 9. H. 8. dyed The Will was performed Francis Bigot entred being Tenant in tail and 21 H. 8. made a Feoffment unto the use of himself and Katherine his wife and to the use of the heirs of their two bodies Then came the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. by which Tenant in tail for Treason is to forfeit the Land which he hath in tail Then the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses is made Then 28 H. 8. Francis Bigot did commit Treason And 29 H. 8. he was attainted and executed for the same Anno 31 H. 8. a private Act of Parliament was made which did confirm the Attaindor of Francis Bigot and that he should forfeit unto the King word for word as the Statute of 26 H. 8. is saving to all strangers except the Offendor and his heirs c. 3 E. 6. The heir of Francis Bigot is restored in blood Katherine entred into the Mannor and dyed seised 8 Eliz. their Issue entred and married with Francis Ratcliffe and had Issue Roger Ratcliffe who is heri in tail unto Ralph Bigot And they continue possession untill 33. Eliz. And then all is found by Office and the Land seised upon for the Queen who granted the same unto the Lord Sheffield Francis Bigot and Dorothy die And Roger Ratcliffe sued a Monstrans de Droit to remove the Kings hands from off the lands and a Scire facias issued forth against the Lord Sheffield as one of the Terre-Tenants who pleaded all this special matter and Judgment was thereupon given in the Court of Pleas for Roger Ratcliffe And then the Lord Sheffield brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-Chamber to reverse the said Judgment And Finch Serjeant argued for the Lord Sheffield that the Judgment ought to be reversed And now this Term Glanvile argued for Roger Ratcliffe that the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas ought to be affirmed There are two points The first If there were a Right remaining in Francis Bigot and if the same were given unto the King by the Attaindor and the Statute of 31 H. 8. Second If a Monstrans de Droit be a proper Action upon this matter which depends upon a Remitter for if it be a Remitter then is the Action a proper Action The Feoffment by Ralph Bigot 6 H. 8. was a Discontinuance and he had a new use in himself to the use of his Will and then to the use of his Heirs Then 9 H. 8. Ralph Bigot dyed And then Francis Bigot had a right to bring a Formedon in the Discendor to recover his estate tail 21 H 8. then the point ariseth Francis Bigot having a right of Formedon and an use by force of the Statute of 1 R. 3. cap. 1. before the Statute of 27 H. 8. by the Feoffment he had so setled it that he could not commit a forfeiture of the estate tail When a man maketh a Feoffment every Right Action c. is given away in the Livery and Seisin because every one who giveth Livery giveth all Circumstances which belongs to it For a Livery is of that force that it excludes the Feoffor not only of all present Rights but of all future Rights and Tytles v. C. 1. par 111. and there good Cases put to this purpose 9 H. 7. 1. By Livery the Husband who was in hope to be Tenant by Courtesie is as if he were never sised 39 H. 6. 43. The Son disseiseth his Father and makes a Feoffment of the lands the Father dyeth the hope of the heir is given away by the Livery It was objected by Serjeant Finch 1. Where a man hath a right of action to recover land in Fee or an estate for life which may be conveyed to another there a Livery doth give away such a Right and shall there bind him But an estate in tail cannot be transferred to another by any manner of Conveyance and therefore cannot be bound by such a Livery given I answer It is no good Rule That that which doth not passe by Livery doth remain in the person which giveth the Livery 19 H. 6. Tenant in tail is attainted Office is found The estate tail is not in the King is not in the person attainted but is in abeyance So it is no good Rule which hath been put When Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment Non habet jus in re neque ad rem If he have a Right then it is a Right of Entre or Action but he cannot enter nor have any action against his own Feoffment 19 H. 8. 7. Dyer If Discontinuee of Tenant in tail levieth a Fine with proclamations and the five years passe and afterward Tenant in tail dyeth his issue shall have other five years and shall be helped by the Statute for he is the first to whom the right doth accrue after the Fine levied for Tenant in tail himself after his Fine with Proclamations hath not any right But if Tenant in tail be
disseised and the Disseisor levieth a Fine with proclamations and five years passe and afterwards Tenant in tail dyeth there the issue in tail is barred for there after the Fine levied the Tenant in tail himself had right so as the issue in tail was not the first to whom the Right did accrue after the Fine levied C. 3. part 87. Com. 374. a. When Ralph Bigot made the Feoffment 6 H. 8. Francis Bigot had a Right by his own Feoffment 21 H. 8. his Right was extinguished The second Objection was upon the Form of pleading in a Formedon viz. Post cujus mortem discendere debet to him viz. the issue Then the Ancestor had such a Right which after his death might have discended to his issue Then that proveth that the Ancestor by his Feoffment hath not given away all the Right I answer The form is not Post cujus mortem but Per cujus mortem and the Post cujus mortem discendere debet is not traversable and therefore it is but matterof form and not of substance Old Entres 240. One dum non fuit compos mentis maketh a Feoffment he shall not avoid the Feoffment because that the Law doth not allow a man to stultifie himself C. 4. part 123. But his heir after his death may avoid the Feoffment of his Ancestor for de ipso discendit jus although the Father had not a Right in his life It was thirdly objected out of C. 4. part 166. b. where it is said That if an Ideot maketh a Feoffment the King shall avoid the same after Office found I answer That the Book it self doth cleer the objection For it is in regard of the Statute of Prerogativa Regis cap. 9. Ita quod nullatenus per eosdem fatuos alienentur c. and not in respect of any Right which the party hath who maketh the Feoffment By the Common Law Tenant in tail viz. He who had a Fee-simple conditional had not any right after his Feoffment Then the Act of West 2 cap. 1. makes such a Fee an Estate in tail and provides for the issue in tail for him in the Remaindor or in Reversion but not for the party who made the Feoffment or Grant for a Grant of Tenant in tail is not void as to himself Magdalen-Colledge Case A Lease by a Parson is good against himself but voidable against his Successor And so the same is no Exception Discendit jus post mortem c. The fourth Objection was That although Tenant in tail had made a Feoffment yet he remained Tenant to the Avowry of the Donor and therfore some right of the old estate tail did remain in him I answer 5 E. 4. 3 a. 48 E. 3. 8. b. 20 H. 6. 9. 14 H. 4. 38. b. C. 2. part 30. a. The matter of the Avowry doth not arise out of the Right or Interest which a man hath in the Land but out of the Privity As when the Tenant maketh a Feoffment he hath neither right nor interest in the Land yet the Lord is not compellable to avow upon the Alienee before notice In a Precipe quod reddat the Tenant alieneth yet he remaineth Tenant as to the Plaintiffe and yet he hath not either a Right or any Estate as to the Alienee The fifth Objection was upon the Statute of 1 R. 3. cap. 1. All Feoffments c. by Cestuy que use shall be effectual to him to whom it was made against the Feoffor and his heirs I answer The words of the Statute are to be considered All Feoffments c I desire to know how this affirmative Law doth take away the power of the Feoffees And the Feoffees are bound by the Feoffment of Cestuy que use and are seised to the use of such Alienees 27 H. 8. 23. b. by Fitzherbert If Cestuy que use enter and maketh a Feoffment with warrantie c. but there are not words that the old rights are given away The Feoffees to use before the Statute of 1 R. 3. c. 1. might only make Feoffments but after that Statute Cestuy que use might also make Feoffments of the Lands And so the Statute of 1 R. 3. did not take away the power of the Feoffees for they yet may make Feoffments but it did enlarge the power of Cestuy que use Com. 351 â—52 Then the Question further riseth If Francis Bigot had any Right in the Tail which might be forfeited by the Statutes by 26 H. 8. and 31 H. 8. A particular Act made for the Attaindor of the said Francis Bigot From the time of West 2. cap. 1â— untill the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. there were many Bills preferred in Parliament to make Lands which were entailed to be forfeited for high Treason but as long as such Bils were unmasked they were still rejected But Anno 26 H. 8. then at a Parliament a Bill was preferred That all Inheritances might be forfeited for Treason so that as under a vail lands in tail were forfeited for Treason which was accepted of The Statutes of 26 H. 8. 31 H. 8. are not to be taken or extended beyond the words of the Statute which are That every Offender hereafter lawfully convict of any manner of high Treason by Presentment confession Verdict or Process of Outlawry shall forfeit c. It doth not appear that Francis Bigot was attainted in any of these wayes For the Inquisition is That he was Indicted and convicted but Non sequitur that he was convict by any of those wayes viz. Verdict Confession or Outlawry And one may be attainted by other means 4 E. 4. in Placito Parliamenti Mortimer was attainted by Parliament 1 R. 2. Alice Percy was attainted by Judgment of the Lords and Peers of the House of Lords in Parliament It was objected That after an Indictment Verdict ought to follow I answer Non sequitur for it may be without Verdict viz. by standing mute And then the Statute of 26 H. 8. doth not extend unto it C. 3. part 10 11. Admit it were an Attaindor within the Statute of 2â— H. 8. yet Francis Bigot had not such lands which might be forfeited C. 3. part 10. For this Statute doth not extend to Conditions or Rights And C. 7. part 34. this Act of 26 H. 8. doth not extend to Rights and Titles And it is cleer that Francis Bigot had not any Estate within the letter of the Act. It was objected That if we have not set forth the full Title of the King in the Monstrans de Droit then is the Monstrans de Droit naught and void I answer 9 E. 4. 51. 16 E. 4. 6. I find no book that in a Monstrans de Droit we should be put to observe that Rule For a Petition were a going about The Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 6. gives the Monstrans de Droit 16 E. 4. 7. If a Petition be void for want of instructing the King and if all his Title be not set forth in it
Tenements of one attainted in a Premunire shall be forfeited to the King Yet Tenant in Tail in such Case did not forfeit his Lands C. 11. part 63. b. as the Statute of West 2. Cap. 1. saith in particular words That Tenant in Tail shall not prejudice his issue Therefore the Statute of 26. H. 8. in particular words saith That Tenant in Tail shall forfeit his Lands for Treason The Right of Francis Bigot is not a right in gross but a Right mixed with a possession The Statute of West 2. Cap. 1. brought with it many mischiefs For by that Statute the Ancestor being Tenant in Tail could not redeem himself out of prison nor help his wife nor his younger children and that mischief continued untill 12. E. 4. Taltaram's Case and then the Judges found a means to avoid those mischiefs by a common Recovery and this Invention of a common Recovery was a great help to the Subject Then came the Statute of 32. H. 8. Cap. 36. which Enacted That Fines levied by Tenant in Tail should be a good barr to the issue of any Estate any way entailed If the Son issue in tail levieth a Fine in the life of his Father who is Tenant in tail it shall be a barr to him who levieth the Fine and to his issues And both these viz. the Common Recovery and the said Statute did help the Purchaser And shall not this Statute of 26. H. 8. help the King The Statute of 26. H. 8. Cap. 13. hath not any strength against the Ancestor but against the Child For the Construction of Statutes I take three Rules First When a Case hapneth which is not within the Letter then it is within the intent and equity of the Statute Com. 366. 464. Secondly All things which may be taken within the mischief of the Statute shall be taken within the Equity of the Statute 4. H. 6. 26. per Martin Thirdly When any thing is provided for by a Statute every thing within the same mischief is within the same Statute 14. H. 7. 13. The Estate tail of Francisâ— Bigot and Katharine his wife is forfeited by the Statute of 26 H. 8. There is a difference when the Statute doth fix the forfeiture upon the person As where it is enacted that J. S. shall forfeit his lands which he had at the time of his Attaindor The Judges ought expound that Statute only to J. S. But the Statute of 26 H. 8. doth not fix the forfeiture upon the person but upon the land it self And Exposition of Statutes ought to extend to all the mischiefs 8 Eliz. Sir Ralph Sadler's Case in B. R. where an Act of Parliament did enact That all the lands of Sadler should be forfeited to the King of whomsoever they were holden Sadler held some lands of the King in that case the King had that land by Escheat by the Common-Law and not by the said Statute Com. 563 The Law shall say that all the rights of the tail are joyned together to strengthen the estate of the King Tenant in tail before the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 14. of Chauntries gave lands to superstitious uses which were enjoyed five years before the said Statute of 1 E. 6. made Yet it was adjudged that the right of the issue was not saved but that the land was given to the Crown for the issue is excluded by the saving in the said Statute If Tenant in tail give the lands to charitable uses the issue is barred For the saving of the Statute of 39 Eliz. cap. 5. excludes him And he is bound by the Statute of Donis So the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. and the private Act of 31 H. 8. do save to all but the heirs of the Offenders The third Objection was That Ratcliffe was not excluded by the saving for it was said That the same doth not extend but to that which is forfeited by his Ancestors body And here Ratcliffe had but a Right and that was saved And the Statute doth not give Rights I answer first The Statute of 26 H. 8. is not to be expounded by the letter for then nothing should be forfeited but that only which he had in possession and use Tenant in tail is disseised and attainted for treason By the words of the said Statute of 26 H. 8. he forfeits nothing yet the issue in tail shall forfeit the lands for the issue in tail hath a right of Entrie which may be forfeited 6 H. 7. 9. A right of Entrie may escheat and then it may be forfeited Secondly The Statute is not to be construed to the possession but if he hath a mixt right with the possession it is forfeited but a right in grosse is not forfeited Tenant in tail of a Rent or Seignorie purchaseth the Tenancie or the Land out of which the Rent is issuing and is attainted He shall forfeit the Seignorie and Rent or the Land for the King shall have the Land for ever And then the Seignorie or Rent shall be discharged for otherwise the King should not have the Land for ever For the King cannot hold of any Lord a Seignorie 11 H. 7. 12. The heir of Tenant in tail shall be in Ward for a Meanaltie descended unto him the Meanaltie not being in esse and yet it shall be said to be in esse because of the King C. 3 part 30. Cars Case Although the Rent was extinguished yet as to the King it shall be in esse The difference is betwixt a Right clothed with a possession and a right in grosse viz. where the Right is severed from the possession there it is in grosse For there the Right lieth only in Action and therefore neither by the Statute of 26 H. 8. nor by the private Act of 31 H. 8. such a Right is not forfeited C. 3. part 2. C. 10. part 47 48. Right of Action by the Common-Law nor by Statute-Law shall escheat and therefore it is not forfeited For no Right of Action is forfeitable because the right is in one and the possession in another Perkins 19. A Right per se cannot be charged 27 H. 8. 20. by Mountague A man cannot give a Right by a Fine unless it be to him who hath the possession C. 10. part Lampits Case Sever the possibility from the right and it doth not lie in grant or forfeiture but unite them as they are in our Case and then the Right may be granted or forfeited for that Right clothed with a possession may be forfeited A Right clothed with the possession 1. It tastes of the possession 2. It waits upon the possession 3. It changes the possession The Bishop of Durham hath all Forfeitures for Treason by the Common-Law within his Diocess viz. the Bishoprick of Durham And if Tenant in tail within the Bishoprick commits Treason and dyeth the Issue in tail shall enjoy the land against the Bishop Dyer 289 a. pl. 57. For the Bishop hath not the land for ever but the Issue
the possession is bound by the Judgment of Attaindor and the Act of Parliament 5 H. 7. 31. 7 H. 7. 15. 16 H. 7. 8. A discent of land shall not make a title against the King or any other who hath the land by an Act of Parliament But then in our Case If there should be a Remitter yet the same is overreached by the Office 〈◊〉 part 10. before the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 20. there ought to have been an Office found in the Case of Attaindor of Treason Br. Cases 103. Brook Office Devant c. 17. I do not mean an Office of intitling but an Office declaratory of a conspicuous title C. 5. part 52. There are two manner of Offices One which vesteth the estate and possession of the land c. in the King Another which is an Office of Instruction and that is when the estate of the land is lawfully in the King but the particularity thereof doth not appear upon record And the Office of Instruction shall relate to the time of the Attaindor not to make Queen Elizabeth in our Case in by discent but to avoid all meâ—ne Incombrances And is not this Remitter an Incombrance And for that purpose the Office shall relate For in things of Continuance Nullum tempus occurrit Regi C. 7. part 28. For so the rule of Nullum tempus c. is to be understood of a thing of Continuance and not a thing unica vice v. Fitz. Entre Congeable 53. Trav. 40. where it is said Where the King hath cause to seise for the forfeiture of Tenant for life if the Tenant for life dyeth the Reversion may enter for in that case Tempus occurrit Regi and the King cannot seize after the death of the Tenant for life 35 H. 6. 57. There is no discent against the King and if there be no discent then there is no Remitter The consequence of all this is That the Office doth relate to the Right And that the Monstrans de Droit doth not lie And the want of Office found for all this time was the fault of the Kings Officers and shall not prejudice the King But if the Office should not relate then the Monstrans de Droit would lie because then the King was in but by one single matter of Record We shew in the Office 33 Eliz. That there issued forth a Commission directed to certain of the Privy-Councel to enquire of the Treason and if Francis Bigot upon the Treason were Indicted And in our Case we shew immediately another Commission was directed to the Lord Chancellor and the two Chief Justices c. to arraign Francis Bigot And all that is confessed by Ratcliffe himself viz. modo forma And therefore the Objection which Glanvile made was frivolous viz. That it did not appear that Francis Bigot was attainted by Verdict by Confession or by Outlawry And so he concluded That for these causes the Judgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas ought to be reversed George Crook argued for Ratcliffe and he prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed I will argue only these points following 1. That Francis Bigot had not so much as a right of Action at the time of his Attaindor for he had not any right at all 2. Admit that he had a right of Action If this right of Action be given to the King by the said Statutes of 26 31 H. 8. It was objected That the right being clothed with a possession that the same is given to the King But I will prove the contrary 3. When Francis Bigot being Tenant in tail and being attainted and executed for Treason and then Katherine his wife dyeth being one of the Donees in tail 21 H. 8. and the lands discend to Ratcliff If the Office afterwards found shall relate to take away the Remitter I say it doth not but that his Remitter doth remain to maintain his Monstrans de Droit and he is not put to his Petition The chief point is What right Francis Bigot had at the time of his Attaindor 1. When Ralph Bigot being Tenant in tail 6 H. 8. made a Feoffment in Fee what right remained in Francis his Son The right is in abeyance viz. in nubibus that is in custodia Legis And then Francis Bigot had no right of that entail 21 H. 8. when he made the Feoffment Com. 487. There Jus is divided viz. Jus recuperandi Jus in randi Jus habendi Jus retinendi Jus percipiendi Jus possedendi but here Francis Bigot had not any of these rights Com. 374. if the Discontinuee of Tenant in tail levieth a Fine with proclamations and five years passe and Tenant in tail dyeth the issue in tail shall have other five years because he is the first to the right 19 H. 8. 7. C. 7. part 81. If Donee in tail maketh a Feoffment in Fee in rei veritate the Donee hath not jus in re neque ad rem C. 3. part 29. Litt. 649. There it appeareth that the right to an estate tail may be in abeyance Com. 552. Walsinghams Case There the King gave land in tail to Wyat who made a Feoffment unto Walsingham Afterwards Wyat was attainted of Treason and there the estate tail of Wyat was forfeited but the cause there was because that the reversion was in the Crown and so no discontinuance by his Feoffment because that the reversion was in the Crown In our Case no right of the estate tail was in Francis Bigot after the Feoffment unto his own use but the right is in abeyance It was objected That the Writ of Formedon is Discendit jus and the Monstrans de Droit was so I answer It is so in point of form in the Writ but not in substance C. 7. part 14. Tenant in tail makes a Lease for life and Tenant for life dyeth Now he hath an ancient right and the Donor may avow upon the Tenant in tail notwithstanding his Feoffment but that is by reason of privity and not by reason of any right he hath Jus recuperandi did discend to the issue in tail viz. Francis Bigot 21 H. 8. He who hath a right of Action giveth the same away by his Livery and Feoffment as appeareth by the Cases put in C. 1. part 111. It was objected That Cestuy que use was an Attorney or Servant therefore he doth not passe his own right for he cannot make an Attorney to make Livery and 9 H. 7. 26. was cited to be adjudged so But it is adjudged to the contrary M. 25 H. 8. in the Kings Bench rot 71. betwixt the Bishop of London and Kellet as it appeareth in Dyer 283. and Bendloe's Reports and C. 9. part 75. For there it is expresse that Cestuy que use may make a Letter of Attorney to make Livery which proves that he makes not the Feoffment as a Servant but as Owner of the Land It was objected That Cuesty que use was as an Executor but that I deny 49
E. 3 17 a. Persay Executors cannot make a Feoffment but they ought to make a Sale and the Vendee viz. the Bargainee is in without Livery and Seisin But if they do make a Feoffment by the Livery all their right is given away But if an Attorney giveth Livery in the name of his Master nothing of his own right to the same Land is given away by the Livery and Seisin but if he maketh Livery in his own name then he giveth away his own right and the Statute of 1 R. 3. cap. 1. maketh the Feoffment good which is made by Cestuy que use against him and his heirs C. 1. pt 111. By Livery and Seisin his whole right is given away Com. 352. The Feoffees of Cestuy que use are disseised the Disseisor enfeoffeth Cestuy que use who enfeoffs a stranger And the Question was If by this Feoffment made by Cestuy que use the right of the first Feoffees were determined and extinct Fitzherbert held that the right was gone and in that case the Uses were raised after 1 R. 3. and before 27 H. 8. cap. 10. Although Yelverton held that it was meant of a Feoffment before the Statute of 1 R. 3. Jus recuperandi was in Francis Bigot Then the question is Whether this Right were given away by the Statutes of 26 31 H. 8. The Statute of 26 H. 8. 31 H. 8. are several and distinct Statutes The words of the Statute of 26 H. 8. are That the party offending shall forfeit all his Possession and Vse but there is no word of Right in the Statute and that Statute doth not extend to give any land but that which was in possession or use And the cause was because before that Statute of 26 H. 8. Uses were not given unto the King for Attaindor for Treason they being but a Trust and Confidence C. 11. part 36 b. The Statute sayes By any wayes title or means But observe when this Statute was made It is a penal Statute and therefore shall be taken strictly Stamford 129 b. C. 11. part 36 b. The Statute of 5 6 E. 6. takes away Clergy but if a stranger be in the house by licence of the Owner the party shall have his Clergy because out of the words and being a penal Law it shall be taken strictly The Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 20. forfeits for Treason Right to the Land viz. right of Entry but the Statute of 26 H 8. giveth not any Right Before the Statute of 33 H. 8. a right of Entry was not given to the King for Treason à fortiori a right of Action was not forfeited to the King It is the Statute of 31 H. 8. the private Act which hurteth us which expresly gave Rights But this Right in our Case is not forfeited by this Statute which giveth Rights which a man hath But in our Case Francis Bigot had not the Right but the Right was in abeyance Statutes in points of Forfeiture forfeit no more then a man hath But yet a Statute may give to the King that which a man hath not C. 11. part 13. The statute of Monasteries gave that to the King which was not viz. Monasteries in reputation saving to none but strangers no not to the Donors Hussies Case Tenant in tail doth bargain and sell to the King and a statute gave it to the King saving to strangers but neither the Donor nor his issue were within the saving Old Entries 423. b c d. It was enacted That the Duke of Suffolk should forfeit for Treason all his Lands Rights and Tenements and all such Rights and Titles of Entry which he had But thereby rights of Action were not given to the King but only rights of Entries The statutes of 31 33 H. 8. are alike in words If Tenant in tail the Remainder over forfeit c. the Remainder is saved without words of saving But if the statute giveth the land by name unto the King then the Remainder is not saved but is destroyed If a Right of Action be given unto the King the statutes of Limitation and Fines are destroyed for he is not bound by them C. 485 486. in point of forfeiture Stamf. 187 188. There is a difference betwixt real and personal Rights given to the King C. 3. part 3. A right of Action concerning Inheritances are not forfeited by Attaindor c. But Obligations Statutes c. are forfeited by Attaindor C. 7. part 9. A right of Action is not given to the King by general words of an Act because it lieth in privity And it would be a vexation to the subject if they should be given C. 4. pt 124. Although that a Non compos mentis cannot commit Felony yet he may commit Treason for the King is Caput salus reipublicae If Non compos mentis maketh a Feoffment and then committeth Treason the King shall not have an Action to recover the Land of the Non compos mentis as the party himself may have But if Non compos mentis be disseised and then be attainted of Treason then the King may enter into the Lands because the party himself had a right of Entry which is given to the King It was objected That a right of Action clothed with a possession might be given to the King Tenant in tail discontinues and takes back an estate and is attainted of Treason This right of Action shall not be forfeited to the King for his right of Action was to the estate tail In our Case the right of Action was to Katherine for she was Tenant for life The Attaindor was 29 H 8. and the Act which forfeited the Right was made 31 H. 8. and then the right and possession were divided 30 H. 6. Grants 91. The King may grant the Temporalties of a Bishop before they happen to be void And so he may grant a Ward But the King cannot grant the Lands of J. S. when he shall be attainted of Treason for the Law doth not presume that J. S. will commit Treason The Devise of a Term the Remainder over is good But if the Devise be of a Term to one in tail the Remainder over the Remainder is void because the Law doth presume that an estate in tail may continue for ever C. 8. part 165 166. The Law did not presume that Digby at the time of the Conveyance intended to commit Treason It was objected That whatsoever may be granted may be forfeited I deny that C. 3. part 10. by Lumley's Case If the issue in tail in the life of his Father be attainted of high Treason and dyeth it is no forfeiture of the estate tail But if the issue in tail levieth a Fine in the life of his Father it is a bar to his issues C. 3. part 50. Sir George Brown's Case 10 E. 4. 1. there Executors may give away the goods of the Testator but they cannot forfeit the goods of their Testator Com. 293. Osborns Case Guardian in
Soccage may grant the Ward but he cannot forfeit him C. 3. part 3. Right of Actions reals because they are in privity by general words of a Statute are not given to the King v. Dyer 67. String fellow's Case That which is in custodia Legis cannot be taken as a Distress in a Pound overt cannot be taken out of the Pound upon another Distress The third Point is If he were remitted And I conceive that he was remitted When Tenant in tail is attainted of Treason the issue at the Common Law should inherit as if he had not been attainted Lit. 747. C. 1. part 103. for as to the Estate tail there was no corruption of blood C. 10. part 10. If Tenant in tail before the Statute of 26. H. 8. commit Treason the land shall discend to his issue for the issue doth not claim by the Father but per formam doni◠C. 8. part 166. such a discent shall take away entrie But in our Case Ratcliff had both possession and right and therefore is remitted the speciall Verdict finds that he was remitted and the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas in the Exchequer was that he was remitted It was objected that the Remitter was destroyed by the relation of the Office but the same is not so for the Office relates only to avoid Incombrances viz. acts done by himself but to devest the Freehold and to settle the same in the King the Office shall not relate And if it should relate then the King should lose many Lands which he now hath Com. Nichols Case Tenant for life upon condition to have Fee c. If the Office shall relate then the same takes away the Freehold out of the person attainted à principio and then the Fee cannot accrue and so by that means the King should lose the lands A Remitter is no incombrance for it is an ancient right and the Act of the King cannot do wrong C. 1. part 44. b. 27 Ass 30. There Tenant for life with clause of re-entrie is attainted the reversioner entreth the Office shall not relate to take the Freehold out of the reversioner C. 3. part 38. Relatio est fictio juris and shall never prejudice a third person and the Office found in the life of Katherine shal not prejudice him C. 9. part Beamounts Case the husband and wife are Tenants in tail the husband is attainted of Treason and dyeth yet the wife is tenant in tail when it is not to the damage or prejudice of the King there tempus occurrit Regi C. 7. part 28. Baskervile's Case From 29 H. 8. untill 33 H. 8. Katherine and afterwards Ratcliff had the possession and then the Law was taken to be that Ratcliff had a lawfull possession For these reasons he concluded that the Judgment ought to be affirmed In Trinity Term following viz. Trin. 21. Jacobi Regis the Case was argued again and then Coventry the Kings Attorney general argued for the Lord Sheffield That the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas in the Exchequer ought to be reversed He said I will insist only upon the right of the Case Whether upon the right of the Case Ratcliff may maintain a Monstrans de Droit First If by the Attainder the right of the old Estate tail as well as of the new Estate tail be forfeited Secondly Admitting that the old right of entail be not forfeited then if the Office do overreach the Remitter for then a Monstrans de Droit doth not lie but a Petition for the reason of the discontinuance First it is evident that when Ralph Bigot Tenant in tail in possession 6 H. 8. made a Feoffment that that was a discontinuance and it is as clear that the right of the old Estate tail vested in Francis Bigot The Feoffment made by Francis Bigot 21 H. 8. did not devest the right of the old tail First for the weaknesse of the Feoffment Secondly for the inseparableness of the Estate tail which is incommunicable and not to be displaced by weak assurance That Feoffment was made according to the Statute of 1 R. 3. and not by the Common Law but only by force of the said Statute The Feoffment is without Deed and so nothing passeth but only by way of Livery or else nothing at all Also at the time of the Feoffment in 21 H. 8. the Feoffees were in seisin of the Lands and Ratcliff shews in his Monstrans de Droit that Francis Bigot did disseise the Feoffees and so the Feoffment had no force as a Feoffment at the Common Law but only by the Statute of 1 R. 3. For at the Common-Law if Cestuy que use had entred upon the Feoffees and made a Feoffment nothing had passed There is a difference betwixt a Feoffment at the Common Law and a Feoffment according to the Statute of 1 R. 3. which operates sub modo Feoffments are the ancient Conveyances of Lands but Feoffments according to the Statute of 1 R. 3. are upstarts and have not had continuance above 150 years In case of Feoffments at the Common Law the Feoffor ought to be seised of the lands at the time of the Feoffment but if a Feoffment be according to the Statute of 1 R. 3. in such Case the Feoffor needeth not be in possession Feoffments at the Common Law give away both Estates and Rights but Feoffments by the Statute of R. 3 give the Estates but not the Rights In case of Feoffment at the Common Law the Feoffee is in the Per viz. by the Feoffor but in case of Feoffments by the Statute of R. 3. the Feoffees are in in the Post viz by the first Feoffees 14 H. 8 10. Brudnel says that a Feoffment by Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3 is like to fire out of a flint so as all the fire which cometh out of the flint will not fasten upon any thing but tinder or gunpowder So a Feoffment by Cestuy que use by force of the Statute of 1 R. 3 will not fasten upon any thing but what the Statute requires 5 H. 7. 5. 21 H. 7. 25. 8 H. 7 8. 27 H. 8. 13. 23. by these books it appeareth that if Cestuy que use maketh a Leafe for life during the Lease he gaines nothing and after the Lease he gains no reversion for the Lessee shall hold of the Feoffees and of them he shall have aid and unless it be by deed Indented in such a Case a Reservation of Rent is void and the Lessor in such a Case cannot punish the Lessee for waste for he makes the Lease meerly by the power which the Statute gives him 8. H. 7. 9. Cestuy que use makes the Feoffment as servant to the Feoffees and if not as servant to the Feoffees yet at least as servant to the Statute of 1 R. 3. If a man entreth upon another and maketh a Lease for life he gains a reversion to himself and shall maintain an Action of Waste but
Cestuy que use when he entreth and maketh a Lease he hath no reversion nor shall punish waste And as it is in the Creation so is it in the Continuance 4 H. 7. 18. If Cestuy que use for life or in tail maketh a Lease for life it is warranted during his own life by the Statute of 1 R. 3. but if Tenant for life at the Common Law maketh a Feoffment or a lease for life there the first Lessor ought to avoid this forfeiture by entrie and it is not void by the death of the second Lessor viz. the Tenant for life 27 H. 8. 23. A Feme Covers is Cestuy que use the husband maketh a Feoffment and dieth the Feoffment is void by his death Br. Feoffments to Uses 48. If Cestuy que use for life levieth a fine it is no forfeiture but good by the Statute of 1 R. 3. during his own life And if in such case Proclamations pass there needeth no claim nor entrie within five years but the Law is contrarie of Tenant for life by the Common Law for if Tenant for life at the Common Law levieth a fine it is a forfeiture Dyer 57. Cestuy que use for life or in tail maketh a Lease for life the Lease is determined by the death of Cestuy que use and the Lessee is become Tenant at sufferance but a Lease for life by Tenant for life at the Common Law is not determined by the death of Lessee for life who was Lessor and his Tenant is tenant for life and not at sufferance as in the Case before and the first Lessor ought to avoid it by entrie Br. Feoffments to Uses 48. A Recovery by Cestuy que use in tail or in fee is ended by his death By these Cases appears a main difference betwixt the validitie of a Feoffment by Cestuy que use and the Feoffment at the Common Law The Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses doth not execute Uses which are in abeyance C. 1. part Chudleigh's Case 9 H. 6. by the Common Law the Devise to an Enfant in ventre samier is good but by the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. of Wills such a Devise is not good for the Statute Law doth not provide for the putting of lands in abeyance By the Statute of 1 R. 3. All Feoffments and Releases c. shall be good and effectual to those to whom they are made to their uses And this Feoffment in our Case was not made to a man in Nubibus Cestuy que use by this Statute of 1 R. 3. makes a lease for years the remainder over to the right heirs of I. S. the remainder is not good for the Statute doth not put it in abeyance for the remainder ought to be limited to one in esse 21 H. 8. cap. 4. giveth power to Executors to sell that Executor who proveth the Will shall sell and when he selleth if he have any right to the land the right of the said Executor is not gone by that Statute So if Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupts sell the Lands of the Bankrupt and one of the Commissioners hath right to the land so sold his right is not extinct And so in this Case the Statute limits what shall pass Upon the Statute of â—3 Eliz. cap. 4. which makes the lands of Receivers liable for their debts if the King selleth the right of the Accomptant passeth but not the Kings right 17 E. 3. 60. An Abbot having occasion to go beyond the Seas made another Abbot his Procurator to present to such Benefices which became void in his absence That Abbot presents in the name of him who made him Procurator to one of his own Advowsons the right of his own Advowson doth not pass but yet it is an usurpation of the Abbot which went beyond sea to that Church What is the nature of this right All rights are not giâ—en away by Feoffments at the Common Law Lit. 672. Land is given unto husband and wife in tail the husband maketh a Feoffment and takes back an Estate to him and his wife both of them are remitted Which Case proveth that the husband hath left in himself a right notwithstanding the Feoffment 41 E. 3. 17. 41 Ass 1. John at Lee's Case So at the Common Law a Feoffment doth not give away all the right This right doth stick so fast in the issue as the Statute of West 2. cap. 1. can back it unto him 2 E. 3. 23. 22 E. 3. 18. At the Common Law if Tenant in tail had offered to levie a fine the Judges ought not to receive it but ought to have refused it if it had appeared unto them that the Conusor was Tenant in tail the same was before the Statute of 4 H. 7. which gave power to Tenant in tail to levie a fine for the Statute of West 2. Cap. 1. saies Quod finis sit nullus 2. E. 2. age 77. 2 E. 3. 33. 3 E. 3. 1. 24 E 3. 25. If Donee in tail levieâ—h a Fine yet there is no remedie against his Tenant for he shall not be compelled to attorn for that the right is in the Donor â— E. 2. Avowry 181. 48 E. 3. 8. Avowry was made upon the Donee in tail notwithstanding that he made a Feoffment and Avowry is in the realtie and right 4 E. 3. 4. 4 H. 6. 28. 10 H. 7. 14. In a Replevin ancient Demesne is a good plea because the Avowry is in the realtie The Donor shall know for homage upon the Donee after that the Donee hath made a Feoffment 7 E. 4. 28. the Donee shall do homage And Litt. 90. saith That none shall do homage but such as is seised in his own right or in the right of another 2 E. 2. Avowry 85. 7 E 54. 28. 15 E. 4. 15 Gard. 116. the issue shall be in Ward notwithstanding a Feoffment by Tenant in tail Com. 561. Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment yet the right of the tail doth remain in the Tenant in tail 21 H. 7. 40. Tenant in tail of a Rent grants the same in Fee if an Ancestor collateral releaseth with Warranty the same bindeth the Tenant in tail There is a common Rule That a Warranty doth not bind when a man hath not a right The Cases cited in C. 1. part Albonies Case where Feoffments give Rights I agree Barton and Ewers Case A man made a Feoffment of Land of which he had cause to have a Writ of Error he gave away his Writ of Error by the Feoffment I agree all those Cases for that is in Cases of Feoffments at the Common Law but in our Case the Feoffment is by the Statute of 1 R. 3. In our Case there is Jus habendi possedendi recuperandi It is like unto a plant in Winter which seemeth to be dead yet there is in it anima vegitativa which in due time brings forth fruit So the right in our Case is not given away nor is it in abeyance
but in Francis Bigot which may be regained in due time Dyer 340. there was Scintilla juris as here in our Case 19 H. 8. 7. Where Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment and the Feoffee levieth a fine and five years pass there it is said that the Issue in tail shall have five years after the death of Tenant in tail who made the Feoffment and the reason is because he is the first to whom the right doth discend This Case was objected against me yet I answer that Tenant in tail in that Case hath right but he cannot claim it by reason of his own Feoffment he cannot say he hath right but another may say he hath right In our Case Francis Bigot cannot say he hath a Right in him but another may say he hath a Right It is like where Tenant in Fee taketh a Lease for years by Deed Indented of his own Lands He during the years cannot say that he hath Fee yet all other may say that he hath the Fee C. 4. part 127. The King shall avoid the Feoffment for the benefit of a Lunatique which Feoffment the Lunatique had made and shall not the King avoid a Feoffment which a Lunatique hath made for his own benefit viz for the benefit of the King himself I conceive that he shall Secondly Admit the right be in the person viz. in Francis Bigot yet they object that it is a right of Action and so not forfeited If this right be in the person at the time of the Attainder it shall be forfeited if it be not in his person but in Nubibus yet it shall be forfeited Tenant in tail makes a Feoffment unto the use of himself and his wife in tail if the old right of entail rest or not in his person it is forfeited to the King 34 Eliz. this very Point was then adjudged Where Tenant in tail before the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses made a Feoffment unto the use of himself and his wife in tail It was resolved upon mature deliberation by all the Judges of England that the old Estate tail was in such case forfeited for Treason Set this Judgment aside yet it rests upon the Statute of 26 H. 8. A general Act for forfeiture for Treason and the particular Act of 31 H. 8. which was made for the particular Attaindor of Francis Bigot I will argue argue only upon the Statute 26 H. 8. which hath three clauses First to take away Sanctuary Secondly to provide that no Treason be committed and the Offender punished The third which clause I am to deal with which giveth the forfeiture of Lands of Inheritance c These three clauses do depend upon the Preamble It was high time to make this Statute For when H. 8. excluded the Pope he was to stand upon his guard And that year of 26 H. 8. there were five several Insurrections against the King therefore it was great wisdom to bridle such persons King Ed. 6. and Queen Mary repealed divers Statutes for Treason and Felony yet left this Statute of 26 H. 8. to stand in force Anno 5 E. 6. cap. 5. this Statute of 26 H. 8. somewhat too strict was in part repealed viz. That the Church lands should not be forfeited for the Treason of the Parson This third branch doth insist upon a Purview aâ—d a Saving and both agree with the Preamble The Purview is ample Every Offender and Offenders of any manner of High Treason shall forfeit and lose c. I observe these two words in the Statute shall Forfeit those things which are forfeitable and Lose those things which are not forfeitable But it shall be lost that the heir of the Offender shall not find it shall Forfeit and lâ—se to the King his heirs and successors for ever so it is a perpetual forfeiture shall forfeit all his Lands which includes Use Estate and Right by any right title or means So you have Estate Right Title and Use Here Francis Bigot shal forfeit the Castle and Mannor of Mulgrave unto the King his heirs and Successors and he must forfeit the Land Right Title and Use otherwise it cannot be to the King for ever and what is saved to strangers all shall be saved and what will you not save to the Offender and his heirs all his Lands Right c. as was saved to strangers It was objected that it was not an Act of Assurance but an Act of Forfeiture which is not so strong as an Act of Assurance I do not doubt of the difference but how much will that difference make to this Case doth the Statute goe by way of Escheat it doth not but in case of Petty Treason Land shall Escheat but when the Statute of 25 E. 3. speaketh of High Treason the words of the said Statute are Shall forfeit the Escheat to the King But is the Right devided from the King Truely no the word Forfeit take it in nomine or in natura is as strong a word as any word of Assurance Alienare in the Statute of West 2. cap. 1. Non habeant illi potestatem alienandi so non habent illi potestatem forisfaciendi is in the nature of a Gift Com. 260. Forfeiture is a gift in Law Et fortior est dispositio legis quam hominis and so as strong as any assurance of the partie If a Statute give the Land to the King then there needeth not any Office 27 H. 8. Br. Office Com. 486. The Right vests before Office It was objected that the statute of 26 H 8. doth not extend to a right of Action but to a right of Entrie The purpose of this Act of 26 H. 8. is not to attaint any particular person as the Statute of 31 H. 8. was made for the particular Attaindor of Francis Bigot 5 E. 4. 7. Cestuy que use at the Common Law did not forfeit for Felony or Treason but by this Act of 26. H. 8. Cestuy que use shall forfeit both Use and Lands out of the hands of the Feoffees 4 E. 3. 47. 4 Ass 4. The husband seised in the right of his wife at the Common Law for Treason shall not forfeit but the profits of the lands of his wife during his life and not the Freehold it self but by this Act of 26 H. 8. the Freehold it self is forfeited 18 Eliz. in the Common Pleas Wyats Case C. 10. Lib. Entries 300. And if the Statute of 26 H. 8. had had no saving all had been forfeited from the wife 7 H. 4. 32. there it is no forfeiture yet by this Statute it is a forfeiture A right of Action shall not Escheat 44 E 3. 44 Entre Cong 38 C. 3 part the Marquess of Winchesters Case and Bowtiâ—s Case and C 7. part Inglefieldâ—s Case A right of Action per se shall not be forfeited by the Rules of the Common Law nor by any Statute can a right of Action be transferred to another but by the Common Law a right of Action may
be quashed and exonerated and discharged in the possession of the King For it is out of the Rule which is in C. 10 part 48 for the cause of quieting and repose of the Terre-Tenants otherwise it would be a cause of Suits But all Rights Tythes Actions c. might for the same reasons viz. for the quiet of the Terre-Tenants and the avoidance of Suits and Controversies be released to the Terre-Tennants By the same reason here the right of Action of Francis Bigot shall be discharged and exonerated by this forfeiture viz. for the quiet and repose of the Terre-Tenants for the Law delights in the quiet and repose of the Terre-Tenants If Francis Bigot had granted a Rent the ancient right of the tail had been charged C. 7. part 14. Where Tenant in tail makes a lease for life and grants a Rent charge and Tenant for life dieth he shall not avoid his charge although he be in of another Estate because he had a defeisible possession and an ancient right the which c. so as they could not be severed by way of conveyance and charge and no lawfull act Then I admire how he will sever this from himself by his unlawfull act viz. the Feoffment the discontinuance Lit. 169. If a man commit Treason he shall forfeit the Dower of his wife yet he doth not give the dower of his wife but it goes by way of discharge in those Lands 13 H. 7. 17. Tenant by the Curtesie in the life of his wife cannot grant his Estate of Tenant by the Curtesie to another but yet he for Felony or Treason may forfeit it viz. by way of discharge A Keeper of a Park commits Treason there the King shall not have the Office of Keeper for a forfeiture because it is an Office of trust but if he had been Keeper of the Kings Park and had been attainted there he should forfeit his Office by way of discharge and exoneration This Statute of 26 H. 8. hath been adjudged to make Land to revert and not strictly to forfeit Austin's Case cited in Walsingham's Case Tenant in tail the reversion in the King the Tenant makes a Lease for years and dies the issue accepts of the Rent and commits Treason the Lease is avoided for the King is not in by forfeiture by the Statute of 26 H. 8. but by way of Reveter by the Statute of 26 H. 8. It was objected that if Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment and takes back an Estate for life and is attainted of Treason that he shall not forfeit his old right I agree that Case For indeed it is out of the Statute of 26 H. 8. which speaks of Inheritance and in that Case the Tenant hath but a Freehold The Statute of 26 H 8. saith that it shall be forfeited to the King his heirs and Successors And if in our Case the old right should remain then it should be a forfeiture but during the life of the Testator When the Common Law or Statute Law giveth Lands it gives the means to keep them as the Evidences So here the King is to have by force of this Statute of 26 H. 8. the Evidences The forfeiture of right is expresly within the Statute of 26 H. 8. as the forfeiture of Estate as by any right title or means for the old Estate tail is the means of Estates since 6 H. 8. And if you will take away the Foundation the Building will fall For all the Estates are drawn out of the old Estate tail The Statute of 26 H. 8. is not an Act of Attaindor for none in particular is attainted by the Act but the Act of 31 H. 8. doth attaint Francis Bigoâ— in particular It was objected that here in this case there needed not to be any express Saving I answer that there are divers Statutes of Forfeitures yet the Statutes have Savings in them so as it seems a saving in such Acts were not superfluous but necessary The Act of 33 H. 8. for the attainder of Queen Katharine there is a saving in the Act and yet an Act of Forfeiture Dyer 100. there the land vested in him in the Remainder by force of a saving in the Act so the saving is not void but operative C. 3. part Dowlies Case vid. the Earl of Arundels Case there the saving did help the wife so it appears savings are in Acts of Parliaments of Forfeiture and Acts of Attaindor Dyer 288 289. The Bishop of Durham had Jura Regalia within his Diocese and then the Statute of 26 H. 8. came now whether the Forfeiture for Treason should be taken away from the Bishop by reason of that Statute and given to the King was the doubt It was holden that of new Treasons the Bishop should not have the Forfeitures for those were not at the Common Law as the Forfeitures of Tenant in tail but that he should have the Forfeitures of Lands in Fee within his Diocese and that he had by force of the saving in the Statute so that a Saving is necessary and operative Com. Nichols's Case there Harpers opinion that there needs no saving to strangers but yet a saving is necessary for the Partie and the Issue if they have any thing as well as strangers vid. C. 3. part Lincoln Colledg Case It is the Office of a good Interpreter to make all the parts of a Statute to stand together Com. 559. By these general words Lose and Forfeit and by excluding of the heir in the saving the heir is bound So the Judges have made use of a Saving for it is operative 2 Ma. Austin's Case cited in Walsinghams Case Tenant in tail the Reversion in the Crown Tenant in tail made a Lease for years and levied a Fine to the King the King shall not avoid the Lease for the King came in in the Reverter but in such Case if he be attainted of Treason then the King shall avoid the Lease So a Statute of Forfeiture is stronger then a Statute of Conveyance By this Statute of 26 H. 8. Church Land was forfeited for so I find in the Statute of Monasteries which excepts such Church Lands to be forfeited for Treason Dyer Cardinal Poole being attained did forfeit his Deanary and yet he was not seised thereof in jure suo proprio for it was jus Ecclesiae 27 E. 3. 89. A writ of Right of Advowson by a Dean and he counteth that it is Jus Ecclesiae and exception that it is not Jus suae Ecclesiae But the Exception was disallowed for the Jus is not in his natural capacitie but in his politique capacitie and yet by this Statute of 26 H. 8. such Church Land was forfeited for Treason this is a stronger Case then our Case Vide C. 9. part Beaumont's Case Land is given to husband and wife in tail and the husband is attainted of Treason the wife is then Tenant in tail yet the Land is forfeited against the issue although it be but a possibility for the whole estate
they devise the assurance for her jointure 2. Heer is no place named where the Notice was for it is issuable whether he gave Notice or not and then there being no certain place named no visne can be upon it 3. He doth not shew where the Lands are for it might be as in truth it was the Lands were out of England and by the Covenant they ought to be within England 4. He doth not shew that the Lands were of the value of 500l per annum over and above all Reprises as they ought to be by the Articles 5. He sheweth that they were his Freehold but doth not shew that the lands were his lands of Inheritance of which a Jointure might be made The opinion of the whole Court was that the Exceptions were good and that the Plea in bar was no good plea. Dodderidge If the word had been Such as his Councel shall devise then the Notice ought to have been given to the party himself and he is to inform his Councel of it 6 H. 7. 8. But here two Councellors were named in certain and therefore the Notice ought to be given to them for he hath appointed Councellors The whole Plea in bar is naught For if he hath an estate in tail then there ought to be a Fine in making of the Jointure and if there be a Remainder upon it then there ought to be a Recovery So because that Lane hath not informed the party what estate he had in the lands they could not make the Assurance Ley Chief Justice Where a man is bound to make such Assurance of lands as J. S. shall advise here he need not shew his Evidences but he ought to shew to the party what the land is and where it lieth and the Obligee is to seek out the estate at his peril And then J. S. may advise the Assurance conditionally viz. That if he hath Fee then to have such an assurance and if an Estate in tail then such an assurance and if there be a Remainder over then to devise a Recovery Curia All the Errors are material The Bail for Lane before any Judgment given against him brought Lane into Court and prayed that they might be discharged and Lane taken into custody Dodderidge Justice said There is a difference betwixt Manucaptors which are that the party shall appear at the day for there the Court will not excuse them to bring the party in Court before the day But in case of Bail there they may discharge themselves if they bring the body of the Defendant into Court at any time before the Retorn of the 2. Scire facias against the Defendant For when one goeth upon Bail it is intended that he notwithstanding that is in â—â—stodia Mariscalli For the Declarations are in custodia Mariscalli Marschalsiae Quod hota so is the difference Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 434. WHEELER and APPLETON'S Case AN Action upon the Case was brought for these scandalous words viz. Thou hast stollen my Peece and I will charge thee with suspition of Felony Which were found for the Plaintiffe It was moved for the staying of Judgment That the Action was not maintainable For the Declaration is A Peece innuendo a Gun And here the innuendo doth not do its part for it might be a peece of an Oak or a 225. peece of Gold which is commonly called a Peece and in this Case the words may be intended such a Peece 17. Jacobi in the Kings Bench betwixt Palmer and Râ—ve Thou hast the Pox and one may turn his finger in the holes of his legs Adjudged that for these words the Action would lie because it cannot be meant otherwise then of the French pox 41 Eliz. in the Kings Bench the Defendant said of the Plaintiffe Thou art forsworn and thou hast hanged an honester man then thy self the Action did lie For the first words Thou art forsworn no Action will lie C. 4. part 15. but the later words prove that it was in course of Justice and that he was perjured So in this Case admitting that the first words will not bear an action yet the later words make them actionable For the first words ought to be meant of a thing which is Felony Heck's Case C. 4. part 15. there it was adjudged for the Plaintiffe although the first words would not bear action yet the later words make them actionable I will charge thee with suspition or flat Felony an Action doth not lie Hecks Case proves it Another Councellor argued that the Action would not lie The first words are not actionable For so many things as there are in the world so many peeces there may be and here it might be a peece of a thing which could not be Felony Betwixt Roberts and Hill 3 Jacobi in the Kings Bench it was adjudged Roberts hath stollen my wood the words were not actionable for it might be wood standing and then to cut and take it away it is not Felony but Trespass Ley Chief Justice I charge thee with flat Felony If the words be spoken privately to a man no Action lieth for them but if they be spoken before an Officer as a Constable or in a Court which hath conusance of such Pleas then the Action will lie for the party by reason of such words may come into trouble But if a man charge one with flat Felony and chargeth the Constable with him then an Action will not lie because it is in the ordinary course of Justice C. 4. part 14. If a man maketh a Bargain with another to pay him twenty Peeces for such a thing it shall be taken by common intendment twenty 22s. peeces of gold which vulgarly are called Peeces But to endite a man for 20 Peeces is not certain and therefore such Indictment is not good and the Action in our Case will not lie for my Peece is an incertain word Dodderidge Thou hast stollen my Peece What is that For we call 22s. in gold a Peece You ought to tell it in certain And here the innuendo will not make the scandal but the words of scandal ought to proceed out of the parties own mouth and an Innuendo cannot make that certain which was uncertain in the words of the speaker And therefore the Action here will not lie Haughton Justice If the whole matter had been set forth in the Declaration as to have shewed that the parties before this speech had had speeches of a Gun then the Action in this case would have been maintainable but here the word Peece is incertain and the Action will not lie Chamberlain Justice If the speeches had been concerning a Gun lost then upon these words spoken the Action would have lien but not as they are here spoken For the two words there ought to have been matter subsequent as upon the charging with Felony to have delivered him to an Officer And so by the whole Court it was adjudged Quod querens nihil capiat per
pay the money there he shall recover damages besides the dutie Here the Action was brought before the request made and so no damage to the Plaintiff and the Judgment was that the Plaintiff recuperet damna predict viz. the damages laid in the Declaration Dodderidge Justice The Judgment ought to be Consideratum est quod Gleede recuperet damna quae sustinuit and not damna predict which are mentioned in the Declaration and then a Writ is awarded to enquire of the damages quae sustinuit The Judgment was reversed per Curiam Mich. 1 Caroli in the Kings Bench. Rot. 189. 455. TAYLOR and HODSKIN's Case IN an Ejectione firme upon a special Verdict it was found That one Moyle was seised of divers Lands in Fee holden in Socage and having issue four daughters viz. A B C D. A. had issue N. and died And afterwards Moyle devised the said Lands unto his wife for life and after her decease then the same equally to be divided amongst his daughters or their heirs Moyle died and afterwards his wife died and Hodskins in the right of B C D. three of the daughters did enter upon the Lands N. the daughter of A. married F. who entred and leased the Lands to the Plaintiff Taylor Whitfield for the Plaintiff The only point is Whether N. the daughter of A. one of the sisters shall have the fourth part of the lands or not by reason of the word Or in the Will It is apparent in our books C. 10. part 76 the Chancellor of Oxfords Case C. 3. part Butler and Bakers Case That Wills shall be construed and taken to be according to the intent of the Devisor And therefore Br. Devise 39. A devise to one to sell to give or do with at his will and pleasure is a Fee-simple And in our Case if N. shall not take a fourth part the word heirs should be of no effect C. 1. part in Shellies Case All the words in a Deed shall take effect without rejecting any of them and if it be so in a Deed à fortiori in a Will which is most commonly made by a sick man who hath not Councell with him to inform or direct him In this Case the three sisters who were living at the time of the Devise took presently by way of remainder and the word heirs was added only to shew the intent of the Devisor That if any of the three sisters had died before his wife that then her heir should take by discent because her mother had taken by purchase And by reason of the word heirs the heir of A. shall take by purchase and the disjunctive word or shall be taken for and as in Mallories Case C. 5. part A reservation of a Rent to an Abbot or his Successors there the word or shall be taken for and reddendo singula singulis Trin. 7. Jacobi in the Common Pleas Arnold was bound in a Bond upon Condition that he suffer his wife to devise Lands of the value of 400l to her son or her daughter and she devised the Lands to her son and her daughter And it was resolved that it was a good performance of the Condition And there the word or was taken for and And there Justice Warburton put this Case If I do devise all my goods in Dale or Sale it shall be a Devise of all my goods in both places and or shall be taken for and. In this Case the word heirs was not added of necessity for the heir of any of the sisters to take by purchase but only to make the heir of A. to take part of the Lands The Court was of opinion that it was stronger for the Plaintiff to have it or in the disjunctive For they said that if it were and then it would give the three sisters the Fee and not give the heir of A. a fourth part but being or there is more colour that she shall take a fourth part by force of the Devise It was adjourned Trin 2 Caroli Rot 913. in the Kings Bench. 456. ASHFIELD and ASHFIELD's Case THe Case was An Enfant Copyholder made a Lease for years by word not warranted by the Custome rendring Rent The Enfant at his full age was admitted to the Copyhold and afterwards accepted of the Rent The question was Whether this Lease and the acception of the Rent should bind or conclude the Enfant Crawley Serjeant argued That it was a void Lease and that the acception should not bar him It is a ground in Law That an Enfant can do no Act by bare contract by word or by writing can do any Act which is a wrong either to himself or unto another person or to his prejudice In this Case if the Lease should be effectual it were a wrong unto a stranger viz. the Lord and a prejudice unto himself to make a forfeiture of the Inheritance If an Enfant commandeth A. to enter into the land of I. S. and afterwards the Enfant entreth upon A. A is the Disseisor and Tenant and the Enfant gaineth nothing So if A entreth to the use of the Enfant and the Enfant afterwards agreeth to it in this Case here is but a bare contract and an agreement will not make an Enfant a Disseisor No more shall he be bound by a bare Deed or matter in writing without Livery 26 H. 8. 2. An Enfant granteth an Advowson and at full age confirmeth it all is void Br. Releases 49. Two Joynt-Tenants one being an Enfant releaseth to his Companion it is a void Release 18 E. 4. 7. An Enfant makes a Lease without reserving Rent or makes a Deed of grant of goods yet he shall maintain Trespass nay though he deliver the goods or Lease with his own hand the same will not excuse the Trespass nor will it perfect the Lease or make the grant of the goods good If the Contract have but a mixture of prejudice to the Enfant it shall be void ◠Jacobi in the Kings Bench Bendloes and Holydaies Case An Obligation made by an Enfant with a Condition to pay so much for his apparel because the Bond was with a penaltie it was adjudged void If Tenant at Will make a Lease for years he was a Disseisor at the Common Law before the Statute of West 2. cap. 25. 12 E. 4 12. Tenant at Will makes a Lease for years 10 E. 4. 18. 3 E. 4. 17. But if an Enfant be Tenant at will and he maketh a Lease he is no Disseisor In our Case if he had made Livery then I confess it had been a defeisible forfeiture and he mignt have been remitted by his entrie upon the Lord. Farrer for the Plaintiff The Lease is not void but voidable 7 E. 4. 6. Brian 18 E. 4. 2. 9 H. 6. 5. An Enfant makes a Lease for years and at full age accepts of the Rent the Lease is good because the Law saith that he hath a recompence Com. 54. A Lease for years the remainder
Statute of West 2. First they said That Copyholds are not within the letter of the Statute which speaks onely de tenementis per chartam datis c. Secondly they are not within the meaning of it 1. Because they were not untill 7 E. 4. 19. of any accompt in Law because they were but Estates at will 2. The Statute of West 2. provides against those who might makeâ— a dissen heresin by Fine or Feoffment which Copyholders could not do 3. Because if Copyholders might give lands in tail by the Statute then the Reversion should be left in themselves which cannot be 4. The Makers of the Statute did not intend any thing to be within the Statute of Donis whereof a Fine could not be levied For the Statute provides Quod sinis ipso jure sit nullus 5. Great mischiefs would follow if Copyholds should be within the Statute of West 2. because there is no means to dock the estate and no customary conveyance can extend to a Copyhold created at this day 37 Eliz Lane and Hills case adjudged in the Common-Pleas was cited by Justice Harvey where a Surrender was unto the use of one in tail with divers remainders over in tail The first Surrenderee dyed without issue And first it was agreed and adjudged That it was no discontinuance 2. If it were a discontinuance yet a Formedon in the Remainder did not lie because there ought to be a Custom to warrant the Remainder as well as the first Estate tail For when a Copyholder in Fee maketh such a gift no Reversion is left in him but only a possibility And the Lord ought to avow upon the Donee and not upon the Donor And there is a difference when he maketh or giveth an estate of inheritance and when he maketh a Lease for life or years for in the one case he hath a Reversion in the other not 2. A Recovery shall not be without a special custom as it was agreed in the Case of the Mannor of Stepney because the Warrantie cannot be knit to such an Estate without a Custom And for express authority in the principal Case he cited Pits and Hockleâ—'s ase which was Ter Pasc 35 Eliz. rot 334. in the Common-Pleas where it was resolved That Copyholds were not within the Statute of Donis for the weakness and meanness of their estates For if they were within the Statute of West 2. the Lord could not enter for Felony but the Donor and the Services should be done to the Donor and not to the Lord of the Mannor And so and for these mischiefs he conceived That neither the meaning nor the words of the said Statute did extend to Copyholds Hill 34 Eliz. Rot. 292. in the Kings Bench Stanton and Barney's Case A Surrender was made of a Copyhold within the Mannor of Stiversden unto one and the heirs of his body and after issue he surrendred unto another And it was agreed by all the Justices That the issue was barred And Popham did not deny that Case but that it was a Fee conditional at the Common-Law and that post prolem suscitatam he might alien And so it was agreed in Decrew and Higdens case Trin. 36. Eliz. rot 54â— in the Kings Bench and in Erish and Ives case 41 42 Eliz. in the Common-Pleas in an Evidence for the Mannor of Istleworth That no Estate tail might be of Copyhold without a Custom to warrant it Mich. 36 37 Eliz. in the Kings Bench it was adjudged That a Copyholder could not suffer a common Recovery and the reason was because that the Recovery in value is by reason of the Warrantie annexed to the Estate at the Common-Law which could not be annexed to a Customary estate And another reason was given because that he who recovers in value shall be in by the Recovery and the Copy of the Court-Roll only should not be his Evidence as Littleton and other books say it ought to be And Crook said That the Statute of Donis was made in restraint of the Common-Law And it should be very disadvantagious to the Lord if Copyhold should be construed to be within that Statute And therefore he conceived that the said Statute did not extend to Copyholds by any equitable construction And such difference was taken by Popham Chief Justice 42 Eliz. in the Kings Bench rot 299. in Baspool and Long 's Case For he said That a Custom which did conduce to maintain Copyholds did extend to them But a Statute or a Custom which did deprave or destroy them did not As if one surrender to the use of one for life the Remainder in Fee where the Custom is to surrender in Fee the Custom doth not extend thereunto because a Custom which goes in destruction of a Copyhold shall be taken strictly But if a man be Copyholder in Fee he may grant a Fee conditional Harvey Justice put some Cases to prove the small account the Law had of Copyholds at the time of the making of that Statute as 40 E. 3. 28. 32 H. 6. br Copyhold 24. And he said That there is not any book in the Law but only Mancels case in Plow Comment That the Statute of West 2. doth extend to Copyholds Hill 2 Caroli rot 235 in the Kings Bench. 459. LITFIELD and his Wife against MELHERSE A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgment given in an Action upon the Case brought by Husband and Wife in the Common-Pleas for words spoken of the Plaintiffs wife And the Judgment in the Common-Pleas was That the husband and wife should recover And that was assigned for Error in this Court because the Husband only is to have the damages and the Judgment ought to be That the Husband alone should recover But notwithstanding this Error assigned the Judgment was affirmed by the opinion of the whole Court Pasch 2 Caroli rot 362. in the Kings Bench. 460 HOLMES and WINGREEVE's Case A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Judgment given in the Court at Lincoln in an Action of Trespass there brought for taking away a Box with Writings And four Errors were assigned 1. Because the Plaintiffe did not appear by Attorney or in person at the retorn of the Attachment against the Defendant so as there was a discontinuance for the Plaintiffe ought to appear de die in diem 2. Because in his Declaration there he saith That the Defendant took a Box with Writings and doth not make any title to the Box nor shews that the same was lockt nailed or sealed 2 H. 7. 6. a. The certainty of the writings ought to be shewed that a certain issue may be taken thereupon Com. 85. 22 H. 6. 16. 14 H. 6. 4. 21 E. 3. He ought to shew the certainty of the writings 18 H. 1. Charters in a Box sealed C. 9. part Bedingfields case C. 5. part Playters case The Declaration was insufficient because the Plaintiffe therein did not name the certain number of the Fishes 3. He pleaded That he made a
removed but if the VVrit of Error want only form but is sufficient for the matter in substance the VVrit shall not abate but the partie may have a new VVrit of Error coram vobis residet c. Trin. 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 464. MILL's Case ACtion upon the Case for these words Thou hast Coyned Gold and art a Coyner of Gold Adjudged the Action will not lie for it may be he had Authority to Coyn and words shall be taken in mitiori sensu Pasch 3 Car in the Kings Bench. 465. BROOKER's Case THe question was VVhether the Feoffee of the Land might maintain a VVrit of Error to reverse an Attaindor by Vtglary and the Case was this William Isley seised in Fee of the Mannor of Sundridge in Kent had issue Henry Isley who was Indicted of Felony 18 Eliz. and 19. Eliz. the Record of the Indictment was brought into this Court and thereupon 20 Eliz. Henry Isley was outlawed William Isley died seised Henry Isley entred into the Mannor and Land as son and heir and being seised of the same devised the Mannor and Lands to C. in Fee who conveyed the same to Brooker and Brooker brought a Writ of Error to reverse the Outlawry against Henry Isley Holborn argued for the King and said that Brooker was no way privy to the attaindor of Henry Isley but a meer stranger and therefore could not maintain a Writ of Error And first he said and took exception that he had not set himself down Terre-Tenant in possession Secondly he saith in his Writ of Error That the Mannor and Lands descended to Henry Isley as son and heir when as he was attainted The third exception was That he saith that Henry Isley did devise the Lands and that he could not do because he was a person Attainted Fourthly he said that Brooker was not Tenant so much as in posse 4 H. 7. 11. If it were not for the words of Restitution the partie could not have the mean profits after the Judgment reversed 16 Ass 16. Lessee for years pleaded to a Precipe and reversed it the question was whether he should be in statu quo vi Librum for it is obscure If this Attaindor of Henry Isley were reversed yet it cannot make the devise good For there is a difference betwixt Relations by Parliament which nullifie Acts and other Relations Vi. 3 H. 7. Sentlegers Case Petition 18. The violent Relation of Acts of Parliament If a Bargain and Sale be the Inrollment after will make Acts before good but a Relation by Common Law will not make an Act good which was before void C. 3. part Butler and Bakers Case A gift is made to the King by Deed enrolled and before the enrollment the King granteth away the Land the Grant is void yet the enrollment by Relation makes the Lands to pass to the King from the beginning Admit in this Case that Brooker were Terre-Tenant yet he is not a party privy to bring a Writ of Error to reverse the Attaindor of him who was Tenant of the Land and I have proved That although the Attaindor were reversed yet he hath nothing because the Devise was void and is not made good by Relation It is a rule in our Books that no man can bring a VVrit of Error but a partie or privy 9 E. 4. 13. 22 E. 4. 31 32. 9 H. 6. 46. b. Ass 6 C. 3. part in the Marquiss of Winchesters Case The heir of the part of the mother cannot have the VVrit of Error but the heir of the part of the father may So if erronious Judgment be given in the time of profession of the eldest son and afterwards he is dereigned he shall have the Writ of Error In 22 H. 6. 28. The heir in special taile or by Custom cannot have Error But yet M. 18 Eliz. in Sir Arthur Henninghams Case it was adjudged That the special heir in tail might have a Writ of Error The Baile cannot maintain a Writ of Error upon a Judgment given against the Principal because he was not privy unto the Judgment therefore it shall be allowed him by way of plea in a Scire facias I never find that an Executor can have Error to reverse an Attaindor but for the misawarding of the Exigent Marshes Case was cited C. 5. part 111. Fitz 104. Feoffee at the Common Law could not have an Audita Quaerela in regard he was not privy 12 Ass 8. 41. Keâ—laway 193. There the Terre-Tenant brought a Writ of Error in the name of the heir and not in his own name 24 H. 8. Dyer 1. There it is said That he who is a stranger to the Record shall have Error To that I answer That he in the Reversion and the particular Tenant are but one Tenant for the Fee is demanded and drawn out of him But in the principal Case at Barr no Land is demanded but a personal Attaindor is to be reversed Also there it is put That if the Conusee extend before the day there it is said that the Feoffee may have Error 17 Ass 24. 18 E. 3. 25. Fitz. 22. To that I answer That the Feoffee is privy to that which chargeth him for the Land is extended in his hands and if the Feoffee there should not have a Writ of Error the Law should give him no manner of remedy for there the Conusor himself cannot have Error because the Lands are not extended in his hands Also it is there said that the Feoffee brought a Scirefacias against him who had execution of the Land To that I answer That that is by special Act of Parliament Also there it is said That if the Parson of a Church hath an Annuity and recovereth and afterwards the Benefice is appropriated to a Religious house the Soveraign of the house shall have a Scirefacias I answer That in that Case he is no stranger for that he is perpetual Parson and so the Successor of the Parson who recovered 12 H. 8. 8. There a Recovery was against a Parson and there Pollard said that the Patron might have Error I answer That Pollard was deceived there for it is said before that the Parson hath but an Estate for life and then he viz. the Patron is as a Recoverer who shall have a Writ of Error Dyer 1. But the Parson hath the Fee and therefore Pollard was mistaken as it appeareth by Brook Fauxi fier de Recovery 51. 19 H. 6. 57 Newton A false verdict is had against a Parson the Patron cannot have an Attaint There is a difference if one be partie to the Writ although not partie to the Judgment Error 72. A Quare Impedit was brought by the King against the Patron and the Incumbent and Judgment only was had against the Patron and the Incumbent Parson brought a Writ of Error but if he had not been partie to the Writ he could not have maintained Error So in Attaint the partie to the Writ though not to the Judgment shall
of his eldest son in tail and afterwards he married a wife and died that the wife should not be endowed for when he had limited the use to himself for his life he could not limit arâ— Remainder over And Edwards Case adjudged in the Court of Wards which was That there was Tenant for life the Remainder in tail he in the Remainder granted his Remainder to I. S. and his heirs and afterwards Tenant for life dyed and then the grantee dyed his heirs within age it was adjudged that the heir of the garntee should not be in ward because the Tenant in tail could not by his Grant grant a greater estate then for his own life But he said That in the principall Case it appeareth That the Tenant in tail in Remainder hath particularly recited his estate And where it appeareth in the Conveyance it self that he hath but an estate in tail a greater estate shall not passe As if Tenant for life granteth a Rent to one and his heirs the same at the first sight seems to be a good Rent in Fee but when it appeareth in the Conveyance that the grantor was but Tenant for life there upon the Construction of the Deed it self it cannot be intended that he granted a Fee but that an estate for life passed only in the Rent Secondly he argued That although the estate in tail in the principall case was an abeyance Yet a Common Recovery would barr such estate tail in abeyance And therewith agreeth C. 2. part Sr Hugh Cholmleys Case 3. He said That the estate was out of the King and vested in the party without any Offence found as 49. E. 3. Isabell Goodcheaps case A man devised houses in London holden of the King in tail and if the Donee dyed without Issue that the Lands should be sold by his Executors The devisee died without Issue The bargain and sale of the Lands by the Executor doth divert the estate out of the King without Petition or Monstrans de Droit So If there be Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail and Tenant in tail â—n Remainder levieth a fine of his Remainder to the King and afterwards dyeth without Issue the Kings estate is determined and there needs no Petition or Monstrans de Droit 4. He said That in the principall case nothing was in the King because it doth not appeare that there was any seisure or Offence found to entitle the King And the Tenant in tail in the Remainder died in the life of King James and then if the Kings estate were then determined as before by the death of the Tenant in taile the King which now is never had any title And hee said that he needed not to shew a greater title then he had And hee took a difference when Tenant in taile doth onely defend or make defence and when he makes title to Lands in the one Case he ought for to shew That the Tenant in taile died without issue and in the other Case not And therefore in the principall case he demanded Judgment for the Defendant The Case was adjourned to another day Mich. 4. Caroli in the Star-Chamber 511 TAILOR and TOWLIN's Case A Bill was preferred against the Defendant for a Conspiracy to Indict the plaintiff of a Rape And the Plaintiff aleadged in his Bill That an Indictment was preferred by the Defendant against the Plaintiff before the Justices of Assise and Nisi prius in the County of Suffolk And did not lay it in his Bill that the Indictment was preferred before the Justices of Oyer and Terminer and Gaole delivery and the same was holden by the Court to be a good Exception to the Bill for that the Justices of Assise and Nisi prius have not power to take Indictments But afterwards upon veiw of the Bill because the Conspiracy was the principall thing tryable and examinable in this Court and that was well layd in the Bill the Bill was retayned and the Court proceded to Sentence And in this Case Richardson Justice said That in Conspiracy the matter must bee layed to be falsè et malitiosè and if it be layed for a Rape It must be layd that there was recens persecutio of it otherwise it will argue a Consent And therefore because the Defendant did not preferre an Indictment of Rape in convenient time after the Rape supposed to be done but concealed the same for half a years time and then would have preferred a Bill of Indictment against the plaintiff for the same Rape he held that the Indictment was false and malitious And Hyde Chief Justice said That upon probable proof a man might accuse another before any Justice of Peace of an Offence and although his accusation be false yet the Accuser shall not be punished for it But where the Accusation is malitious and false it is otherwise and for such Accusation he shall be punished in this Court Trinit 8. Caroli in the King Bench. 513 JONES and BALLARD's Case AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words viz These Jones are proper Witnesses they will sweare any thing They care not what they say They have already forsworn themselves in the Chancery and the Lord keeper Committed them for it Jermyn took Exceptions because it was not said to be in the Court of Chancery nor that it was in any Deposition there taken upon Oath But it was adjudged per Curiam That the Action would lie and Jones Justice said that the Addition in the Chauncery was as much as if he had said he was perjured there And Hâ—msies case was vouâ—hed by him Where one said of a Witness presently after a Tryall at the Guild Hall in London You have now forsworn your self That it was adjudged that the words were actionable Trinit 8. Caroli in the Kings Bench. 513. SYMME's and SMITH's Case A Woman being entituled to copyhold Lands of the Manor of D did covenant upon reasonable request to be made unto her to surrender the Copy-hold Land according to the Custome of the Manor And it was found That the Custome of the Manor is That a surrender may be made either in person or by Letter of Atturney and that the plaintiff did request the woman to make the surrender by a Letter of Atturney which shee refused to do And whether shee ought to surrender presently or might first advise with her Councell was the Question It was argued for the plaintiff that shee ought to do it presently And Munser's Case C. 2. part and 16. Eliz. Dyer 337. Sir Anthonie Cooks Case were vouched that she was to do it at her perill And the Election in this Case was given to the Covenantee and hee might require it to be done either in Court in person or by Letter of Atturney And C. 2. part Sir Rowland Heywards Case and C. 5. part Hallings Case was vouched to that purpose Rolls contrary for the Defendant And he said That the woman was to have convenient time to do it and
and Slingbyes case 361 Londons case 374 Ludlow and Stacies case 377 Loxe case 345 Lee and Grissels case 442 Leonards case 451 Lone and Hills case 458 Litfield and Melhers case 459 Langley and Stotes case 478 Lancaster and Kigleys case 507 Lovegrave and Brewens case 514 M MOuntjoyes Case 24 Macrowes Case 38 Marsh and Palfords Case 53 Megods Case 77 Miller and Gores Case 122 Mayes Case 173 Mannocks Case 191 Meâ—r and Ridouts Case 241 Marriots Case 248 Morris Case 265 Mounteagle and Pemeddocks Case 266 Meades Case 274 Miller and Reignolds Case 293 Manwoods Case 301 Maior of Yorks Case 360 Mildmays Case 416 Morgans Case 416 Morris and Clarks Case 435 Mellon and Herns Case 435 Mills Case 464 Marshes Case 465 Manns Case 471 Mutle and Does Case 480 Mole and Carters Case 484 Monk and Butchers Case 508 Moor and Hawkins Case 486 N NOrris and Salisburies case 154 Newton and Richards case 240 Newmans case 242 Newman and Babbingtons Case 250 Norton and Lysters case 291 Norton and Symms case 303 O OSborne and Trittels Case 99 Occoulds case 268 Owen alias Collins case 363 Owfield and Sheirts case 430 Ognels case 483 Offlies case 517 P POles case 13 Prideaux case 44 Plymptons case 116 Proctors case 168 Pinders case 185 Peto and Chitties case 193 Perepoints case 217 Piggot and Goddens case 221 Pitts and Wardels case 230 Prrrot and Kebles case 281 Porters case 302 Paynes case 308 Piggot and Pigots case 330 Prat and Lord Norâ—hs case 358 Paginton and Huets case 370 Plotts case 380 Pollyes case 403 Sir Iohn Parkingtons case 416 Pritchard Williams case 423 Philpot and Fielders case 427 Pye and Bonners case 443 Peters case 456 Pits and Horkley's case 458 Proctor and Cliffords case 468 Payn and Colleges case 490 Parks case 502 Palmers case 509 Perpoynt Thimblebys case 513 Pages case 717 Plats case 518 L. Pagets case 510 Q Quodds case 246 R ROots case 139 Rushwels case 186 Royley and Dormes case 260 Read and Hewes case 269 Rosseâ— and Walshes cass 296 Reorsbies and Cuffs case 316 Roe and Gloves case 332 Roberts and Hills case 434 Randal and Harveys case 452 Royden and Moulstons case 458 Roper and Roydons case 491 Roy and Hills case 517 S Skipwiths case 22 Savel and Cordels case 35 Sydenham Worlingtons case 40 Savacres case 47 Stargies case 75 Smith and Smiths case 88 Shotbolts case 91 Stransam and Colborns case 97 Strangden and Barcels case 163 Sayland and Ridlers case 177 Skipwith and Sheffields case 178 Stowels case 182 Sir John Spencer and Poyntz case 203 Stebbings case 239 Stones case 247 Sancford and Havels case 263 Sprat and Nicholsons case 283 Seymors case 307 Stowhridge Archers case 311 Smiths case 317 Sherloes case 347 Sheriff and Bridges case 349 Simpsons case 364 Smith and Staffords case 379 Slyes case 390 Spicer and Spicers case 398 Stewry and Stewryes case 410 L. Sheffield Ratcliffs case 417 Sadlers case 417 Snell and Bennets case 426 Shooter and Emets case 435 Stone and Roberts case 435 Sely and Flayles case 448 Seignior and Wolmers case 453 Stanton and Barneys case 458 Sherrington Worsleys case 465 Suttons case 476 Symmes case 477 Samson and Gatefields case 482 Scots case 487 Sommers case 489 Shortridge and Hills cases 492 Shirtford and Berrowes case 502 Syms and Smiths case 513 Simpsons case 518 Shackbolts 495 Spurlings case 479 T. THrogmorton and Terringhams case 37 Taylor and Ribera's case 90 Taylor and James case 195 Traherns case 321 Totnam and Hoskins case 445 Taylor and Askies case 455 Tollyn and Taylors case 469 Tanfield and Hirons case 486 Treventries case 488 Tucker and Carrs case 491 Taylor and Tomlyns case 511 Tennants case 507 Tompsons case 369 U. VIcar of Pancras case 63 Vernon and Grays case 145 Vaughans case 327 Veseys case 406 Vrry and Bowyers case 479 Vinior and Viniors case 515 W. VVEbb Potters case 25 Windsmore Hulberts Case 64 Wiseman and Wallmyers case 107 Wood and Ashes case 135 Warrens case 138 Widdal sir John Ashtons case 142 Winkefields case 152 Warners case 183 Whitlock and Hartwells case 184 Wilson and Wormels case 226 Woolseys case 249 Wekers case 257 Wright and Wrights case 262 Wetherell and Greens case 280 Wedlock and Hardings case 295 Wheelers case 315 Wormleighton and Hunters case 338 Whorewoods Case White and Moores case 340 Wrotesley Candishes case 354 Winscomb and Dunches case 376 Webb and Tucks case 392 Waite and Inhabitants of Stokes case 397 Webb and Paternosters case 401 Williams and Gibbs case 409 White and Edwards case 412 Wiseman and Denhams case 424 Waterer Montagues case 429 Wheeler Appletons case 434 Waterman and Cropps case 467 Whittie and Westons case 479 VVillis case 483 VVilliams and Floyds case 495 VValdrons case 509 Y. YArram and Bradshawes case 145 Yate and Alexanders case 408 Young and Englesfields case 422 Z. ZOuch and Bramports case 165 Zouch and Mitchels case 225 Zouch and Moores case 491 Mich. 17. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1. THis Case was moved to the Court. If an Abby hath a Parsonage appropriate in D. which is discharged of payment of Tithes and afterward the Abbot purchaseth part of the lands in the same Town and Parish where the Parsonage is That this land so purchased is discharged of Tithes in the hands of the Abbot For the Tithes were suspended during the possession of the Abbot in his own hands But after that the Abby was surrendred into the hands of the King Anno 30. H. 8. And afterwards the same possessions c. were given to King H. 8. by the Statute of 31. H. 8. cap. 13. as they were in the hands of the Abbot The question was Whether the Land so purchased by the Abbot before the surrender were discharged of payment of Tithes by the Statute or not And the opinion of Mr. Plowden was That they were not discharged of Tithes by the Statute For that no lands are discharged by the Statute but such lands as were lawfully discharged in right by composition or other lawfull thing And the lands in this case were not discharged in right but suspended during the possession of the Abbot in his own hands And so hee said it is when the Land is purchased by one and the Parsonage by another the right of Tithes is revived and the lands charged as before the purchase of the Abbot And so he said it had been adjudged Pasc 17. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2. A Man makes a Lease for Life and afterwards makes a Lease unto another for Years to begin after the death of Tenant for life The Lessee for yeers dieth intestate The Ordinary commits Administration The Administrators and the Tenant for life joyn in the purchase of the Fee-simple Two questions were moved The first was Whether the Fee were executed in the Tenant for life for any part 2. Whether the Term were gone in part or in all And the opinion
afterwards he granted the Reversion for eighty years reserving the ancient rent The question was Whether he had pursued his Authority because by the meaning of the Proviso a Power was That the Conusor should have the rent presently or when the Term did begin But the opinion of the Court was That he had done lesse then by the Proviso he might have done for this Grant of the Reversion doth expire with the particular estates for life But if he had made a Lease to begin after the death of the Tenants for life the same had been more then this grant of the Reversion And Cook chief Justice said That the Grantor may presently have an Action of debt against the Grantee of the Reversion for the rent But because it was not averred that any of the Cestuy que viei were alive at the time when the Grantor did distrain for the rent Judgement in the principall case was respited Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 282 UPon the Statute of Bankrupts this Case was moved to the Court If a Bankrupt be endebted unto one in Twenty Pounds and to another in Ten Pounds and he hath a Debt due to him by Bond of Twenty Pounds Whether the Commissioners may assigne this Bond to the two Creditors jointly or whether they must divide it and assigne Twenty Marks to the one and Twenty Marks to the other And the Court was of opinion That it was so to be divided as the words of the Statute are viz to every Creditor a portion rate and rate like c. And then it was moved How they might sue the Bond whether they might joine in the Suit or not ad quod non fuit responsum by Cook Warburton Justice said That when part of the Bond is assigned to one and part to another that now the Act of Parliament doth operate upon it and therefore they shall sue severally for he said That by the custome of London part of a debt might be attached And therefore he conceived part might be sued for Trinit 10. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 283 SPRAT and NICHOLSON's Case SPrat Sub-Deacon of Exeter did libel in the Spiritual Court against Nicholson Parson of A. pro annuali pensione of Thirty Pound issuing out of the Parsonage of A. and in his Libel shewed How that tam per realem compositionem quam per antiquam laudabilem consuetudinem ipse predecessores sui habuerunt habere consueverunt praedictam annualem penfionem out of his Parsonage of A. Dodderidge Serjeant moved for a Prohibition in this Case because he demands the said Pension upon Temporall grounds viz. prescription and reall composition But Cook Chief Justice and the other Justices were of opinion That in this Case no Prohibition should be granted for they said That the party had Election to sue for the same in the Spirituall Court or at the common Law because both the parties were Spirituall persons but if the Parson had been made a party to the Suit then a Prohibition should have been granted Vide Fitz. Nat. Brev. 51. b. acc And they further said That if the party sueth once at the common Law for the said Pension that if he afterwards sue in the Spirituall Court for the same that a Prohibition will lie because by the first Suit he hath determined his Election And Cook cited 22. E. 4. 24. where the Parson brought an Action of Trespass against the Vicar for taking of Under-Woods and each of them claimed the Tithes of the Under-Woods by prescription to belong unto him and in that Case because the right of the Tithes came in question and the persons were both of them Spirituall persons and capable to sue in the Spirituall Court the Temporal Court was ousted of Jurisdiction But he said That if an issue be joined whether a Chappel be Donative or Presentative the same shall be tryed by a Jury at the common Law And in this case it was said by the Justices That the Statute of 34. H. 8. doth authorize Spiritual persons to sue Lay-men for Pensions in the Spiritual Courts but yet they said That it was resolved by all the Judges in Sir Anthony Ropers case That such Spiritual persons could not sue before the High Commissioners for such Pensions for that Suits there must be for enormious Offences only And in the principall case the Prohibition was denyed Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 284 Sir BAPTIST HIX and FLEETWOOD and GOT's Case FLeetwood and Gots by Deed indented did bargain and sell Weston Park being three hundred Acres of Lands unto Sir Baptist Hix at Eleven Pound for every Acre which did amount in the whole to Two thousand five hundred and thirty Pounds and in the beginning of the Indenture of Bargain and Sale it was agreed betwixt the parties That the said Park being much of it Wood-land should be measured by a Pole of eighteen foot and a halfe And further it was covenanted That Fleetwood and Gots should appoint one Measurer and Sir Baptist Hixe another who should measure the said Park and if upon the measuring it did exceed the number of Acres mentioned in the Indenture of Sale that then S. Baptist Hixe should pay to them acording to the proportion of 11l. for every Acre and if it wanted of the Acres in the deed that then Fleet ' and Gots should pay back to S. Baptist the surplusage of the mony according to the proportion of 11. l. for every Acre And upon this Indenture Sir Baptist Hixe brought an Action of Covenant against Fleetwood and Gots and assigned a Breach that upon the measuring of it it wanted of the Acres mentioned in the Deed 70 Acres And upon the Declaration the Defendants did demurre in Law and the cause of the Demurrer was because the Plaintiff did not shew by what measure it was measured And therefore Sherley Serjeant who was of Councel with the Defendants said that although it was agreed in the beginning of the Deed that the measure should be made by a Pole of 18 feet and a half Yet when they come to the covenants there it is not spoken of any measure at all and therefore he said it shall be taken to be such a measure which the Statute concerning the measuring of Lands speaks of viz. a measure of sixteen foot and a half to the Pole and he said that by such measure there did not want any of the said three hundred Acres mentioned in the Deed. Dodderidge Serjeant contrary for the Plaintiff and he layed this for a ground That if a certainty doth once appeare in a Deed afterwards in the same Deed it is spoken indefinitely the same shall be referred to the first certainty and to that purpose he vouched the case in Dyer Lands were given by a Deed to a man haeredibus masculis and afterwards in the same Indenture it appeared that it was haeredibus masculis de Corpore and therefore it was holden but an estate in
tail because the first words were indefinite and the later words were certain by which his intent did appeare to pass but an estate in tail He also cited 4. E. 4. 29. B. The words of an Obligation were Noverint universi per praesentes me I. S. teneri c. W. B. in ten pound solvendum eidem I. And it was holden by the whole Court that the same did not make the Bond to be void because it appeared by the promises of the Bond to whom the mony was in Law to be paid and the intent so appearing the Plaintiff might declare of a solvendum to himself and the word I should be surplusage And 22. E. 4. 9. A. B. The Abbot of Selbyes case Where the Abbot of Selby did grant annualem pensionem to B. ad rogatum I. E. illam scilicet quam I. E. habuit ad terminum vitae suae solvendum quousque sibi c. de beneficio provisum fuerit and it was holden by the whole Court in a Writ of annuity brought that sibi did referre to B. the grantee and not to I. E. And Cook Chief Justice said that the original Contract doth leade the measure in this Case and to that purpose he cited Kiddwellies case in the Commentaries where a Lease was made rendring Rent at Mich. at D. and if it were behind by a month after demand that the Lessor might reenter the demand must be at the first place which is in that case alledged to be certain viz. at D. The case was adjorned Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 285 Sir Henry Lea and Henry Leas Case SIR Henry Lea was committed to the Fleet for the disobeying of a Decree made in the Court of Requests and having Suits depending in the Court of Common Pleas he prayed a Writ of habâ—as Corpus which was granted and upon the return of the Writ the cause of his Commitment appeared to be for a contempt for not performing of the said Decree and no other cause appeared in the return and the Court were of opinion that they could not deliver him because that no cause appeared in the return to warrant their delivery of him And the Court said that if the return be false yet they cannot deliver the party But the party may have his Action of false Imprisonment if the Imprisonment be not Lawfull But then it was shewed by Mountague Serjeant to the Court that the Decree was made in the Court of Requests upon a Bill containing this matter viz. That Henry Lea pretending Title unto Lands which Sir Henry Lea held by descent from his Unkle Sir Henry Lea shewed his Title to the Kings Majestie and thereupon the King upon the Petition of Henry Lea sends for Sir Henry Lea and had speech with him that he would give unto the said Henry Lea some recompence for his Title which he pretended to have to the said Lands And that thereupon the said Sir Henry Lea at the instance of the Kings Majestie did promise the King that if the said Henry Lea would not molest him for any of the said Lands which he had by descent from his said Unkle that then he the said Sir Henry Lea would give unto the said Henry Lea two hundred pound per Annum And for not performance of this promise made to the King Henry Lea Exhibited his Bill in the Court of Requests upon which the said Decree was grounded The said Sir Henry Lea answered that he did not know of any such promise he made to the Kings Majestie and pleaded to the Jurisdiction of the Court But upon a Certificate made by the Kings Majestie that he made such a promise unto him the Court of Requests made the said Decree which Certificate was mentioned in the body of the said Decree And Mountegue prayed that because it appeared that the said Henry Lea had remedy by way of Action upon the case at the common Law upon the said promise That this Court would grant a Prohibition in this case unto the Court of Requests and deliver the party from his Imprisonment But the Court said that they would advise of the Case because they never had heard of the like case But Cook Chief Justice advised Sir Henry Lea to agree the matter betwixt Him and his Kinsman Henry Lea For he said that he had learned a Rule in his youth which was this viz. Cum pare luctare dubium cum Principe stultum est Cum puero poena cum Muliere pudor Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 286 GARVEN and PYM's Case GArven libelled against Pym for a Seat in the Church before the Bishop of Exeter in the spiritual Court there which by Appeal was removed into the Court of Arches And the Defendant did surmise in the Court of Common Pleas That he and his Ancestors have used time out of mind c. to have an Isle with a seat in the said Church for himself and his family and thereupon prayed a Prohibition But because it did appear upon Examination of the party himself That the Parish have alwayes used to repair the said Isle and seat the Court would not grant a Prohibition in this case for that proves that his Ancestors were not the Founders of the said Isle and Seat Also another man hath alwayes used to sit with him in the same seat which also proves that it doth not belong to him alone Cook chief Justice said That if a Gentleman with the assent of the Ordinary hath built an Isle juxta Ecclesiam for to set convenient Seats for him and his family and hath alwayes repaired the same at his own costs and charges In such case if the Ordinary place another man with the Founder without his consent in the same Seat that he may have his Action upon the Case against the Ordinary And if he be impleaded in the spirituall Court for such Seat that a Prohibition will lie And he said That the Heydons in Norfolk have built such an Isle next to the Church and placed convenient Seats there for them and their family But he said That if a man with the assent of the Ordinary set up a Seat in navi Ecclesiae for himselfe and another man doth pull up the same or defaceth it Trespas vi armis will not lie against him because the Freehold is in the Parson and he hath no remedy for the same but to sue the party in the Ecclesiastical Court And 9. E. 4. 14. the Dame Wiches Case was vouched where she brought an Action of Trespasse against the Parson for taking away her Husbands Coat-armour which was fixed to the Church at his Funerall and it was adjudged that the Action would lie and so will an Action in such case brought by the heir And Cook said That the Ordinary hath the onely disposing of Seats in the Body of the Church with which agrees the opinion of Hassey in 8. H. 7. And if the Ordinary long time past hath granted to a